2nd Amendment and Why I am Against "Assault Weapon Bans"

"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 US Constitution.

For me personally, there are 3 key aspects to why the 2nd Amendment is important...

1. The inalienable God-Given right to self-defense.
2. The civic duty to be armed and trained to protect the "state" from domestic and foreign enemies.
3. To resist and overthrow a Tyrannical Government.

Note, that no where there do I advocate killing innocent people or children. Also note that no where do I say that the 2nd Amendment applies to hunting. It doesn't and killing people is already illegal in our country. Based upon years of reading not only our constitution, but also the Federalist Papers (papers written by such people as Thomas Jefferson that made the arguments on why the Bill of Rights and Constitution should be ratified) and various history books relating to our Revolutionary War, I truly believe that our 2nd Amendment applies to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Here is an excellent video put together by Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, where he explains that the 2nd Amendment does in fact apply to the individual right:

Here is a link to another great resource that goes into the historical context of why the 2nd Amendment was important when our Constitution was created. https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

To repeal or to modify our 2nd Amendment goes completely against what our founding fathers intended. I also believe that such a move is foolish and short sighted. Referring to my 3 key aspects, we have a right and a duty to our family and loved ones to protect them. The Supreme Court has ruled that our local law enforcement does not carry the responsibility to protect us from harm. The second aspect is important because it ensures every day peace for our society as well as our loved ones. It is very well documented that in WWII, Japan did not attack our mainland because they feared the average armed citizen. I truly believe that this is a significant reason why we have not been attacked by a foreign army in the last 200 years. While many opponents dismiss and ridicule the thought of citizens overthrowing or resisting a tyrannical government, the fact remains that history has proven that great human atrocities have occurred because the citizens had no way to defend and resist such tyrannical governments. Look at how divided our country is today. No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, how would you feel if the opposing side were in control and started outlawing the way that you think or started persecuting you because of your political/religious beliefs? If it got so egregious would you not want a way to defend your family and resist such persecution? Don't get me wrong, I pray that we never see that day no matter where you sit politically. I believe in the rights to our opinions and beliefs whether they agree with mine or not.

For years now I have said, "I wake up each day and thank God that none of my guns have ever had to be pointed at another human being. At the same time, I also pray to God that when my time comes to stand at the Pearly Gates that I will still be able to make that statement." I don't own firearms simply because they can kill people. I pray that mine will NEVER have to do such a thing. But because I believe in those 3 key aspects above, I own them. I train with them. And I have them at the ready should I ever need to defend/protect myself, my family, my loved ones, or my fellow man. I truly believe that it is my duty as a Father and as a contributing member of society to do so.

For the last 45+ days we have been bombarded daily by the mainstream media that we need to enact more Gun Control. CNN hosted a "Town Hall" Meeting where the crowd cheered for the repealing of the 2nd Amendment. Newspaper and Magazine articles are being written demanding the repealing of the 2nd Amendment. People are calling for the banning of guns, etc. All while looking at you straight faced and saying, "No one wants to take your guns away!" If you look at the legislative bills that are currently introduced in Congress, Florida, Washington, Illinois, Vermont, for example and you will find that these bills do in fact want to take guns away from people. And not one single bill does anything to go after criminals that use guns in the commission of crimes, but rather it punishes law-abiding citizens that simply want to exercise their 2nd Amendment right as described above.

When you hear people say that they want to ban "assault weapons", I first question what they mean by that term. 90% of the time I find that the person doesn't understand what kind of firearm is being proposed to be banned. Keep in mind that rifles like the AR-15 that everyone seems to want to ban is used in less than 2% of annual gun murders. That is correct, according to the FBI, less than 400 people each year die from one of these firearms. More people die from bare fists and blunt objects than these rifles each year. That is not an NRA statistic, but rather comes from the FBI themselves. I hear daily, "no citizen should be able to own a gun that can kill 50 people in one spray." The fact is that an AR-15 CAN NOT kill 50 people in one spray. NO ONE can walk into a Cabelas or Bass Pro and buy such a firearm. These are the laws that are in place today.

