ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

2nd Amendment Survivalists - Vigilant Patriots or Treasonous Extremists?

Updated on June 19, 2013
Alex Jones - Has many valid points, though few are in regards to gun-safety.
Alex Jones - Has many valid points, though few are in regards to gun-safety. | Source

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. - 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

Black Friend

I grew up on 15 acres, with 200 acres of Weyerhaeuser land right next door. I shot critters with my BB guns; and soda cans with pistols. Later, I trained with an M-16, and got the chance to fire off a SAW and a paintball RPG. I admit, it was a kick in the pants. I had a handgun for a while in my early twenties, and I kept an old rifle at home for a bit.

In other words; I'm not racist, I have a black friend...

Since Sandy Hook though, there is no doubt left in my mind - we need to do something. We have to try something. There have been over 1.3 million gun-related deaths in this country since 1968, more than all of the wars in US history, including the Revolutionary War. We owe it to ourselves to enact some reasonable gun-safety measures. Granted, Congressional politics render this difficult-to-unlikely - but that is no excuse for inaction.

Regardless of any political outcomes with gun-safety; we need to start by treating assault rifles as socially unacceptable similar to cigarette smoking, domestic violence, and drunk driving in the past.

Source

Only the Criminals Would Have the Guns

No one believes that we can completely eliminate gun violence. No laws could accomplish that feat. In a nation of 311 million people, some are violent. There are 288 million firearms in this country, and we couldn't get rid of them all even if we wanted to. But does that mean we shouldn't try to do anything at all about 30,000 gun-related deaths every single year?

I'd like to address a few issues

  • Gun laws can get rid of guns? - how are those drug laws going?
  • Tens of thousands die from car wrecks - should we ban cars?
  • Criminals don't care about the law - only law-abiding citizens are hurt.

Source

Most drivers break the speed limit - and many may California-stop at STOP signs. Does that mean that traffic laws are ineffective and we shouldn't have them? Some say that criminals don't follow the law, and any gun laws only hurt law-abiding citizens. Do traffic laws criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens who are simply exercising their right to drive fast?

No one is arguing that murder laws only stop otherwise law-abiding citizens from murdering. Unfortunately, people still get murdered - but I don't think anyone is arguing that murder laws are ineffective because people still get murdered - and thus we don't need any murder laws.

Is anyone saying that rape laws are bad because people still get raped?

Point being; we don't judge the merits of legislation based upon whether we can completely eliminate a given behavior - we judge the merits of legislation based upon the behavior itself of which we would try and eliminate.

NRA President David Keene
NRA President David Keene | Source

Big Game

I suppose it's human nature how we can convince ourselves of certain things. When I used to shoot things, I saw birds and critters as... well, rodents. To me, they weren't like pets or anything.

Basically... I'm no big game hunter by any means. I respect people who hunt for food. Good hunters teach patience & diligence - with respect for weapons & life & nature.

Plus, I eat meat - so morally it's six-of-one, half-dozen the other.

But, what sort of animal are you hunting that sticks around after firing your first round? Are you afraid that deer will stage a counter-attack while you are reloading?

NRA President David Keene recently said on CNN that we need high-capacity magazines so that we can maintain efficiency in shooting competitions. Seriously. It wasn't a joke.

Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia | Source

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. - 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

Militia

That's what I see. Seems quite obvious by the wording of the Constitution that the right to arms is specifically tethered to militia membership. I'm wrong, of course - according to the Supreme Court.

In the District of Columbia v. Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote in the majority decision that the lawful right to bear arms is not, in fact, connected to militia membership.

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. - 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

Well Regulated

Ah, yes. The caveat. While many would jump on the militia wording being disregarded in Heller as the end of the discussion... Of course, this is not the case. They would embrace the "shall not be infringed" aspect while ignoring the "well regulated" context.

In Heller, the majority opinion also noted that our 2nd Amendment rights are thus far only extended to lawful ownership of a handgun in your own home for self defense. While that might not be end of the conversation, that is what Constitution allows at this point.

I'm not making it up, read the case law.

Matter of fact, just regard real life - can you go to the local gun shop and purchase a grenade? a sawed-off? a tank? a nuke?

Source
Source

Slippery Slope

If you believe that the 2nd Amendment is absolute - you are either ignoring constitutional reality or you are an extremist.

You cannot purchase a nuclear weapon, or chemical weapon, or a tank, or a surface-to-air missile system, or a grenade, or an RPG, or a machine gun, or a sawed-off...

Your rights are not absolute. You cannot scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You cannot have certain forms of pornography. You cannot commit libelous or slanderous defamation.

Source
Source

1984

Oops, I meant 1994. Must've been Freudian.

In 1994, we passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban - remember how the jack-booted ATF thugs came and tried to take everyone's guns in 1994? Remember the great Revolution of 1994?

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968? When the black U.N. helicopters swooped down on everyone's homes and confiscated all of the guns in 1968? Remember the
Great Gun Revolution of 1968?

What about the National Firearms Act of 1938? Remember the gun-grab and sequential Revolution of 1938?

Remember how we had three American Revolutions over gun-grabbing tyrannical oppressors in the last in 75 years? Your history books forgot about all of that? Hmmm

This is why survivalists are so wrongheaded - as history clearly shows, there is no slippery slope. No one wants to take away your guns. They are grandfathered in regardless of any legislation.

You live in Montana with the police too far away to respond in time? You need to be able to protect yourself. You want to hunt? Go right ahead. You want a firearm in your home? Have at it, I would simply suggest you treat your weapons with respect for the safety of your family.

Source
Source

Tyranny

I mean honestly, what would that look like exactly? Military units descending upon the entire countryside with metal detectors? Door-to-door search warrants? Digging through closets and over-turning mattresses? Cracking safes and safe deposit boxes? Cavity searches for grammas and toddlers? Roughing up suspected gun-owners - literally half of the country? Really?

On one hand, this line of thinking seems completely schizophrenic. But fine - they took your job, they took your house, they took your dignity - and they are NOT taking your guns.

On this much we can agree - NO ONE is taking your guns.

Even if - and it's highly unlikely - but even if we were to pass an updated assault weapons ban (whatever an assault weapon is exactly), your weapons would be grandfathered in. No harm no foul, hoss.

Source
Source

Treason

For those who take it to heart that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for personal defense against a tyrannical federal government; Feel free to make that case.

I would ask what they think would happen? Those same people who freak out about a single red cent being cut from defense spending - those same people believe that they would be capable of defeating the most powerful military in history - with assault rifles? Really?

Does the 2nd Amendment survivalists' wet dream really boil down to murdering our own troops? SEALTeam 6 and the like? USSOCOM & DIA? Do those survivalists seriously believe that they could to fend off the guys who got Bin Ladin, Saddam & Hitler? Do they really believe that they can fend off the Raptors & Predators & Abrams & Apaches & Strykers?

I'm not sure assault rifles would do much good. My suggestion is to stop freaking-out and talking about secession & revolution like nut-jobs. Play your role in Democracy and vote; write your Congress-person and call their offices with your concerns.

1/21/13

Source
Source
5 out of 5 stars from 2 ratings of hub

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Gcrhoads64 profile image

      Gable Rhoads 3 years ago from North Dakota

      Well done and thoughtful. Tweeted and Stumbled.

    • Justin Earick profile image
      Author

      Justin Earick 3 years ago from Tacoma, WA

      Thankya kindly, much appreciated.

    Click to Rate This Article