My capitalization and choice of words is always intentional and you will learn why if you follow me.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America states:
“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.” [i]
This concise yet profound statement has been the subject of extensive debate, particularly concerning the extent of federal authority to regulate firearms.
āfirearmsā is a creation of corporate statutes. The constitution says āArmsā. You always have the right to bear āArmsā.
The Second Amendment was designed to prevent government infringement on the right to bear arms, and its importance has only grown as modern debates over self-defense, government overreach, and crime continue.
We will explore the historical importance of the Second Amendment, real-world self-defense cases, the fallacy of gun-free zones, and the constitutional arguments that reaffirm gun rights.
II. Historical Context of the Second Amendment
A. English Common Law and the English Bill of Rights
The origins of the Second Amendment can be traced back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 [ii], which codified the right of English subjects to possess arms for their defense. This right was seen as fundamental, allowing citizens to protect themselves against both external threats and potential tyranny from their own government.
B. Colonial America and the Militia Tradition
In colonial America, the concept of a militia composed of ordinary citizens was integral to defense and law enforcement. Militias were not only a means of protection against external threats but also a safeguard against potential government overreach. The framers believed that an armed populace was essential for maintaining the balance of power between the state and its citizens.
C. Founders’ Writings on Ownership of Arms
Key figures such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson emphasized the importance of an armed citizenry. Madison, in The Federalist Papers, argued that “the advantage of being armed” was unique to Americans and served as a check against potential governmental tyranny [iii]. Jefferson wrote, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” [iv]. George Washington said, āA free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined.ā [v]
D. Lessons from History: Disarmament and Tyranny
There are multiple historical examples where disarmament preceded oppression and genocide:
ā¢ Nazi Germany (1938): The Nazi regime imposed strict gun control laws, disarming Jews and political opponents, which facilitated their persecution. [vi]
ā¢ Soviet Union (1929): Joseph Stalin implemented firearm registration, which enabled state control over armed resistance, leading to purges and state violence. [vii]
ā¢ Cambodia (1975-1979): The Khmer Rouge disarmed civilians before conducting mass genocides. [viii]
ā¢ Venezuela (2012): A nationwide disarmament law left civilians defenseless as the Maduro regime cracked down on dissent. [ix]
ā¢ Turkey (1911-1915): The Ottoman Empire disarmed Armenians before committing the Armenian Genocide. [x]
ā¢ China (1949): The Communist Party under Mao Zedong imposed gun bans that made it easier to control and suppress opposition. [xi] 40 to 80 million people died under MAOās rule.
ā¢ Uganda (1970s): The regime of Idi Amin confiscated firearms from civilians, leading to mass killings of those who could not defend themselves. [xii]
ā¢ Rwanda (1994): Gun confiscation left ethnic groups defenseless before the genocide that killed nearly a million people. [xiii]
ā¢ Afghanistan (1978-1992): Civilian disarmament under Soviet influence left resistance fighters scrambling for weapons when fighting back against oppressive rule. [xiv]
ā¢ Myanmar (2021): The military junta cracked down on civilian gun ownership, making resistance against state-sponsored violence nearly impossible. [xv]
ā¢ Bosnia (1992-1995): Civilians were left defenseless against ethnic cleansing when they were forcibly disarmed before the Yugoslav Wars. [xvi]
ā¢ Poland (1939-1945): Firearm confiscation under Nazi and Soviet occupation left Polish resistance fighters struggling to arm themselves. [xvii]
III. The Core Purposes of the Second Amendment
A. Defense Against Tyranny
The framers were acutely aware of the dangers posed by a centralized authority. They believed that an armed populace was a safeguard against potential government overreach. [xviii] The right to bear arms ensures that citizens can resist dictatorship, state oppression, and political violence.
B. Self-Defense in the Home
The right to protect oneself and one’s family is fundamental. The Second Amendment ensures that individuals can defend their homes against intrusions, recognizing the limitations of relying solely on law enforcement for immediate protection. The Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) reaffirmed the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense within the home. [xix]
Real-World Cases of Armed Self-Defense
ā¢ Texas (2021): A homeowner shot and killed an armed intruder attempting to break into his house, preventing a likely violent crime. [xx]
ā¢ Oklahoma (2012): A teenage widow, left alone with her baby, used a shotgun to stop an armed intruder. [xxi]
ā¢ Georgia (2019): A woman in her home shot an armed burglar who was trying to enter through a window. [xxii]
ā¢ Florida (2020): A father used his legally owned firearm to stop a home invasion, protecting his family. [xxiii]
ā¢ Missouri (2021): A woman defended herself from a stalker who broke into her home. [xxiv]
ā¢ Alaska (2022): A homeowner stopped a bear attack with a legally owned rifle. [xxv]
ā¢ Washington, D.C. (2022): DC woman defends herself against armed carjacker. [xxvi]
ā¢ Nevada (2023): A concealed carrier stopped a mall shooting by neutralizing the suspect before police arrived. [xxvii]
ā¢ California (2023): A homeowner stopped a violent burglary by using his arm to protect his family. [xxviii]
C. Defense Against Mobs ā Armed or Not
During periods of civil unrest, arms have allowed business owners and civilians to protect their property.
