By Pat Tarzwell
This is in response to letters from our two political parties regarding the Second Amendment, which reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What does this mean? “Militia” meant every able-bodied man and boy old enough to fight (without a religious aversion to arms). One of the problems General Washington had was citizens who weren’t “well-regulated”; meaning practiced, or disciplined in shooting. Future security of our free States hinged on people not only being armed but also proficient at shooting with the most up to date weaponry. Hence the last part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.
These letters also mention self-defense and hunting. Neither were part of the conversation over the Second Amendment; both were givens. Hunting is how families were fed. The right to life and the defense of it was so obvious, it wasn’t even discussed. It’s one of the self-evident truths, unalienable rights, declared in the Declaration of Independence.
Both sides make an emotional appeal with their arguments. Democrats seem to feel that no one needs what they call “assault weapons,” which are difficult to define. Republicans say they understand that people want to ban certain types of guns after a school shooting. I strongly disagree with both. Infringing upon God-given rights purchased with the blood of patriots because some “feel” we don’t need to be armed is never “understandable.” Besides, since 1950 every mass shooting in the US has occurred in a gun free zone. Tell me again how these gun laws helped?
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: “Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little more security, shall have, nor deserve either. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”
Stay tuned for Pat’s Independence-Day themed posts.
Next up from Kristine: ‘I Demand Zero!’