The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting.
The founders understood that “the people” required guns as a means of self-defense to protect not only their friends and families but also their community; self-armed citizens formed the militias.
Chairman Mao’s famous quote states, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” and the second part of that quote is: and only the Communist Party should have guns.
That is the political reason for the Second Amendment.
In the 20th century, more citizens were killed by their own governments than in all the wars between governments.
Did the citizens of Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia or any other tyrannical government you care to name, ever worry about their governments killing them?
Probably not, but millions paid with their lives. Am I saying our current government will? No, but can you guarantee that for all future governments?
Ask any police or EMS worker and they will tell you that, “when seconds count, they are minutes away,” because they can’t be everywhere all the time, thus it’s up to you to be the first line of defense.
The real issue with mass shootings is the mental health system and psychological drug side affects, not gun laws.
There are thousands of reasonable gun laws and you can say they worked, as the Newtown shooter was denied buying a gun. Instead, he committed murder and stole the weapons. But none of the current proposals would have prevented Newtown, banning certain guns or clip limits.
In Georgia, a mother of twins was working from home, when a burglar broke in and she emptied her six-shot revolver, hitting him five times, but he lived. The burglar asked her to stop shooting, being out of ammo she magnanimously agreed, if he would leave. What if there were more burglars, or worse, she missed with all shots? Suddenly, limits on guns and clips have a different meaning.
Bruno DiStefano
