The opening paragraph of a recent letter to the editor entitled “Second Amendment Rights must be preserved” strongly implied that the Constitution sanctions gun ownership as a defense against the U.S. military and law enforcement.
Interpreting the Second Amendment as a right to unrestrained gun ownership in order to check law enforcement and the military is treason. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly forbids armed revolt against state and federal governments. The article says that Congress shall have power... “To provide for calling forth (state-regulated) Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.”
Taking up arms against lawfully elected government, law enforcement or our country’s military is insurrection and treason.
Our Constitution was designed specifically as a vehicle for the expression of lawful voter-based government, not rebellion at the end of a gun. It was designed so that, all things being equal, armed revolt would never again be necessary in this country.
Secondly, today’s U.S. military is not militia and militia are not the U.S. Military. Modern-day militias are gun-wielding bands who have no official military designation or sanction. More often than not, they defy law, as, for example, when right wing militias descended on Nevada to defend Cliven Bundy and his militia standoff with the Bureau of Land Management and law enforcement.
Lastly, we have 20 years of prima facie evidence of the effects of gun law on decreased gun violence. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australia’s prime minister and Parliament enacted legislation forbidding the ownership of assault weapons that also required the buyback of handguns.
Australia’s gun restriction law resulted in a marked decline in all categories of gun crime and gun homicides, including mass shootings.
The argument that more guns leads to less gun violence is so self serving it’s despicable.