Furthermore, we had an "Assault Weapons" Ban from 1994 to 2004. According to the FBI's own reports such ban had little to no affect on gun violence in the US. This is because such rifles are used so rarely. In fact, they are used so rarely that in the FBI reports, they lump all rifles together in a single statistic. A deer rifle is treated the same as an AR-15. So why is there this big push to ban the #1 selling rifle in the US? There are millions of these rifles already in the populace. And yet they are responsible for less than 400 deaths annually. If this was about saving lives, wouldn't logic dictate that you would focus your efforts on the causes that result in the largest number of deaths annually?

Semi-Automatic vs Fully-Automatic

There seems to be a lot of confusion or misrepresentation out there relating to Semi-Automatic and Fully-Automatic. Fully-Automatic is what you see in the movies as "machine guns". A fully-automatic firearm continuously reloads and fires bullets as long as the trigger is depressed and does not stop until the trigger is released or runs out of ammunition. A Semi-Automatic on the other hand fires ONE bullet per trigger pull. Period! This is true whether you are talking about a handgun, a rifle, or a shotgun. Only one "bang" each time you pull the trigger. In both cases the "automatic" part of the name refers to the reloading of the firearm and not the actual firing of the firearm.

So why is there such a fight to protect the AR-15?

1. AR in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle. It refers to the original company that designed the platform, Armalite.
2. An AR is NOT a fully automatic rifle. It legally cannot be modified to operate as a fully automatic rifle.
3. The AR-15 was originally developed and sold to civilians in the late 1950's. It was then redesigned and sold to the Military as a fully automatic machine gun, commonly referred to as the M-16. Today's US Military uses a version referred to as an M4. An M4 has the ability to switch between semi-automatic and 3-round burst.
4. The AR-15 is NOT used by any military today.
5. The materials used to manufacture a "store bought" AR-15 are not designed to withstand a sustained rate of fire for a period of time.
6. The AR-15 platform is the #1 selling rifle model sold in the US. This is due to its modularity, low-recoil, and configurability to support multiple calibers of ammunition. You can literally purchase one rifle and then easily swap out the "upper" and switch calibers to suit your particular needs for hunting, sport, or target shooting.
7. The AR-15 is indeed used for hunting (feral hogs, deer, etc). It is also used for home defense.
8. The AR-15 is rarely used in gun violence per the FBI.

The fact is that the AR-15 and other similar rifles are not fundamentally different than your typical semi-automatic hunting rifles. The difference is that an AR-15 is easily customizable and looks "scary" to anyone not accustomed to guns. Here is a perfect example:

These two guns are both Ruger 10/22 rifles. The one on the top is a gun that many parents buy their 10 year old sons and daughters for Christmas. It is a squirrel gun. Kids shoot soda cans with it. The one on the bottom... EXACT same gun. Uses the same magazines, the same ammunition. Both only shoot ONE bullet each time the trigger is pulled. So why is one okay for 10 year old kids but the other not? The difference is what we call "furniture" or clothing.

Or here is another example:

This is a Hi-Point Carbine. It is the same gun as the handgun above it. Takes the same magazines and same ammunition. Only difference is the stock and the longer barrel. That is it. It is legitimately the same gun as the handgun in terms of the internal working parts. Again, ONE bullet per trigger pull. The handgun is okay, but you will find the Hi-Point Carbine listed on every Gun Control Legislation that I have seen introduced so far. To call that Carbine an "Assault Weapon" is beyond laughable! Again, it comes down to it is "scary" looking. You can see for yourself by searching and looking at HR 5087 on the Congress website.

In Conclusion

I do not know a single gun owner that does not hate turning on the tv or radio and hearing of gun violence. No one wants to hear of a school or workplace shooting. I truly believe that all of us would like to see an end to such events. I pray that we do see this within my lifetime. With that said, there is a fundamental disagreement as to what the solution is in order to reduce gun violence. I believe that there are many things that we can implement without attacking the 2nd Amendment or banning of guns. I believe that we can strengthen laws that are already on the books and if new laws are required then they should be directed at criminals that choose to use a firearm unlawfully vs taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens. I have identified my suggestions on how to accomplish that and I have shared them with my legislative Representatives and Senators.

Thank you