In Defense of Semi-Automatic Weapons

It seems that everyone in this post-Newtown Massacre debate is either consciously or unconsciously ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the middle of the room, namely:  the reason WHY we have a Second Amendment.  That particular gorilla grunts pretty loudly whenever I hear gun-controllers whine about semi-automatic assault weapons or super-sized ammo clips.

It’s always the same lament: “Why, oh why do we need these things? What’s the point of being able to fire so many bullets in so short a period of time?”

Apparently, most defenders of the Second Amendment are either unable or unwilling to give the only proper response: “Because semi-automatic weapons are a far more efficient way to kill people as opposed, say, to 18th century muskets. Ditto for super-sized ammo clips:  you can kill a lot more people at one time with a clip that holds 50 rounds than you can with a clip that holds only 10.”

I guarantee that if you say this, the room will fall into shocked silence. The raw, naked truth has a tendency to do that to people.

Read what the Founders and Framers wrote about this issue and you will (unless you are an idiot or a liberal) realize that the right to keep and bear arms was not enshrined in the Bill of Rights to protect deer hunters or ensure that homeowners could blow away armed burglars – although these instances certainly are germane.

The Founders understood that every generation has its share of wolves and sheep – as well as wolves in sheep’s clothing – and that the day would come when the virtue, self-reliance, education and unity of the American people would be compromised and the principles of the republic pushed aside to accommodate the vulgar appetites of political power. Human nature being the immutable thing it is, the Framers knew that one day the citadel of liberty and prosperity they fought so hard to create would begin to decay from within and it wouldn’t be long before it teetered on the precipice of federal totalitarianism.

The bitter experience of Lexington and Concord – where the British attempted to seize the Colonists’ cache of arms and ammunition – taught a valuable lesson:  a disarmed populace is a helpless populace.

Jefferson rightly observed that when the people fear the government there is tyranny,  but when the government fears the people there is liberty…and the difference between the two is a well-armed citizenry, one capable of defending its God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness against any Leviathan – foreign or domestic – intent on snuffing out those rights.

To forestall that possibility, they incorporated a fail-safe measure into the Constitution: the right of every American to keep and bear firearms. This wasn’t the only reason, of course. At the time the Constitution was written the Framers did not imagine that the federal government would maintain standing armies and they believed that in the event of war, the individual states would summon militias that would comprise the federal army. They also believed that, for practical reasons, households should be armed to defend themselves against those with criminal intentions.

The Founders remembered those perilous times all too vividly. Here is a sampling of their thoughts:

In his Federalist Paper #46, James Madison – author of the Constitution – wrote:[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

In An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787), Noah Webster wrote: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

In Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Tench Cox wrote: “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

In 3 Elliot, Debates, George Mason wrote that: “… to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

In Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Samuel Adams declaredThat the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to… prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms …

Simply stated, the Founding Fathers believed that governments should be afraid of the people, not the other way around and to ensure the stability and longevity of that arrangement, that the people should remain armed, as nothing serves to keep a government in line quite like a heavily armed populace.

The later history of the world vindicates their foresight. Even a cursory examination of the record demonstrates this insofar as every despotic regime seeking totalitarian power always preceded such a move by disarming its populace. And so everywhere else in the world where tyranny prevailed, the people woke up one morning as subjects of a repressive oligarchy without the benefit of firearms in their homes and were therefore helpless to prevent their enslavement.

Thus the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You didn’t seriously think it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights to protect duck hunting, did you?

But there will always be those who scoff and sneer. “Do you really think that even if all 80 million private owners of firearms were each equipped with a dozen assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo that they would be any match against the full force and might of the U.S. military with its tanks and drones and laser-guided ordnance? Get real.”

The question assumes that the entire military – Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard together with the National Guard forces in every state – would blindly obey presidential orders to deploy lethal force against their fellow Americans. Does anyone who knows anything about the demographic breakdown of our military really believe that would happen? Of course not. There are far too many honorable, liberty-loving, Red State patriots of every rank in our armed forces for that to ever happen. If such a scenario ever played out, there is a greater likelihood the military would turn on itself as those loyal to the Constitution fought with those loyal to the Regime.

But let’s assume for a moment that the scoffer gets his wish – that the entire military turns into mind-numbed Obamabots and enforces a declaration of martial law or attempts to disarm the gun owning population. It will have to deal with roughly 80 million people – that we know about – and a great many of these have organized themselves into militias that no one knows about.

Ever see the motion picture “Red Dawn?” No not the crappy remake, I’m referring to the one with Patrick Swayze, where a bunch of determined teenagers wreak havoc on occupying Soviet and Cuban forces. Now imagine the casualties that 80 million heavily-armed and supremely pissed off American patriots of all ages could inflict.

Don’t kid yourself…that scenario is the only prospect preventing the Obama Regime from tearing up the Constitution, abolishing Congress and declaring an outright dictatorship. It is only logical, therefore, that the next big government push will be to abolish the private ownership of firearms – starting with assault weapons.

Yes, assault weapons have but one purpose – to kill a lot of people at one time. For this reason, We the People need to own as many of them as we can and in this sense, assault weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizen patriots are analogous to nuclear weapons in the arsenal of a peaceful nation: we amass them in the fervent hope that we never have to use them.

This entry was posted in Law and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to In Defense of Semi-Automatic Weapons

  1. Barb says:

    I am not shocked by this article….I agree with it 100%. Americans need to wake the hell up. This government has managed to make at least half this country a bunch of daisy throwing, blind fools! OMG…a child can not see a teacher with a G.U.N. in school!!! Why the hell not? We need to change the way this pendulum is swinging. Law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves, their property and their families. I will fight like hell for mine.