ā¢ 1992 Los Angeles Riots: Armed Korean store owners defended their businesses when law enforcement failed. [xxix]
ā¢ Kenosha, WI (2020): Armed citizens prevented widespread looting and arson. [xxx]
D. Defense in Public Spaces
The right to carry firearms in public extends the principle of self-defense beyond the home. Armed citizens have, in various instances, intervened to stop mass shootings, demonstrating the practical benefits of this right.
ā¢ Sutherland Springs, Texas (2017): An armed civilian stopped a church shooter before more lives were lost. [xxxi]
ā¢ West Virginia (2022): A woman with a concealed carry permit stopped a mass shooter in a crowd. [xxxii]
ā¢ Greenwood Park Mall, Indiana (2022): A legally armed civilian neutralized a mass shooter within seconds, preventing further casualties. [xxxiii]
ā¢ Houston, Texas (2023): A restaurant patron legally carrying an arm stopped an attempted robbery before the suspect could harm customers. [xxxv]
IV. The Prevalence of Defensive Gun Uses
A. How Often Are Guns Used for Self-Defense?
Arms are used in self-defense far more frequently than many mainstream media sources acknowledge. According to a 2013 study commissioned by the CDC, guns are used defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times per year in the United States. [xxxvi] This means that lawful arm owners prevent violent crimes at a significantly higher rate than gun control advocates admit.
In addition to the CDC’s findings, the National Academies of Sciences reviewed multiple studies and concluded that defensive gun use is a major factor in deterring crime. Further research from John Lottās Crime Prevention Research Center supports these numbers, demonstrating that legally armed citizens frequently stop crimes before they escalate [xxxvii].
B. Examples of Unreported Defensive Gun Uses
Many defensive gun uses go unreported due to lack of media coverage or because no shots were fired. These cases demonstrate how armed citizens prevent crime on a daily basis:
ā¢ A woman in Detroit used her arm to scare off a potential carjacker before he could commit the crime.
ā¢ A store owner in Chicago pulled a gun on armed robbers, causing them to flee without incident.
ā¢ A man in California stopped a kidnapping attempt in a parking lot by brandishing his weapon, preventing harm without firing a shot.
ā¢ A security officer in Florida de-escalated a robbery with his arm, making the criminals surrender.
ā¢ A driver in Philadelphia deterred an armed carjacker by pulling out his own weapon, leading the suspect to flee.
ā¢ A homeowner in Nevada successfully defended his property from an intruder simply by presenting his arm without firing.
Studies from John Lottās Crime Prevention Research Center confirm that many of these incidents go unreported because the mere presence of a gun deters crime before escalation occurs.
C. International Comparisons
Countries withĀ high gun ownership see lower crime rates. This is a chart of Homicides per 100,000 and Number of Guns Owned per 100. The top chart consists of the 7 countries with the least recorded gun ownership sorted from least guns to most guns. And, the bottom chart consists of the 7 countries with the most recorded gun ownership sorted from most guns to least guns. The last field is the actual percentage of homicides for each country per 100,000 (of course, that means it is the nationās percentage as well).
DATA MAY VERY AS YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH. BUT VERY MUCH THE SAME RESULTS OCCUR.
It goes without saying that the countries with the most guns are far, far safer than those with the least. This does not even account for the fact that the countries with the least amount of gun ownership have no way to protect themselves from tyranny.
In examining the bottom chart, one notices that the united States of America republic, even though still a very low percentage, is higher than the other nations in the chart. A gun-control advocate, without giving any serious thought to the matter, would simple say, that there are too many guns and then push the country into a state of less gun ownershipā¦ which would end badly, with an even higher rate of gun homicides. You canāt buck the trends of humanity.
