The Second Amendment is the Amendment that gives our Constitution the “teeth” it needs to stand against evil and tyranny. In order to defend against those wanting to destroy the Second Amendment we need people to take a stand. The Facebook group Religion of Arms is taking a stand and is joining with other like-minded people to insure that the future of the Second Amendment. While we are growing at a phenomenal rate we need to find more people to join in our fight against those that would restrict the rights that are protected under the Second Amendment. We ask that you join Religion of Arms and ask your friends and family to join in this fight against those that would pull the ‘teeth” from the Constitution rendering it ineffective.
With the tragedy that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida there has been a major push to ban “assault rifles”, bump stocks, limit magazine capacities, and expand background checks. In places like Deerfield, Illinois and Boulder, Colorado they are patting themselves on the backs for implementing these bans. After the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary, New York instituted the NY SAFE Act banning “assault rifles” and limiting magazine capacities.
In all of these places they determined that their citizens did not have a need to have these styles of weapons. One peculiar thing about all of these pieces of legislation is the fact that there were a specified segment of the population that was exempt from these new laws. Why would a designated part of the populace be exempted from possessing these weapons? After all wasn’t it said that we did not need these weapons? Wasn’t it said that these are not weapons suitable for defensive purposes?
Before I continue I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I support all law enforcement and have the upmost respect for them and I support our military forces and have the upmost respect for them. This article is not about them it is about the hypocrisy that is being perpetrated against the citizens in these places.
The segment of the population that was exempted from these laws was Federal, State, and Local law enforcement. Federal military troops and State National guard. I will start with law enforcement as protectors of the population they serve they are a defensive force. Protection is defensive. If they are a defensive force and “assault weapons” are offensive weapons then why are they exempt from the restrictions the new laws impose? If an “assault weapon” is not suitable for use as a defensive weapon, then why was an exemption wrote in to these laws?
The real purpose behind these pieces of legislation is an issue of trust. It isn’t about what type of weapon is suitable or not suitable for defensive purposes it is about the elected officials that passed these laws not trusting the citizens they were elected to serve. Why would someone mistrust the same people that put them in to their positions of power?
Laws are enacted because of lack of trust. Speed limits were established because government did not trust the population to drive at speeds appropriate for the conditions or environment. Laws against intoxicated driving have been established because of not trusting people to refrain from driving while intoxicated. These restrictions again come down to a lack of trusting law abiding citizens to use these weapons in manner that is safe.
The horrific acts that occurred during these mass shootings were not because there weren’t laws already in place to prevent them. The laws are have already been established. The perpetrators of these acts did not follow the laws when they committed these crimes. As a result the people proposing these new laws are able to act upon their distrust of the citizens that elected them to the positions they have, the positions that we have entrusted to them.
Our Constitution was established because the founding fathers knew that people in positions of power could not be trusted not to abuse or expand that power to a point of oppression. They had witnessed this first hand under the rule of England and they rose up to end that oppression. The British ruler at the time did not trust the colonists. Because of this mistrust he ordered British Troops to seize the weapons from the colonists. The majority of the colonists complied and they believed that what was best for the colonies. They were ready to submit to the oppression imposed by the crown and they were ready to forfeit the only means they had to oppose this oppression. One group knew that this could not be allowed under any circumstance. The Sons of Liberty understood that if they surrendered their weapons that they would be surrendering their rights and their liberty. They understood that they would not be free men but would be subjects of the crown.
After standing up to the British and ending the tyrannical hold that they had over the colonies leaders stepped up to start organizing this new nation. These leaders did not want to return to the same type of rule that they had just fought so hard to defeat. They did not trust that nay one man or group could be trusted with the power that would be placed on a new leader without having some means to control and restrict this power. The founding fathers in their wisdom knew that power drives a person to crave more power.
The control and limitation of that power was defined by the Constitution of the United States of America. This document readily defines the roles of the people that are elected to lead this country. This document does one other thing. It gives power not to the elected officials but to the people that elected them, our fourth branch of government. While we have to power to elect the people that will fill the roles of the legislature and we have influence over who is selected for president our real power comes from being able to hold these elected officials in check.
This ability to hold these elected officials in check doesn’t come from being able to cast a vote. It comes from the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment protects our ability to protest when our elected officials exceed the limits that are defined by the Constitution. I am using the First Amendment to write this article. The amendment that really gives us our power to prevent our elected officials from being able to oppress the citizens of this nation is the Second Amendment. It is there to give the people the means to stand up against a tyrannical government. The First Amendment is the “bark” of the Constitution, while the Second Amendment is the “bite”
This nation is at a cross roads right now and what happens in the next few years will determine our course. Like the early colonists we have a group of people that believe that it is best for our nation to succumb to government and to forfeit our “bite”. They believe that our security lies with having our “teeth” pulled. They believe that in order to prevent the tragedies that have happened in recent years that we must sacrifice rights that are a part of existing.
These people that are so willing to sacrifice these rights are working to vilify those of us that see these rights as our only means of being able to hold a government, which desires more and more power, in check. They use statements like “opposing these type of legislation is endorsing murder or mass shootings” or “opposition of this measure shows that the gun lobby cares more about guns than they do about human life or the life of our children”. They attempt to show the people standing to defend these rights as cold, heartless, and uncaring. They work to portray anyone that believes in the Second Amendment as paranoid and scared of something that has no chance of happening.
The events that have happened, both in our history and recently, show a different reality, one of government seeking to rule over the people they are supposed to serve. A reality where at one time in our history we classified people that were different than the ruling party to be unworthy of the same rights and protections afforded to the ruling party, a reality where citizens (subjects) were forced to succumb, to the will and whims of the ruling class, a reality where those that didn’t succumb were tortured and murdered as a means to establish control. The reality where an armed person that was sworn to protect and serve ran the other way when their protection was needed most. All of these events happened because the victims of these events did not have the means to protect themselves. But yet people want to further restrict the means that people have to protect themselves.
Evil exists in this world and legislation will not change that. In fact legislation affords evil a better opportunity to exert its will upon the good. If good has no means to defend against evil then evil will triumph as was demonstrated in the tragedies that we have witnessed recently. When good is afforded the tools and the means to take a stand against evil then good is able to hold evil in check and evil is not able to prevail. There will always be evil. The question is are we going to allow evil to prevail or are we going to give good the means to thwart evil?