The Constitution Protects Individual Rights to Carry a Firearm – In a recent Twitter post, gun-control advocate David Hogg made famous after the Sandy Hook shooting, asserted that he had it on good authority from law professors and historians that the 2nd Amendment was “intentionally misinterpreted” to prevent individuals from carrying a firearm. He went on further to talk about how it only meant arming the state militias like the National Guard.
While this may seem incredibly stupid to you well-informed gun owners, it is an actual argument that has been talked about for years, and unfortunately, it is mired in stupidity and driven by people’s own agenda.
It is entertaining to me that this young man who is incredibly misinformed and obviously has ridden the tragedy of the school shooting for his own benefit (never let a crisis go to waste), seems to believe that some of the greatest Constitutional Scholars as well as the Supreme Court of the United States disagree with him. However, anyone with 2 years in university, and a whole lot of life experience these days can make accusations on social media all day, no matter how incorrect they are.
He went on to further elaborate that the Federal Government is not allowed to disarm the militias (hence they shall not be infringed), and that a well-regulated militia does not mean an individual. He is not wrong that the Founders feared a strong Federal government and its ability to oppress the people, especially with the use of military force as Britain had done. However, I think most would argue our current government far exceeds the current size and scope originally intended anyway.
There are many who also argue that the Civil War was fought over states’ rights and a small Federal government versus larger state governments and who was allowed to make laws affecting the state, including slavery being the biggest issue.
While that may be neither here nor there, it comes down to individual freedoms versus those granted to a larger body. The 1st Amendment talks directly to the individual, that they have the right to speak freely, peaceably assemble, and freedom to practice their own religion. The fourth says you as an individual are not allowed to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures which is individually granted, but prevents seizure of property most commonly… well, are your firearms your property? Mine are for me.
Additionally, Mr. Hogg talked about coming together and working with those who disagree with him. So, I would ask the following of you. Do you trust your state or the federal government to “hold onto” your weapons in the event there is a time you need them? What are the compromises that you are willing to have to join in solidarity and address issues? How many police are you willing to hire to protect you from a home invasion, a carjacking, or a mass shooter at your favorite restaurant?
The issue that we see over and over is that people like Mr. Hogg don’t seem to understand the personal, individual liberty that we exercise every day when we put on our sidearms. Every time I load my carry gun and put it into my Original holster, which is my favorite at the moment, I acknowledge that I may need to protect my family or others with that sidearm.
I don’t rely on fiction that a sign saying “Gun Free” does anything but disarm those that would fight back. I refuse to believe that a security guard at Walmart is willing to risk his life for mine or could physically move and engage in a fight better than me.
I disagree that people like Mr. Hogg want anything but control, and because they refuse to take that individual right and responsibility my exercising of it threatens them and their view of themselves. The Constitution explicitly states I can keep and bear arms, and that right won’t be infringed, and I for one will not buckle on that right. Will you?
Author: Ian Bolser