{"id":6944,"date":"2014-03-21T11:26:59","date_gmt":"2014-03-21T15:26:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gadflyonline.com\/home\/?p=6944"},"modified":"2014-03-21T11:26:59","modified_gmt":"2014-03-21T15:26:59","slug":"the-second-amendment-a-symbol-of-freedom-or-an-invitation-to-violence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/the-second-amendment-a-symbol-of-freedom-or-an-invitation-to-violence\/","title":{"rendered":"The Second Amendment: A Symbol of Freedom or An Invitation to Violence?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"2ndAmnd_585x585\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cA 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.\u201d \u2013 The Second Amendment to the US Constitution<\/p>\n

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.<\/p>\n

Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment\u2019s \u201cmilitia\u201d reference as applying only to the military.<\/p>\n

To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.<\/p>\n

And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound \u201cdown from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.\u201d To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, as I document in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State<\/em><\/a>, while these three divergent viewpoints continue to jockey for supremacy, the U.S. government has adopted a \u201cdo what I say, not what I do\u201d mindset when it comes to Americans\u2019 rights overall. Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government\u2019s attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while viewing as suspect anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one.<\/p>\n

Indeed, while it still technically remains legal to own <\/em>a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed. (This same rule does not apply to law enforcement officials, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrists for using their weapons against unarmed individuals.)<\/p>\n

Just recently, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. Making matters worse, police panicked and opened fire through a solid wood door on the homeowner, who had already gone to bed.<\/p>\n

Earlier in the year, a Florida man traveling through Maryland with his wife and kids was stopped by a police officer and interrogated about the whereabouts of his registered handgun. Despite the man\u2019s insistence that the handgun had been left at home, the officer spent nearly two hours searching through the couple\u2019s car, patting them down along with their children, and having them sit in the back of a patrol car. No weapon was found.<\/p>\n

In 2011, a 25-year-old Philadelphia man was confronted by police, verbally threatened and arrested for carrying a gun in public, which is legal within the city. When Mark Fiorino attempted to explain his rights under the law to police, police ordered him to get on his knees or else \u201cI am gonna shoot ya.\u201d Fiorino was later released without charges.<\/p>\n

A provision in a Washington State bill would have authorized police to search and inspect gun owners\u2019 homes yearly. Connecticut has adopted a law banning the sale of large-capacity magazines and assault weapons. And a bill moving through the New Jersey legislature would reduce the number of bullets an ammunition magazine could hold from 15 to 10.<\/p>\n

Under a proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services, anyone seeking mental health treatment\u2014no matter how benign\u2014could find themselves entered into the FBI\u2019s criminal background check system and have their Second Amendment rights in jeopardy. They would join the ranks of some 175,000 veterans who have been barred from possessing firearms based solely on the fact that they received psychiatric treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the government\u2019s efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets. Moreover, under the auspices of a military \u201crecycling\u201d program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990. Included among these \u201cgifts\u201d are tank-like 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, tactical gear, and assault rifles.<\/p>\n

Ironically, while the Obama administration continues its efforts to \u201cpass the broadest gun control legislation in a generation,\u201d which would include bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, expanded background checks, and tougher gun-trafficking laws, the U.S. military boasts some weapons the rest of the world doesn\u2019t have. Included in its arsenal are armed, surveillance Reaper drones capable of reading a license plate from over two miles away; an AA12 Atchisson Assault Shotgun that can shoot five 12-gauge shells per second and \u201ccan fire up to 9,000 rounds without being cleaned or jamming\u201d; an ADAPTIV invisibility cloak that can make a tank disappear or seemingly reshape it to look like a car; a PHASR rifle capable of blinding and disorienting anyone caught in its sights; a Taser shockwave that can electrocute a crowd of people at the touch of a button; an XM2010 enhanced sniper rifle with built-in sound and flash suppressors that can hit a man-sized target nine out of ten times from over a third of a mile away; and an XM25 \u201cPunisher\u201d grenade launcher that can be programmed to accurately shoot grenades at a target up to 500 meters away.<\/p>\n

Talk about a double standard. The government\u2019s arsenal of weapons makes the average American\u2019s handgun look like a Tinker Toy.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s no laughing matter, and yet the joke is on us. \u201cWe the people\u201d have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence\u2014the guns, the gun owners, or our violent culture\u2014and whether the Second Amendment \u201callows\u201d us to own guns that we\u2019ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our <\/em>rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government\u2019s powers.<\/p>\n

When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry\u2019s gun ownership. As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well. \u201cThe Constitution is not neutral,\u201d he remarked, \u201cIt was designed to take the government off the backs of people.\u201d In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety<\/em> stand as a bulwark against a police state. To our detriment, these rights have been steadily weakened, eroded and undermined in recent years. Yet without any one of them, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.<\/p>\n

When all is said and done, the debate over gun ownership really has little to do with gun violence in America. Eliminating guns will not necessarily eliminate violence. Those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can<\/em> and do<\/em> wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also not even a question of whether Americans need weapons to defend themselves against any overt threats to our safety or wellbeing, although a recent study by a Quinnipiac University economist indicates that less restrictive concealed carry laws save lives, while gun control can endanger them. In fact, journalist Kevin Carson, writing for Counter Punch<\/em>, suggests that prohibiting Americans from owning weapons would be as dangerously ineffective as Prohibition and the War on the Drugs:<\/p>\n

\u201c[W]hat strict gun laws will do is take the level of police statism, lawlessness and general social pathology up a notch in the same way Prohibition and the Drug War have done. I\u2019d expect a War on Guns to expand the volume of organized crime, and to empower criminal gangs fighting over control over the black market, in exactly the same way Prohibition did in the 1920s and strict drug laws have done since the 1980s. I\u2019d expect it to lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, further militarization of local police via SWAT teams, and further expansion of the squalid empire of civil forfeiture, perjured jailhouse snitch testimony, entrapment, planted evidence, and plea deal blackmail.\u201d<\/p>\n

Truly, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game. In other words, it\u2019s that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.<\/p>\n

The Constitution is clear on this particular point, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach. As 20th<\/sup> century libertarian Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964, \u201cNo one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words \u2018no\u2019 and \u2018not\u2019 employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a nutshell, then, the Second Amendment\u2019s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one\u2019s personal defense, but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one\u2019s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property. As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship. As George Orwell noted, \u201cThat rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer\u2019s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.\u201d<\/p>\n

Certainly, dictators in past regimes have understood this principle only too well. As Adolf Hitler noted, \u201cThe most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.\u201d It should come as no surprise, then, that starting in December 1935, Jews in Germany were prevented from obtaining shooting licenses, because authorities believed that to allow them to do so would \u201cendanger the German population.\u201d In late 1938, special orders were delivered barring Jews from owning firearms, with the punishment for arms possession being 20 years in a concentration camp.<\/p>\n

The rest, as they say, is history. Yet it is a history that we should be wary of repeating.<\/p>\n

WC: \u00a01898<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.<\/p>\n

Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment\u2019s \u201cmilitia\u201d reference as applying only to the military.<\/p>\n

To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.<\/p>\n

READ MORE.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":6945,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,214,217,212],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6944"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6944"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6944\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6947,"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6944\/revisions\/6947"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6945"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/gadflyonline.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}