But, if one gives a little thought to the matter, it is easy to understand that America has serious cultural, political, and drug abuse problems. Our cities are among the largest and most of them have fallen prey to social programs that inhibit the ability of its people to escape poverty.
A socialist and communist mindset has taken over a large portion of the population. History has shown time and time again that when a nation moves away from morals and into secularism, all hell breaks loose. And so it is, here in the united States of America republic at this time.
When I speak of drug abuse, I speak of the insanely high percentage of the population that is on SSRIs and other neurological tampering drugs ā¦ drugs that haveĀ violent behaviorĀ andĀ suicideĀ as side-effects.
So there are many things that must be done, culturally, politically, and spiritually to correct the situation that we have here in America.
V. The Fallacy of Gun Control Arguments
Despite constant calls for gun control measures, history and statistics show that gun bans do not reduce crime.[xxxviii]
A. The Failing Argument for Gun-Free Zones
Data indicates that mass shootings often occur in designated gun-free zones, suggesting that such areas may inadvertently become targets for attackers who anticipate unarmed victims. There is debate as to the percentage of mass shooting in gun-free zones. But, this is in part, due to the FBI changing its definition of āmass shootingā several times in recent years.
B. The Ineffectiveness of “No Firearms” Signs
Posting signs prohibiting firearms does not deter criminals. Instead, these signs are advertisements for would-be criminals, as they know there will be a lack of armed resistance, inviting robbers and deranged mass murderers.
C. The Fallacy of “Common Sense” Gun Laws and Regulations
While termed “common sense,” many proposed gun control measures fail to address the root causes of violence and instead impose restrictions on law-abiding citizens. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had no measurable impact on violent crime rates, according to a Department of Justice study [xxxix]. Should you decide to read the report, you have to reallyread the report. It has a bias, but when you read and understand the words for what they are, you get the whole picture.
D. The Problem with Magazine Bans
Limiting magazine sizes to 10 roundsĀ does not prevent crime, as criminalsĀ carry multiple magazines. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens are left with fewer immediately available rounds for self-defense. Unlike TV and Hollywood depictions, an attacker doesnāt just fall over when they get shot. They continue shooting. And they will have maximum capacity magazines regardless of what the law says they can or canāt have. They are criminals after all!
The shooter is on adrenaline and even if shot in the heart will easily be able to unload an 18 round magazine into you before he finally falls over from lack of blood and oxygen. If you are limited to 10 rounds, then you would have to try to reload while a flail of bullets is still headed your way. The likely outcome!? ā¦ you die.
Further, if tyranny ever required the people to defend themselves against an active military, ā¦ or there is a terror attack with well armed terrorists, or there is a land invasion on the united States of America, and all you have is 10 round magazines against 30 and 60 round rifle magazinesā¦ wellā¦ again ā¦ you die.
E. The Reality of Background Checks
Most criminals obtain guns illegally and do not pass background checks. The 2016 Bureau of Justice Statisticsreport found that over 90% of firearm-related crimes were committed with guns obtained outside of legal channels.[xl]
F. The Myth of āAssault Weaponsā Bans
Despite the media’s demonization of semi-automatic rifles, the FBIās crime statistics show that handguns are used in crimes far more frequently than rifles. [xli]
VI. The Constitutional Argument for Unrestricted Gun Rights
A. The Two Clauses of the Second Amendment
The phrase “A well regulated Militia” has been interpreted to emphasize the necessity of a disciplined and prepared citizenry, while “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” underscores an individual’s right to possess arms.
B. Supreme Court Cases Upholding Gun Rights
ā¢ District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Established that individuals have the right to own firearms. [xlii]
ā¢ McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Prevented states from infringing on Second Amendment rights. [xliii]
ā¢ New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022): Reaffirmed the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. [xliv]
ā¢ United States v. Miller (1939): Reinforced the idea that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common use for lawful purposes. [xlv]
C. Arms Equivalent to Infantry ā The Intent of the Founders
The framers intended for citizens to have access to arms comparable to those used by contemporary military forces, ensuring a balance of power. This perspective challenges modern regulations that limit access to certain types of firearms. The logic behind this is clear: if only the government possesses effective weaponry, then citizens lack the means to check tyranny.
Alexander Hamilton writes, āIf the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government… The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” [xlvi]
While Hamilton does not explicitly state that the populace should be as well-armed as a tyrannical military, he implies that anĀ armed citizenry is essential for resisting governmental overreach. This perspective underscores the importance of the people’s ability to defend their liberties against potential tyranny. Quite obviously, if the people do not possess as many semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles as an infantry then it will not succeed at defeating tyranny.
