Guest Author Carl Higbie

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 the founding fathers made it simple. “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.” Note the sometimes-inconspicuous commas between each subject denoting that; militia, free state, and the right of the people are each individually protected, and the supreme court in Heller vs. DC agreed.

The anti-gun movement argues; “There were no AR-15’s when the second amendment was written.” That is obviously true, but irrelevant. When the bill of rights was ratified, there was no internet but that is protected by the first amendment, also the average citizen possessed the same weaponry as the standing military, including artillery. At the same time, young children also carried those guns to school, resulting in zero school shootings, so to me, that dog don’t hunt. The next talking point regurgitated by David Hogg and other liberal pawns is that the AR-15 is a weapon of war, and therefore, should not be available to the general population. Yes, it is, but that is why it is protected. Nearly every firearm at one point has been “military grade” and used for war. I realize this is politically unpopular to say in our current climate of appeasement, but the point of the Second amendment is in fact to allow we the people the armament and capability to wage a war against a potential tyrannical government (who will undoubtedly have AR’s and more). So, when the left says that because AR-15’s are weapons of war and therefore should be banned, your display of profound ignorance demonstrates conclusively you are not informed enough for a legitimate opinion on the matter.

More predictable and polarizing are politicians that weigh in after every shooting with new bills rooted in much of the same misinformation that perpetuates the gun divide in America. In fact, Harvard released a study that gun legislation jumps 15% in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings. The Sandy Hook tragedy is the prime example. Connecticut, my home and ironically, the Constitution state, passed sweeping legislation with heavy restrictions, registration requirements and bans. Certainly, catered to the all blue constituency, the bill; SB1160 passed with even Republican support. Just like you should never grocery shopping when hungry, representatives should never legislate on emotion.

The main problem with this type of knee-jerk governing, in Connecticut’s case, nothing in the bill would have affected a single aspect of the sandy hook shooting that spawned the legislation, and this is not unique to that instance. The premise behind and the notion that, “If we make it harder to obtain/own guns we will all be safer” sounds appealing, but haven’t we tried this with drugs? Heroin and meth are still illegal yet here they are, producing a new pandemic in our country. This type of legislation is what left leaning politicians think actually improves our society, but it is a complete distraction from addressing the root causes of the problem. Reactionary legislation like this is as futile as making murder more illegal. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “gun free zones” have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings. The case in Aurora Colorado displays this, the shooter didn’t go to the theater closest to him house or the one with the largest audience, he chose the one that did not allow guns. So, to the enlightened representatives, what law can you pass to make criminals obey laws, they do not like them Sam I am.

If laws actually stopped criminals from committing crime we wouldn’t be having this argument. Chicago, makes gun ownership almost impossible yet is deadlier than Iraq was at the height of the war. Followed by Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles, bastions of liberal gun policies have shockingly high crime. Preposterous? Would you be shocked if I told you Australia’s gun ban had zero effect on the homicide rate. That zero percent of mass shootings were done by NRA members. In fact, in states that adopted concealed carry, murders dropped by 8.5%, rapes dropped 5%, aggravated assaults dropped 7% and robberies dropped 3%. I’ll bet the far left would agree if they actually did real research instead of patting themselves on their backs for useless legislation

What our “well-meaning liberal friends” (to quote Reagan) never mention, is the number of times a day that private gun ownership prevents or deters crime. Why else would the Golden Globes, celebrities and high-ranking members of the government be protected by these men visibly armed with guns? Are their lives more important than our children’s who are merely guarded by a sign printed by the lowest municipal bidder that ferociously states “This is a gun free zone”? The same ivory tower elites who scoff at my desire to be able to outfit a small militia at a moment’s notice ironically make their millions in large part by glorifying guns. As much as I would love the hand of irony to slap them in the face, I don’t fault them. Guns are cool, people like them and its sells movie tickets, capitalism, another conservative policy. They must certainly realize that James Bond being armed with a sternly worded letter from the UN doesn’t sell as well as a rocket launcher.

This is a deep fracture in our nation’s culture, it won’t be solved by legislation and it won’t be solved by demagoguery. Gun owners; our guns will never be outright confiscated, and the second amendment will never be repealed, unless we give in to emotion. There are over 300 million guns in America, and the same people who trust the government don’t realize that the government can’t even control the guns they were supposed to track in Operation Fast and Furious. It is foolish to pretend they can control those on our streets. To set the record straight, the NRA is not pro-gun violence and to say that is absurd. No one is for gun violence. The real enemy is creeping gradualism, gun owners become tolerant or complacent to tiny new legislation that eats away at our ability to own, carry or buy firearms, and the left has made it abundantly clear this will continue. I am writing as a practitioner of my rights via the Second Amendment, and want to close with this thought: If you don’t like guns, don’t buy them, if you do, buy till your heart’s content. But when you have over 30 reports of a nut job to local and federal authorities, as we did in Florida, maybe hold the authorities accountable, rather than trying to implicating an entire population of America, who have done nothing wrong. Simple enough right? If both sides would honestly debate this issues on the merits of fact and not emotion, we would find we are much closer than we think.