Following the tragic shootings in Connecticut, a number of anti-gunners took up the old “Let’s Just Repeal the Second Amendment and We Will All Live Happily Ever After” mantra once again. A fellow named Edward Falzon, for example, opined in the Huffington Post Online that people should “Perhaps start by outing the NRA as the violence-supporting organization they are. These massacres that seem to be occurring ever-more-frequently in the USA have all been made possible by the NRA’s insistence that fully automatic, concealed weapons with armor-piercing rounds are not what kill people.”FOLLOW GIRLS JUST WANNA HAVE GUNS ON FACEBOOK!
The sheer hyperbole and factual distortion are egregious sins to be sure, but certainly not unusual. The NRA was formed after the Civil War because of a perceived lack of marksmanship among the troops, and it has evolved into the premiere firearms education organization in the world. A look at the mission statement of the NRA foundation is instructive; their activities “are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological, and artistic context (which) benefit a variety of constituencies throughout the United States including children, youth, women, individuals with physical disabilities, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, hunters, and competitive shooters.” Sure sounds like a “violence-supporting organization”, doesn’t it?
Falzon reveals his complete lack of information and understanding when he says that the NRA promotes “fully automatic, concealed weapons with armor-piercing rounds”, and that these mythical weapons are killing people. The so-called “assault weapons”, notably the AR-15 that are so reviled by Senator Feinstein and the rest of the anti-gunners are not fully automatic, are not concealable, and there are no “armor-piercing” rounds available for them, which would not increase their lethality on children in classrooms anyway. Without going into the technical details, suffice it to say that this is simply another example of conjuring up a bogeyman to scare the uninformed.
On top of that, the mass shootings are in fact not “ever-more-frequently-occurring”. Criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980’s says, “There is no pattern, there is no increase.” While mass shootings rose between the 1960’s and the 1990’s, they declined in the 2000’s. “If it seems like these dreadful crimes are occurring more frequently,” Fox argued after the Connecticut shootings, “it is really the immediacy and pervasiveness of media coverage that creates the impression.”
Interestingly, Obama’s own DOJ released a report on firearm violence prevention strategies dated January 4, 2013, that says among other things that “Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. But of course the gun grabbers never let a crisis go to waste, and they invent one if necessary … Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.” But that doesn’t stop the gun grabbers from recommending an “assault rifle” ban anyway.
But what if the elaborate procedure to amend the Constitution was carried out, and enough states voted to ratify the repeal, would that be the end of your right to keep and bear arms?
No, it would not, because the Constitution does not give you rights, it merely instructs the government not to interfere with the God-given rights you already have. A casual look at the Declaration of Independence reveals this tidbit: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident (so obvious that we shouldn’t have to mention them, but then there are liberals…) that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (not by the government) with certain unalienable Rights (cannot be taken away by repeal of an Amendment or anything else) … That to secure these Rights (to protect them, not to take them away) Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed (We the People empower the government to do what we tell it to do), that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it (mess with it and tyrants will be overthrown)…
The purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government, not to expand them. Anything not specifically given to it was reserved to the states or the People. You can see how the Congress and the courts have respected that over the years! When the 13 colonies were operating under that Articles of Confederation, there seemed to be the need for a central government with some control, as it was necessary for example to beg each state individually for money or soldiers if something that affected the entire nation needed to be done. The Constitution was drawn up, but even then, as today, there was a debate between the big-government Federalists (who were small-government folks by today’s standards) and the limited government Anti-federalists. Before they ratified it, many states, insisted on provisions to limit the powers of the central government and to ensure the protection of the natural rights of liberty and property of the people. Edmund Randolph of Virginia, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts demanded a Bill of Rights if they were to support the Constitution. So, in a very real sense these are not “add-ons” but an integral part of the Constitution itself.
So, the next time some liberal suggests that the easiest way to do an end-run around all of us would just be to eliminate the Second Amendment altogether, tell him that eliminating your natural right to defend yourself from tyranny, be it from an individual who wants to violate your person or steal your property, or from a government that wants to violate your person or steal your property, is not open to discussion.