Letter to the Editor

Letters have appeared in The Reflector recently that feed two myths on gun control and the Second Amendment – one myth stated clearly and the other hinted at.  The first is that Democratic Socialists are bent on banning and confiscating all firearms.  There may be some extreme Socialists that are advocating for this, but most do not. I have not heard a Democratic candidate advocate for such extreme measures.  They are in favor of improved background check methods, red flag laws, and limiting access to rapid-fire “assault” weapons and magazines that allow multiple bullets to be fired in quick succession. To accuse them of being against all weapons and working to confiscate them is a lie.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution 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.” The language has created considerable debate regarding its intended scope. What is meant by “well regulated militia” and the “right . . . to keep and bear arms” have been hotly debated. One myth that has circulated is that since the amendment does not stipulate which “arms,” any effort by the government, state or federal, to limit access to any guns violates this right.  Following this line of thinking, we should consider what the framers of this amendment meant by “arms.” The arms at that time were flintlock muskets and pistols with a one-round magazine each. The most stilled marksman could only fire three shots per minute.  Imagine if we applied their understanding of “arms” today how many mass shootings would be prevented.  Also, the amendment was motivated by the fear that a national standing army would be a threat to the states. That fear, I believe, is largely a relic of the 18th dentury even though there are some that still believe the U.S. military might be used to take away a state and individual’s right to defend.

If you have read this far, you might conclude that I am a Socialist Democrat.  I am not, but in contrast to the current political and cultural trends, I do not like myths and lies being inflicted against anyone — even those I do not agree with. The truth can stand on its own feet without the support of myths and lies.

Recommended for you

(1) comment

notbuyingit

● Why are Progressives so adamant on confiscating self-loading rifles? Even if 100% effective, with zero % of potential victims not dying by any other method, the overall result would not even move the needle on the homicide/suicide/criminal action meter. More people die every year by means of “fists and feet” than _all_ long guns combined. There’s got to be a reason, and it seems a short step to confiscating _all_ firearms if they’re successful in confiscating any. One has only to look at the Democrat Socialist state of California to realize the Second Amendment is the _only_ thing preventing the complete confiscation of arms there. (With the exception of government-controlled ones, of course.)



● Exactly _what_ “improvements” in background checks are Progressives seeking? The devil is in the details, eh?



● Almost without exception, all the state imposed “red flag” gun laws have no provision for the Fourteenth Amendments “due process” clause until after the fact. If they’re such a great idea, why aren’t the cars of anyone seen in a bar confiscated on the strength that the driver _might_ drive drunk? Perhaps we should confiscate all fire-starting devices from all convicted arsonists, eh? “Guilty until proven innocent” seems to be a Progressive mantra.



● Self-loading firearms have existed for over a hundred years; what’s become so imperative about banning them at this late date - in defiance of the Second Amendment - that every single Democrat Socialist Presidential candidate having any chance of being elected has subscribed to?



● The Founders were well aware of various iterations of firearms throughout history. They surely understood there would be more, yet they chose not to limit their description of “arms” to “muskets,” forsaking any future developments. They also knew quill pens wouldn’t be the final word in writing, but chose not to limit the First Amendment, either. To ascribe such ignorance to them is just insulting.



● The Louisiana National Guard and state/local police did indeed confiscate civilian firearms in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina without so much as a receipt for the taking. The notion that “it couldn’t happen here” is not only historically wrong, it’s hopelessly naive.


Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.