Weaponry Covered By 1791 2nd Amendment
People overlook that when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the intent was to ensure that every citizen has the perpetual right to carry the most advanced and powerful weapons on earth: repeating muskets with ammo magazines, cannons and mortars.
World Has Changed
If we maintain that same intent today, then every citizen (but only those with the required wealth) has a right to own their very own F-22s, F-35s, nuclear aircraft carriers, submarines and nuclear arsenal.
Where Americans set the current standard is not limited by the 1791 understanding of the Second Amendment. Today’s standard must be defined by today’s world.
The world has changed. In today’s world, that’s just not reasonable. So the original argument underlying the Second Amendment cannot be sustained. The argument cannot be guaranteeing the same purpose and intent as it did in 1791. Rather, we must ask what is reasonable in today’s world—recognizing that we live in a dynamic world so that even today’s interpretation needs to also be dynamic looking forward to tomorrow’s world.
What Types Of Weapons Do Citizens Need?
To Defend “The Republic”
Anyone who thinks they can muster a few dozen “patriots” (actually, assorted racists, religious nuts, or flat-out insane cultists) even with fully-automatic assault rifles and all the related gear, and stand out in their American front yard and defeat Russians (Chinese, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, whatever) who attack in F-35s (or even F-15s and F-16s), Cruise-type nuclear missiles, etc. is in serious need of being committed into an asylum. You stand just as good a chance with a child’s water pistol—and you wouldn’t hurt anyone.
I was raised as a hunter. I’ve tracked deer for miles until they laid down. The very idea that a hunter would need a semi-automatic rifle to bring home dinner is an insult to any legitimate hunter. A semi-automatic rifle is the equivalent of using dynamite or hand grenades to fish; no more needed than hand grenades or mortars for hunting. Even radios, trucks and dogs define simple animal killers who cull, not hunt. I remember when hunters were hunters, not simple “limit” killers of animals. “Hunting” as an excuse for possessing military weaponry is a fool’s diversion, not an argument for these excessive types of weapons.
To Defend One’s Home
Defending one’s home, one’s self or one’s family is a fine reason to possess and carry a suitable firearm. The fact is, however, just as in El Paso, all the assault rifles resting in gunracks at home or in the pick-up did no good at all in stopping the mass shooter. If you’re not carrying it, it’s not going to help you. Ergo, the best weapon for this purpose is one that is concealable (to avoid inviting trained guys like me who know how to jump your gun if I need one) yet convenient enough to carry just about everywhere but the shower and the beech, as much a part of your everyday, everywhere dress as shoes and a shirt. The best idea would be programs that provide essential training, (background vetting &) licensing and then renting a handgun for a month or two to see if you’re as willing and conscientious about carrying as you thought you would be.
A semi-automatic rifle can shoot through many kinds of walls—to wound, maim or kill one’s wife or children in an adjoining room, or even neighbors or passersby on the street outside. No householder should be using a semi-automatic rifle inside a home for “defense”. Moreover, shotgun (especially if sawed-off to the legal limit) is FAR more effective for in-home defense against intruders.
Completing proper firearm-safety training should be a requirement for anyone who obtains or maintains a firearm (handgun or long-gun) in their home. Nor should any firearm be sold without its own child-proof and lockable hard case.
What’s Reasonable In Today’s World
How the Second Amendment should be understood today is also constrained by today’s realities: even if there a consensus should develop to eliminate automatic and semi-automatic rifles, millions of households possess them. America cannot send in troops in full combat gear to extract these weapons from millions of households—most of whom are law-abiding citizens. So “prohibiting the civilian possession” of automatic and semi-automatic rifles, as well as extra-capacity magazines, silencers, grenades, body armor and armor-piercing ammo simply cannot be enforced. It would be just another “feel good” law that would have to be ignored.
Buy-back programs are silly. Only law-abiding citizens comply, and even then it’s often with weapons that no longer work and would be too expensive to repair. Such programs have never measurably impacted crime or gun violence. Just another “feel good” law, so folks think they’ve done something and can move on.
What is enforceable, however, is “prohibiting the sale or transfer” of such weapons (even via inheritance), restricting new sales to law enforcement and the military. The first effect of such a law is to drastically cut off the inflow of new weapons to civilians entirely. While illegal sales would proliferate temporarily, black-market prices would begin to skyrocket as supply dwindled and the result would, after an initial peak, assume a permanent downward trend (unless the law was overturned… again).
As supply dwindles, owners of such weapons will be increasingly motivated to hold on tightly to the weapons they have—as opposed to selling them (reducing the street supply).
Relying solely on this effect over time, not “taking away” any guns from current, law-abiding citizens, eliminating the sale of new weapons of these (or more dangerous) types won’t affect reasonable current law-abiding gun-owners or generate excessive resistance to the non-supply of new weapons of this, or more dangerous, types.
This also automatically provides exception for properly licensed law-abiding citizens who wish to possess semi-automatic rifles: qualify for and volunteer in some branch of local law enforcement reserves—part-time voluntary law enforcement officers. Despite current American anti-law sentiment, there is no sane reason to fear or prevent law enforcement from having these proper law enforcement tools. Good guys with guns is a good thing.
Properly-Licensed Citizen Firearms Carriers Should Be Encouraged
Cars kill more than twice as many people (37,461 in 2016) than firearms (15,066 in 2017), but we don’t prohibit people from owning—and driving—cars. Yes, cars are essential to modern life. So is self-defense against criminals and defense of one’s home against intruders.
Opposite to being discouraged, concealed-carry by properly licensed (i.e. vetted & trained) citizens should be actively encouraged with government-funded programs that teach proper home firearm safety, the laws that define assault, battery, legally-authorized defense and limitations thereof; especially realistic situational demonstrations teaching how one may legally react in various confrontational situations. Every citizen should receive this training (along with civics, history, the dangers—especially online social web—of child trafficking, drugs, smoking, etc.). Make education real and useful. Generally, a bad guy with a gun is only stopped by a good guy with a gun.
Certainly, limiting the injuries that an unhinged mass shooter can inflict is vital and there is no excuse for not limiting his or her ability to obtain “mass shooting” (automatic or) semi-automatic guns, high-capacity magazines or armor-piercing rounds.
On the other hand, the more properly trained, responsible and law-abiding citizens who carry concealed (except around alcohol & drugs), the better.
See also 2019.08.12 ” “The Hunt”—Hollywood Liberals’ Criminal Incitement To Mass Killings” (https://bit.ly/2YG3dMg ),
2019.08.05 “El Paso Shooter’s Manifesto — Scrubbed From The Net By Dem Anti-Trump Media?” (https://bit.ly/2MEjjif ),
2019.08.04 “El Paso — More Proof Gun Laws Work” (https://bit.ly/2P3Jfqn ) and
2019 update (El Paso & Dayton) to 2016.06.17 “America’s Cons, Dems & Guns” (https://bit.ly/2MwgY9c ).
(Republishing my articles and short quotations from the Netzarim website (www.netzarim.co.il) is encouraged as long as proper citation credit is prominently noted to Paqid Yirmeyahu, this blog, and referring further information to http://www.netzarim.co.il)