I know some sincere lovers of America and our freedom that have difficulty with some aspects of the 2nd Amendment with regard to various types of firearms. Their concerns and questions are often attacked without hearing their heart, and I believe that a wrong reaction. I personally am a staunch 2nd Amendment defender and believe that means we have THE RIGHT to have handguns, shotguns, rifles, and semi-automatic firearms called “assault weapons” such as the AK-47 or AR-15. That I believe!
Back to the issue of NEED. There are those who question THE NEED for some of those firearms and my feeble attempt to allay the fears or concerns some have regarding those ominous imposing looking rifles of concern is being offered. The 2nd Amendment was inserted in the Bill of Rights for the specific purpose of DEFENSE. The founders clearly believed that it was imperative and important to ensure that the citizenry always has the means necessary for SELF-DEFENSE against all threats including a rogue imposing central government. They said it and adamantly defended the rights of the citizens to “keep and bear arms”. It is important to remember that the muskets of that day were Military Grade Weapons so please do not attempt to use that argument that we can only have single-shot or super limited shot firearms in keeping with the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, the argument fails.
The 2nd Amendment had and has nothing to do with HUNTING. The founding fathers and the colonist considered the freedom, need, and the right to HUNT so part of natural life there was no reason to present an amendment addressing the rights of hunting or hunters. However, they did consider DEFENSE such an imminent and pressing need they addressed the rights of citizens to “keep and bear arms” and those were arms available and desired by the individual citizen. They focused on threats to person and property and understood those threats could come from without our borders or within them. So THE RIGHT to “keep and bear arms” should never be a question. You have to completely reinterpret, misinterpret and misrepresent the intent of the founders in the 2nd Amendment to question that as a right. Some do, and that is a problem.
Yet, the legitimate questions and concerns that some supporters of our constitution, rights, and are themselves owners and possessors of firearms need to be addressed and not from a condescending or condemning attitude. The Leftist such as Hillary Clinton and largely the powers that be in the Democrat Party want to strip us of our 2nd Amendment Rights. They have expressed that and this president has taken steps to facilitate that. So, I am not talking about their questions for regardless of their questions, their intent it to reduce or revoke the 2nd Amendment. My focus is those who are legitimately concerned and confused as to NEED regarding certain types of firearms. In my mind, this is a simple but complex issue and my response may or may not be satisfactory but I offer it in hope.
THE NEED to own a so-called “assault rifle” is the question not THE RIGHT to own one. They actually can be and are used by gun owners to control varmints and the increase in the wild hog population in the South and many areas is certainly one reason to own a high-capacity firearm with a small caliber bullet. They can be used for hunting other game animals but are not normally the first choice of those hunters. THE NEED, in my view, is DEFENSE. If intruders or marauding terrorist sweep through your area the one thing that most defense experts will tell you is, “You need ONE MORE ROUND than they have.” If there is a threat from forces seeking your destruction and those forces have those types of firearms but you are relegated to having a single-short or low-capacity firearm you are at a disadvantage. NO, you are doomed! I would hope the Federal Government would never attempt to impose sweeping martial law, weapons confiscation, and bans, or become so rogue that it would use military force on citizens. But, should it do so, our Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to be able to DEFEND THEMSELVES and have the firepower to pose a formidable opposition to that type of tyrannical action by the government. MAY IT NEVER BE!
THE NEED and THE RIGHT are not always the same and, in some ways, this will become a preference and commitment to DEFENSE. Some of our forefathers and leaders in other lands considered the well-armed citizenry of America such an imposing deterrent they believed that an Armed-Citizenry was a National Defense benefit. THE NEED, in my view, is rooted squarely in DEFENSE and that includes personal self-defense as well as defense against tyranny from within or without our borders. Again, this may or may not alleviate the concerns and even fears some have but hopefully, it will give you a basis upon which to continue your personal evaluation, consideration, and investigation of this issue. I STAND 100% WITH THE 2ND AMENDMENT! I believe that means THE RIGHT to address our NEED for DEFENSE and each citizen can and should decide for themselves what ARMS they desire and are6 comfortable with.
God bless you and God bless America. REMEMBER NOVEMBER for this is one of the issues at stake.