Rumination on the 2nd
I own several guns. For a bunch of reasons, I believe I have an informed opinion on the topic of firearms and am happy to discuss it with anyone who wants to have an actual conversation. Knowing that not all of the people who read this may know me, I shall try to establish some level of bona fides on the topic before moving on.
I am the guy who watches the evening news and laughs when police clean out some felon's house and the media cries about how heavily armed he was. Inevitably, I find myself saying, “He did not have THAT many guns. Piker.” Judge for yourself if I am to be taken seriously. I have been around guns my entire life, despite growing up in California. It was a better place in the ‘70s. I fired my first gun when I was 6 (a Browning A-5 semi-automatic I could barely lift; it was my father's and grandfather's before me, which I now own and still use). That was ugly. I bought my first gun at age 16 (a Ruger 10-22 I still own).
I served in the Army for 12 years, including nine as an infantryman. I led a mechanized infantry platoon during the First Gulf War. I served over 20 years as a federal law enforcement investigator, literally carrying a gun every day of my professional life in that time. In that capacity I also served in Afghanistan, going into harm's way often, but doing so armed rather more heavily.
I have taught firearms to my own colleagues, as well as at a state law enforcement academy and as a full-time firearms instructor at my own federal academy, for several years. I was certified by my agency as a Firearms Instructor, a Defensive Tactics (read: hand to hand) instructor and as an Advanced Instructor Development Course instructor (read: I taught our people HOW to teach). I am a life member of the NRA. I have trained with some of the best private firearms instructors and competitive shooters in the U.S., several of whom I consider personal friends. I wrote a both a master's thesis and a doctoral dissertation on the topic of improving the way we train law enforcement officers to administer deadly force. I published a book on the same topic in 2015, then rewrote and rereleased it in 2023. I am a competitive shooter, holding two Master class certifications from the International Defensive Pistol Association, an organization I first joined in 1998. I have competed at the local, state, regional, and national levels. I self-define not only as a student of the gun, but also as a practitioner who has “seen the elephant” and is still here to discuss the matter. I say these things not out of a need for self-aggrandizement, but to establish the aforementioned bona fides. Take what I say for what it is worth.
On a personal level, I simply enjoy shooting. I prefer handgun shooting, as it is the kind of challenge I appreciate for reasons of my own, but I have happily fired everything from a BB gun to a howitzer. The simple act of trying to place a projectile into a target, precisely where I want it to go, at speed, is enjoyable to me. I would imagine those who play golf or darts or Frisbee golf or any other such sports might feel the same way about their chosen pastime.
I do not force my hobby or beliefs down anyone else's throat, nor do I expect anyone else to agree with me, though I will happily speak with and/or help those who sincerely ask. I do not tolerate others who do not show me the same courtesy. I enjoy shooting, both simple target shooting and competitive shooting, and I abide by the laws of the land when going about my sport, even when I disagree with them. If you come to my home, you would not know about my weapons unless you knew me, as they are not tossed casually about the place. Of course, if you are a friend of mine, you will know I'm a gun owner through our conversations before you ever stop by. At the end of the day, sport shooting is for me no different than bird watching or yachting is for others. Perhaps a bit noisier, but beyond that…
Professionally, weapons were tools of my trade. No different than a saw for a carpenter or a wrench for a plumber. I employed the weapons I had to accomplish a given mission when required. They were simply part of my professional attire and I had, and continue to have, them about for specific work purposes.
Because I have spent, and continue to spend, so much time around firearms and the people who use them, I hear a lot of comments on the 2nd Amendment, both pro and con. It is a Constitutional amendment that seems to evoke the strongest emotions of late, whether one is a fan or not. These days, few people can tell you much about the 16th Amendment without looking it up, but seemingly everyone I meet believes themselves to be a 2nd Amendment scholar. And like everyone else, I have an opinion on it as well, though how I come to it often surprises folks.
To me, the 2nd Amendment speaks to private firearms ownership. Other well-meaning people disagree with me and that is certainly their prerogative. Go, USA. To me, it is like the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 13thAmendments: applicable to the individual. I have a very serious problem when the government starts picking and choosing which rights we can keep and which we can't, particularly when those rights are laid out in the supreme legal document of the land. I am a small government kind of guy.
