Second Amendment Must Be Protected



Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country. Though I’m not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers’ circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local psychopaths. It is about providing a balanced firepower so when King George’s successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back. Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present day Washington, it’s as threatening as ever.

It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.  I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now. This tyrannical government will stop trying to restrict guns when only they have them.

John Calhoun

Mechanicsville, VA



6 Responses to Second Amendment Must Be Protected

  1. Beth Harris Reply

    February 16, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    I read the full Constitution and the Second Amendment and my take was that it applied to militias (such as the National Guard). While I don’t oppose gun ownership, I do advocate responsible gun ownership. The Government (I’m guessing that you mean President Obama since you didn’t specify) is asking for 1) universal background checks on ALL gun sales, 2) a ban on military assault weapons, 3) limiting clips to 10 bullets (no high capacity magazines), 4) stiffer penalties to illegal gun sellers, and 5) more police on the streets (15,000). I don’t feel that any of these would constrain responsible gun ownership.

    I understand that it’s the person behind the gun that actually causes problems, if applicable. Thus, universal background checks makes sense to me. I really don’t care if a responsible individual owns a gun. But perhaps instituting universal background checks would keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people and criminals.

    As for banning military assault weapons and high capacity magazines, I see no point in anyone but the military having such weapons. Do you really need an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine to shoot a deer? I don’t think so. And these types of weapons are too quick to kill, be it animals or people. If you can’t achieve your goal within 10 shots, you need to try something else.

    And I would think that everyone would be happy about stiffer penalties for illegal gun sellers. I certainly wouldn’t propose giving them a slap on the wrist and letting them walk. I don’t know facts and figures on this but I would suspect that they are the main reason that insane people have guns and use them irresponsibly. They certainly aren’t helping the situation.

    As for more police on the streets, I’m not really sure that 15,000 more police officers nationwide will really make a lot of difference in our crime rate and how it relates to gun control.

    I am a bunny and tree hugger and I don’t own a “real” gun. I have a BB gun that I sometimes shoot tin cans with because it’s fun. I have friends and family that own guns, some with CONCEALED gun permits and I don’t feel threatened by them because they are responsible gun owners. I would very much like to see less gun-related crime but don’t know the answers (does anybody?). Do you have any suggestions or are you just rallying around the “Second Amendment” flag?

    • jcivitas Reply

      February 16, 2013 at 5:00 pm


      We understand your uncertainty about these issues. I have asked one of our contributors to write an article on this subject that we hope will enlighten you.

      Joe Civitas

      • Beth Harris Reply

        February 16, 2013 at 5:04 pm

        Thank you. It’s definitely a slippery slope between protection and control. I already know that I don’t have all the answers; I’m just trying to make the world a better place.

        • jcivitas Reply

          February 16, 2013 at 8:11 pm

          We recognize you are a concerned citizen Beth, and we wish to help you and others who may also be confused,
          sort out the rhetoric from the facts.


  2. Beth Harris Reply

    February 16, 2013 at 12:47 am

    If you bother to read the Constitution and then the Second Amendment, it really has to do with arming the militia of a State and not of the individual people at all. Look it up, I did.

    • jcivitas Reply

      February 16, 2013 at 9:51 am


      The words in the Constitution are few; they are those that appear in the photo at the top of the letter.

      They have broad meaning for a reason.

      If you look up the definition of a militia that may enlighten you further; a militia is comprised of the people, the citizens themselves, and not a state military force such as the National Guard.

      The founders were quite clear in all their writings; everyone last one of them believed the people themselves have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms, not only for hunting and protection of their families, but to protect the people themselves from a tyrannical government. That is why it is the 2nd Amendment and not the 10th.

      In order to defend against a tyrannical government such as the one they had just liberated themselves from, you must be able to bear similar arms as those the armies of the tyrants bear.

      It is simple common sense, and a right that must not be diluted in any manner lest we subjugate ourselves to the tyrants of the future that will take all our freedoms if we cannot stop them.

      Respectfully Beth, you should do some more research, and research outside the comfort zone provided by those who support the taking of arms. I suggest starting with a book by John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws.

      I would also suggest you read history; it is full of despots who began by disarming the citizenry before taking the rest of their liberties.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *