We need to talk about guns
Opinion/2A - 9 minute read
“To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.” —Jeffrey R. Snyder
This past weekend, there was a gun show in Topeka. I decided to go there, thinking it might be fun to ask attendees about what the second amendment means to them as well as getting their response to anti-second amendment rhetoric that I hear all too often. No one wanted to go on record. I can speculate as to the reasons why such as not trusting journalists, and being afraid of the government for going on record talking about their beliefs regarding the second amendment. When I brought this up to others in my life, most were surprised that people at a gun show would be uninterested in talking about the second amendment. I’ve gone on record about my support about the second amendment multiple times, simply because I understand the statistics and can easily debunk any talking points against the owning of firearms. So, let’s talk.
History of the Second Amendment
We all know the second amendment as the “right to bear arms.” Specifically, it states,
“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.”
However, fewer people know why we have the second amendment to begin with. Its roots are often traced in part through the English Bill of Rights of 1689, declaring, “subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.” This provision grew due to friction with the government. Specifically, loyal militias of the English Crown were being used to control and disarm dissidents while enhancing the Crown’s power, including their army.
The history of government control by disarming citizens informed early Americans to have the second amendment in place. Standing armies of professional soldiers were extremely sus for some Americans with good reason. King George III did so many terrible things that the Declaration of Independence listed grievances including that he had “affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” and had “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” These concerns were met with several states codifying constitutional arms-bearing rights after the Revolutionary War.
**Side note: April 19 marks the anniversary of the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War with the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
Centralized military power was a huge debate surrounding ratification of the federal Constitution and the need for a Bill of Rights. James Madison was tasked with coming up with a draft for the second amendment, providing the following:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
The militia clause would be altered to come first by the committee of the House of Representatives with a new specification of the militia as “composed of the body of the people.” After much debate on other changes, in late September 1789, the final language of the amendment was agreed to and transmitted to the states.
Guns and the 20th Century
When it comes to a well armed public, it is important, because when we’re not, governments have the power to do what governments do best… kill innocent people. The number of deaths are estimates, but are high enough, that it should just be understood that being disarmed by your government isn’t a good thing.
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
White settlers in America even did this to Indigenous people back in 1890.
Many proponents of banning firearms look to the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban as a successful testimony that banning assault weapons works to save lives. This, however, isn’t actually true, as I have written on it before. Since there is no real definition of “assault weapon” it was basically decided that if a gun looked scary enough, it would qualify. Multiple studies say that at best the ban did nothing despite rhetoric from mainstream media outlets. Furthermore, when you look at the number of mass shootings prior the 1994 assault weapons ban, what you find is that the year with the most mass shootings in the 90s was in 1999, and that was the year with the most mass shootings until 2012, eight years after the assault weapons ban had ended.
Furthermore, mainstream media likes to talk about how getting rid of firearms in Australia helped lower the murder rate, but data actually shows that murder rates were going down before the ban and there wasn’t much of a difference to state definitively that the ban helped or not.
So, let’s get into some reality checks and statistics.
Gun control advocates don’t actually want to ban guns
Those who support gun control, aren’t really honest when they say they want to “ban guns.” What they are interested in and actually advocate for is a government monopoly over firearms. Afterall, the only way to disarm the public is to bring in an armed government to take them away.
This is strange but true. A lot of these advocates are the same people who say, “all cops are bad.” However, cops are armed government officials, and that won’t change after a firearms ban. And here’s the thing: Police don’t have to protect you. While their motto is “To protect and serve,” the reality is that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, police have no duty to protect you unless you are in their custody. The Uvalde shooting that occurred in November of last year has proven that there are some armed government officials that truly won’t protect you, and that is a lesson that needs to be understood.
The communist group The Kansas Trans Guard (KTG) even understands this, often posting about a necessity for guns to arm minority communities.
“We are asking for donations to help arm our community here in Kansas City,” KTG posted in March. “We have several comrades lined up and we need help getting the funds to help them buy their own. Please comrades, for the safety of our community, help arm our front against fascism.”
KTG has even said that gun bans are racist, and while I don’t typically agree with communists, on this, I can agree completely.
Guns and minorities
It was openly known that gun control throughout American history was a way of keeping free and enslaved Blacks from obtaining firearms. In 1640, Blacks were barred from owning firearms in the original colony of Virginia. The 14th Amendment was meant to protect Blacks from the Democrats Ku Klux Klan (KKK) raids. Unfortunately, it didn’t stop intimidation or racist gun control policy. Instead of bans, discretionary permitting was put in place, giving law enforcement the power to decide who was allowed to carry a firearm, with an overwhelming majority being White males. By the way, these discretionary permits didn’t really go away, they’re just better known now as ‘may-issue’ firearms states, including California which has the most mass shootings and Delaware which sees the most mass shootings by population.
I reported earlier this month that Black and Brown people see far more gun violence than Whites, and we need to stop beating around the bush about it. Mental health and certain cultural issues are leading to the deaths of far too many Black and Hispanic people. Addressing this reality is not racist, not addressing this reality is. When you would much rather let Black and Brown people die than admit that there are issues in their communities that need to be resolved, you are allowing the hurt of our Black and Brown family to continue as a quiet secret we all know.
Some truths gun control activists ignore
Something I started hearing last year is that guns are now the leading cause of death for children in the U.S. This is true… so long as we count 18 and 19-year-olds as children, which, in any other case, we usually don’t. However, it makes sense for gun control advocates to leave that out, as it makes it sound a lot more alarming. By the way, 18 and 19-year-olds greatly skew the data. In fact, homicides aren’t even a close second for children dying. Unintentional injuries are the leading cause. Kind of important to know.
Furthermore, the U.S. is the most heavily armed society in the world with 121 guns per 100 people. However, here is the kicker, as shootings become more prevalent, fewer people are owning guns. In fact, according to the RAND Corp think tank, one in three U.S. households owned firearms in 2016, down from nearly half in 1990.
This shouldn’t be shocking though. Former President Obama had studies done on gun statistics to try to push forward with an anti-gun agenda, only to have the studies backfire. This includes studies that found you are more likely to be injured in a violent crime if you don’t conceal carry and the fact that defensive gun use is common. The study states,
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Not only this, but gun-free zones are a favorite for mass shooters. In fact, an overwhelming majority of public mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. Furthermore, handguns are used more often to carry out these shootings not “assault-style rifles.” So, why go after “assault-rifles”? Because gun control activists were losing the battle hard trying to ban handguns in the 1980s, so they switched to rifles, referring to them as “assault weapons” because it sounded scarier.
Conclusion
It should be understood that guns are tools for self-defense. Yes, there are bad actors out there, but to take away the freedoms of the innocent due to the crimes of the guilty fails any attempt at preserving safety and justice for all.
Thanks for reading. Be sure to like, share, and subscribe. You can also help support independent journalism in Kansas by buying me a coffee at buymeacoffee.com/kscon.