This is why I write for non-gun owners: there is too much anti-gun disinformation floating around that sounds sensible at first, but which is untrue, and therefore not sensible at all. Most Americans are interested once they find how gun control interferes with their homes, families, workplace, personal safety and other civil rights. As Pericles put it, "Just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you." For those claiming to be apolitical, politics definitely takes an interest in all of us. How gun control adversely affects each of us is in how various mandates begin to sweep into seemingly unrelated political issues, gun owner or not.
News-Leader.com of Springfield, MO features an anti-gun piece by Curt Brown, 10-time winner of the Missouri Broadcasters Association's Best Editorial of the Year. Brown wrote in a February 19, 2009 piece against guns in churches in summarizing the Second Amendment, then wrote: "Back when that was written we didn't have much of a militia of any kind. Today we have the police, sheriff's patrol, state patrol, National Guard, active duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines ... so I think we do have a "well regulated Militia" now and no need for everyone toting a gun."
Mr. Brown, like many anti-gun activists, confuses militia with military, and does not know his U.S. History, or his Law as it might relate to personal safety. First, "Today we have police, sheriff’s patrol, state patrol..." is misleading at best. These law enforcement agencies have no duty to protect individuals. Depending on them to the exclusion of your own preparedness (being armed) can be disastrous, and it is for millions. Every crime statistic is a documentation of absence of sufficient force and application of authority to be safer. Anti-gun editorials become anti-liberty when they serve to hide that sort of information from readers who want the best for their loved ones. Imagine urging citizens to depend on police who have no such duty.
[The FBI reports millions of completed violent acts of crime every year. Armed citizens de-escalate 2.5 million that do not become completed acts, but which are reported to local police who then turn them in to the FBI. Where do you come down on this?]
Next, the militia of the framing era was every able-bodied person, and Brown's words that. "..didn’t have much of a militia of any kind . .’ was incorrect; The Militia of the era defeated the army of the Crown of England. That’s quite an achievement for not having a militia of any kind. It was called the War For Independence, and we won our Independence. Because we were the militia. We still are.
The words of art well-regulated militia meant self-regulated, as the entire nation was to be self-rule. Self-rule is what we are all about; government is our servant, not our ruler. Today, this body of armed citizens is recognized as Militia by United States Code Title 10, Section 311, and is differentiated from National Guard and other military bodies as non-military. It exists as a reality within the armed citizen, and is denoted as unorganized, which means that it does not have chain of command, it does not have rank, benefits, funding, and does not report to the Commander-in-chief. That is one of the best parts. We do not answer to the President. The Military does.
Several legal attempts since the nation’s inception – a few Militia Acts – have failed to merge the unorganized militia (armed civilians) with the organized military, and the two remain differentiated in 2009. Many attempts to require armed citizens to show that they are part of a militia fail, since we are in fact part of a militia, and the issue somehow becomes lost. We are the militia, the very first militia of the country 130 years before we had a National Guard.
In 2009, liberty purists and other Americans will have every right to become impatient with anti-gun movements as utterly anti-American movements. To counter these, whole states are moving to affirm Sovereignty apart from the Federal Government. This is done under provisions within our Constitution, and much of it’s momentum comes from both dangerous political scandals and resentful attempts at gun control against the public interest. Armed citizens can now move freely in Parks. More workplaces are affirming armed citizens who keep their weapons in their cars. More states have moved to open-carry to complement concealed carry state-wide. Illinois Sheriffs Association supports concealed carry of handguns in Illinois, and many college campuses affirm armed students on campus.
The entire anti-gun movement seeks to hide our history, our authority, and where it comes from, another disarming of the people, is it not? Someone hid it from Brown, and it is why I write for non-gun owners.
The armed citizen has a role to play everywhere in America not in creating violence, but overcoming it, including in churches if it should become necessary. It has become necessary. Since the nation’s inception, the citizen has the monopoly on force, and that is as it should be.
_________________________________
John Longenecker is author of Safe Streets In the Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns — Meeting Dependency and Violent Crime With American Spirit. Independence, and Citizen Authority.
Comments
Technically, I believe the reference to "well-regulated" in the 2A means "well-trained." Individuals could not be well-trained unless they practiced with their own weapons (and they were expected to bring such weapons for drills). The example of usage I often see is "a well-regulated clock"--e.g., a clock that is functioning correctly and efficiently.
Read churchsecuritymember.com/church-securitythe-origins-of-christian-pacifism-by-gabe-suarez/
Worth a read re: Places of Worship and Religion.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
In the 50 states of these United States of America plus Washington DC, there are over 20,000 laws dealing with gun control. Please show me the statistics where any one of these laws has prevented a bad guy from illegally obtaining a gun or prevented the bad guy from performing an illegal act with said illegal gun any time he so desired.
There is not one local police force in the United States tasked with the responsibility of preventing a crime. All local police forces are tasked with the responsibility of bringing the perpetrator of a crime to the judiciary for punishment after the crime has been committed. This is action after the illegal activity, not before.
Citizens with Legally obtained concealed carry licenses are the only ones prepared to stop the illegal activity of a bad guy before or while the illegal activity occurs.
From my readings of documents and statements from the founding era, their use of the term "regulated" seems to realate to the training and discipline in military operations. A similar definition can be found as archaic references in many dictionaries.
very nicely put. Most people have no idea that the police are under NO obligation to protect them unless they are in custody. As the old saw goes..."Why do I carry a gun? Because a whole cop is too heavy".
Greetings John. The masses-r-asses do not understand because the government schools and the totally, controlled media maintains an almost perfect dumbing-down.
The elitists want subjugation and when the so-called citizenry has weapons that interferes with the plan.
A great article and keep it up! djd
The Washington State constitution protects gun ownership. Washington is a concealed carry permit state.
In recent years, the US federal government has prohibited concealed carry on National Parks lands. Washington State concealed carry permits have become void when one crossed into a National Park within the State of Washington.
Recently we have heard of a federal rule change in this area.
As of this morning, (2/24/09) the North Cascades National Park web page says guns are still illegal there.
Confusing? So much for a responsible person trying to eliminate guesswork and play by the rules. Updating a web page is as easy as sending an e-mail- not so for the federal government?
Sorry, I do not agree with everything in this piece. There certainly are organized militia, or used to be. These militia may be equipped by Congress and follow orders from the President, in times of invasion or insurrection. These militia are definitely not federal troops. There are unorganized militia as well, and also a right to arms for the purpose of defending oneself, in addition to one's home state--as codified in many states' constitutions.
I realize that you're compelled to discuss this because disarmers constantly employ militia arguments, either not realizing that the militia includes everyone "except for a few public officials", or that the Second Amendment mentions the militia to demonstrate that free access to arms arguably makes a militia effective, and that this is necessary to preserve freedom. (It is "necessary" for the "security of a free State", as it was written.)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!