To the Editor:
This is in response to U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly's opinion piece titled "Stem Gun Violence Epidemic" (The Connection, June 22-28).
It frustrates me that so many anti-gun people, including U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine and, most recently, Representative Connolly in his editorial in the Connection, simply do not understand history. Specifically, they either ignore, are ignorant of, or simply don't grasp the truth behind the Founders' intent when they wrote the Second Amendment (2A). Mr. Connolly's observation that "certainly our Founding Fathers did not envision AR-15 semi-automatic rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment" demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the intent of the 2A. That the Founders didn't have the AR-15 in mind when they wrote the 2A may be true, but it's also totally not relevant to what they did have in mind.
What Democrats and anti-rights [advocates] want is to ban all effective weapons in American hands. Without realizing it (maybe), they pursue and promote Marxist goals of making the public subservient to the government boot. That is the exact opposite of why the 2A is in the Constitution in the first place: it is there to balance federal power.
Ever since the so-called Gun Control Act of 1968, when officials could get all the machine guns they wanted, but you and I could only get single-shot rifles like the AR-15, we have been sub-armed. The balance of power flipped decisively to government. Ours fire only one shot at a time, and are all we have left. Antis think they’re assault weapon machine guns, but they took those from us back in 1968.
Then they yell at the NRA for blocking “reasonable common sense bills.” They are nothing of the sort. Banning the AR-15 — the finest defensive rifle made in America, the choice of police who are otherwise outgunned against exactly the same criminals common civilians face — would have no effect against jihadis.
If Americans are sub-armed, limited to bolt-action wood guns, or some other total infringement that leaves America in a completely unbalanced state, the shining light of freedom will have been extinguished. The jihadis will have won. With asymmetrical warfare underway, we should be teaching Americans how to shoot, and arming them better, not passing laws to infringe their gun rights.
The founders were not thinking of muskets and blunderbusses when they crafted the 2A. They said the right to bear "arms" shall not be infringed. "Arms" is a very broad term, deliberately used because they felt the citizenry necessarily must be on equal footing with the government when the need to resist tyranny arises. … Stated simplistically, if the government has howitzers, so, too, should the citizenry have howitzers. ...
Additionally, the founders and framers idea of “well-regulated” had nothing to do with government restrictions on gun ownership (hence the very clear declaration, “Shall Not Be Infringed,” at the end of the 2A) or the government’s ability to monitor gun owners, but instead had to do with a militia of civilians being well-trained and self-sufficient. (Recall that George Mason stated, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”) The 2A’s purpose is to protect a free State from government tyranny. The gross misreading that government is supposed to regulate the Second Amendment is like suggesting a burglar ought to have the security code to one’s home alarm system. It’s ridiculous.
Aside from the government, if a violent armed criminal threatens me, my family, and my home, it stands to reason that I should have at my disposal the same level of defensive means that he/she/they has/have at their disposal for offensive means. (Don't think of flintlock muskets!) Targets of violent criminals are entitled to be on equal arms footing if they are to survive. Now that's "common sense!"
Paul Carlock
Fairfax Station