At its heart, the Constitution is there to tell the federal government what it can do, not to tell citizens what they are allowed to do. That basic premise often seems lost in the confusion these days. Recall the first ten Amendments had to be added to get the various colonies on board with a federal government in the first place. In creating them, the fine folks who wrote the document spelled out some very specific limitations on the government. They had seen the abuses rampant in a supreme government unchecked and they fought a successful revolt against the strongest military power in the world to escape it. It defies the imagination to suppose that they would be eager to establish a system that would place them right back in the situation they had just freed themselves from.
In my world view, when you start to singe the edges of that document, you start down a very slippery slope. You can argue the logical fallacy of the slippery slope all you like, but that does not change my point. Once we lose one right, we are not going to get it back from our dear old Uncle Sam. Ever. Like my mother used to tell me about my favorite Otter Pops when I was a kid: When they're gone, they're gone. And once we lose one Amendment, it is far easier to lose another. And another. And another. Pretty soon, the 3rd Amendment is repealed and there are uninvited Marines sleeping in your master bedroom in times of peace... and nobody wants that!
I am always amazed by friends of mine who would severely limit or abolish the 2nd Amendment tomorrow if they could, yet they then defend with enviable vigor and zeal the 1st Amendment. As though the Constitution were a legal salad bar in which the individual gets to pick and choose the rights that apply and the legal protections thus derived. Members of the press will man the ramparts en masse whenever someone looks askance at the 1st Amendment protections for a free press, while at the same time using that freedom to denigrate the 2nd Amendment. Religious leaders of all stripes and descriptions will thunder from the pulpit against any move to infringe upon the promise of freedom of religion yet tend to present a more varied response to edits to the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that a very strong argument could be made that speech and religion have killed exponentially more people over the course of history than firearms. But I suppose anything is possible once you free yourself from the tyranny of logical thinking.
I am very leery of well-meaning people who like some freedoms but don't like others. It is a dangerous road to say, "This is an acceptable freedom because I like it, but that freedom over there we can do without because I don't like or care about it”. Take the 2nd Amendment out of these arguments and replace it with some other Constitutional right. See how the process changes when the “common sense” regulations proposed for guns are applied to freedoms of speech or religion, just for fun. It makes for an interesting thought experiment.
By way of example, I’m not a religious person, though I have no issues whatsoever with those who wish to peacefully pursue a faith of their own choosing. So just for the sake of argument, let’s use religion. The late ‘60s until the early ’80s saw a flowering of various religious cults in the United States, one of which ended up shooting a U.S. Congressman to death in a foreign jungle. Suppose something like that happened today, resulting in a massive backlash against organized religion.
Imagine the impact of a politician going on national television and calling for the permitting and training of anyone who wanted to attend any church. Each state, in this argument, would then be free to regulate and control access to churches as it saw fit.
Some states could freely adopt a “Constitutional Prayer” approach, allowing one to attend any church that struck one’s fancy, as often as one wanted to. Other, less religiously tolerant states, ones which were adamantly opposed to “religiously-inspired violence” and the “epidemic of morally questionable thoughts and actions” so often associated with particular religions, could impose strict laws around religion and the celebration thereof.
One could not attend any church on a government-created banned list, nor could one attend “high capacity churches”, the kind which can seat more than, say, 10 people at a time. Naturally, every church would have to be registered in some states, but not with others. Some states would require that every church pay to have an expensive state safety inspection, one which would review not only their physical structure but also the content of each of their liturgies. Those sermons deemed “unsafe” by the state, based on rules drawn up by the state, would be illegal to give, or even possess, within the state. Individuals would need a background check to attend any church. They would have to have state-issued permits to attend church, with details of each church the individual wants to attend listed on the permit. If found in a church not on their list, one would be subject to arrest and prosecution. These permits would then have to be renewed every few years.
Some states would allow religious practitioners to do so privately, others would require they openly wear identifying garments. When traveling through different states, such religious practitioners would be responsible for knowing the relevant laws in every jurisdiction they pass through, because as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The carrying of a religious book of any kind would only be allowed in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Under this system, pray to the wrong god in the wrong place, and you go to jail.
I can go on, but you take my point by now, I am sure. One might say I’m overdoing it, but such is the system in place today as it pertains to our Second Amendment rights.
Now, replace “religion” with “speech”. Or “assembly”. Or your Fourth Amendment protections.
This is why I am such a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Yes, I am a “gun guy”, a shooter both sporting and professional, and I enjoy guns. But I am really a “freedom guy” and I really, really enjoy living in a free country, one where all of my freedoms are protected by the supreme legal document of the land. I get very worried when people start nibbling on the edges of that document, for any reason.
You should too.
