Carroll D. Childers P.E.
Major General ARNG (ret)
The Second Amendment has given me cause for pause and reflection over the years as various events cause yet another assault of this God given right. I say it is God given because of the perspective from which our founding fathers created our Declaration of Independence and ultimately our Constitution.
As some of the more scandalous public officials (SPO) have proposed, “never let a good crisis go to waste”. They follow through on this general theme even if the crisis does not measure up to a “good” level. Metrics for crisis is in the eye of the beholder and of course for politicians, good is a level of disaster or calamity or callousness.
The most recent event which SPOs aspire to spin into something they can use to achieve a long sought goal is the December 2012 Newtown, CT mass murder of innocent, defenseless students and teachers in an elementary school by not only a mad man, but a mad man on drugs; and a mad man using weapons which he obtained because his parent failed to secure these weapons from him.
So here we are again, legitimate gun owners, sane law abiding citizens, defending our rights which the Second Amendment should adequately defend without any additional effort. The SPO and their Willing Colleagues (WC) (media, corrupt administration, communist sympathizers, spin doctors, opportunists, etc) look for a chink in the armor of the Second Amendment. As many times before, they focus on “military pattern” weapons and claim that the Second Amendment was written with muzzle loaders, slow repetition, inaccurate firing weapons of the day. No, the Second Amendment was written based on the technology of the day. In it’s day, the muzzle loading, 3-4 rounds per minute rifle or smooth bore was indeed a highly lethal tool. There has been no more need to modify the Second Amendment to account for weaponry technology advancement than there has to modify the commerce clauses of the Constitution to account for rail, tractor trailer, air, container ship, air conditioning and refrigeration, or Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tracking.
And might I also mention other clauses in our Constitution which are clearly violated and yet the SPO/WC are willing to overlook. How about the Congressional responsibility “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof” or “To declare War” or “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended” (which Obama has written off via the NDAA 2012).
So here we are, again fighting over the simply worded Second Amendment with our adversaries looking at each word and each word on either side of each word to find some flaw in a clause. BS. It is quite clear. Technology has advanced the capability of what we are allowed to own under the Second Amendment just as technology has impacted the commerce clause. The original intent was for citizens to be matched with those who might attempt to enslave us (our own government or a foreign government). The arms and capabilities that we are allowed must keep pace to a reasonable degree as technology enables it. In this regard, by reasonable degree, we are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons nor certain calibers nor certain explosive and destructive devices without specific licenses. We gun owners have resigned ourselves that laws are in place with these well known restrictive licenses in place. We have also resigned ourselves that we have had enough and we will take no more.
SPO/WC wants to drag out the arguments of magazine size. OK, so what is the “right” and “reasonable” size? If the intent of the Second Amendment was for citizens to have small arms (presumably) matched with those who might attempt to enslave us (our own government or a foreign government) then we should have 30 round magazines.
But suppose the magazine size is proposed at 10 rounds? My response is simply that if I am insane and have an evil purpose to slaughter innocent people for any one of a thousand reasons, I will carry a sufficient number of 10 round magazines and alternate weapons to achieve my purpose.
Another point I want to make is the obvious LACK OF familiarity which the SPO/WC crowd has with weapons terminology. I see them quite often make reference to “Clips”. In general this is an inappropriate term. Even the most intelligent man on the planet, Mr. Obama ?? made the following statement recently when he was attempting to make political hay out of a tragic situation. Hardly before the little children were pronounced dead and certainly before they had all been laid to rest, this zombie is on the circuit spinning the story. But his comment was as follows: “……..banning the sale of military style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips……” Yes, clips, You read it right. From the mouth of the great pretender.
Modern weapons operate from magazines. Some of these magazines are box or drum and removable; some are tubular and are fixed to the weapon while others are neither tubular nor fixed nor removable but are a storage and feeding compartment and an integral part of the weapon. Clips were an approach to feed the M-1 Garand. Then there are so-called Stripper-Clips which are basically a means to store some number of rounds in a device which then interfaces with the magazine such that these rounds can be quickly “stripped” into the magazine or pressed in a linear motion to force rounds from the stripper clip into a magazine. This is most often done simply with the thumb. Finally, revolvers have quick loaders where six rounds can be dropped into the cylinder rather fumble one round at a time. But probably anyone intent on mass murder would not choose a revolver. I am not aware of any other shooter in modern times, than John Hinkley and Jack Ruby, who used a revolver and each of these had a single target in mind, not mass murder
I would also like to see the SPO/WC address where in the Constitution there is an authority for the equivalent “Army” which the Department of Homeland Security is creating for Obama. They are buying hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition which violate the Geneva Convention (hollow point rounds) and the only plausible reason to arm these people and give them so many rounds of ammunition is for use against the American People. So this is another sound reason that the American People should not lose their rights under the Second Amendment. We must maintain not only the basic right to own guns, ammunition, spare parts, and reloading components but we must be allowed to maintain pace with the technology of firearms with which our potential enemies will be armed. We may well have to defend ourselves against this rogue, unconstitutional force. Finally, there is the personal inept army which Obama is creating under HLS which appears to most observers to be some sort of equivalent to the Hitler Brown Shirts. His first class graduated in Oct 2012 with 231 members. His 2008 campaign promise was to field, equip, and train a civilian force equal to the Active military force. Specifically he stated: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
I don’t know about any other reader of this paper but the above statement causes me great worry. Just how naïve can this man, who is supposed to be the leader of the free world, be? America has National Guard, state and local law enforcement, and under certain circumstances, Active Duty Military to maintain civil order in our nation. To even contemplate the need for an additional force, especially in times when we cannot pay for the programs we have already committed to, is poor judgment if not totally ludicrous.
I think there comes a time when there should be an amendment to the Constitution which essentially makes it unlawful for a particular right to be challenged unsuccessfully more than some specific number. The attack on the Second Amendment is overdue for this protection.
Carroll D. Childers P.E.
Major General ARNG (ret)