D. No First and Fourth Amendment Protections Without the Second
The Second Amendment underpins other constitutional rights. A disarmed populace is more susceptible to violations of freedoms such as speech and privacy, as there is diminished capacity to resist authoritarian encroachments. Historically, governments that suppress free speech or unlawfully surveil their citizens often seek to disarm them first. [xlvii][xlviii]
VII. Conclusion
The Second Amendment remains an essential safeguard against government overreach, personal threats, and national security risks. The historical evidence of disarmament leading to oppression, combined with real-world examples of arms being used defensively, underscores its continued relevance. Despite calls for increased gun control, the overwhelming number of self-defense cases highlights the necessity of an armed populace in deterring crime and ensuring personal safety.
As debates over gun rights and regulations persist, it is imperative to acknowledge that the Founders envisioned the right to bear arms as a fundamental element of a free society. Upholding this right ensures that Americans retain the ability to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from both immediate and long-term threats. Ensuring that this right remains uninfringed is not merely about personal defenseāit is about preserving the very freedoms upon which the united States of America republic was built.
FOLLOW ME! Join “my” Private Member Association called “Garās Worldā and support my endeavors. I am happy to provide information and insight.
You “are” welcomed here! Iāll provide lots of awesome music, photography, art, media, commentary, and āinformation on the stark truth of our world’s state of being, morals, ethics, political and economic realitiesā. All one has to do is have the time to sit back, be still, and watch what is happening.
I have been blessed to have that opportunity to not be overburdened with the rat race where no one can really look at the big picture because they are just trying to get by, pay the rent or mortgage, tend to the family, and try to have time to just sit and watch a football game and release tension.
It’s no wonder that those we place in charge are so abusive. They get paid no matter what… they aren’t worried about the next meal… They take advantage of their situations and rake in millions by answering to a cabal that doesn’t give a rats ass about you and I.
Well… my friends…. it is long past time that we get fully involved in our government and take charge again. Not just in the states, but all over the world. It is time for the united States of America to be a shining beacon of liberty once again, to motivate the rest of the world to follow suit so that the world can live in liberty… probably for the first time in recorded history.
[ix]“Venezuelaās 2012 Disarmament Law restricted civilian firearm ownership, leaving the population defenseless as the Maduro regime intensified crackdowns on dissent.”(BBC News)
[x]“The Ottoman Empire disarmed Armenian civilians between 1911 and 1915, facilitating mass arrests and the Armenian Genocide.”(Armenian National Institute)
[xiii]“Prior to the 1994 genocide, the Rwandan government restricted civilian firearm ownership, leaving targeted ethnic groups defenseless.”(Human Rights Watch)
[xv]“In 2021, Myanmarās military junta intensified firearm restrictions, making civilian resistance against state-sponsored violence nearly impossible.”(Amnesty International)
[xvi]“Between 1992 and 1995, Bosnian civilians were forcibly disarmed before the Yugoslav Wars, leaving them defenseless against ethnic cleansing.”(United Nations ICTY Archives)
[xvii]“Between 1939 and 1945, Nazi and Soviet occupations of Poland involved widespread firearm confiscation, forcing Polish resistance fighters to struggle for arms.”(U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum)
[xix]“In District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense within the home.”(Cornell Law)
[xx]“In 2021, a Texas homeowner shot and killed an armed intruder attempting to break into his house, preventing a likely violent crime.”(Click2Houston)
[xxi]“In 2012, Oklahoma teenager Sarah McKinley, left alone with her baby after her husband’s death, used a shotgun to fatally shoot an armed intruder who broke into her home.”(ABC News)
[xxii]“In 2019, a Georgia woman shot and killed an armed intruder attempting to break into her apartment.”(WSB-TV)
[xxiii]“In 2020, a Florida father used his legally owned firearm to stop a home invasion, protecting his family.”(Heritage Foundation)
[xxiv]“In 2021, a Missouri woman defended herself by shooting a stalker who broke into her home.”(KRON4 News)
[xxv]“In 2022, a retired Coast Guardsman on Kodiak Island, Alaska, used a shotgun to kill a Kodiak bear that had entered his neighbor’s home.”(Coffee or Die Magazine)
[xxvi]āDC woman defends herself against armed carjackerāFOX5-DC
[xxvii]“In June 2023, an armed employee at Turnberry Towers in Las Vegas, Nevada, intervened to stop a gunman who had opened fire in the building’s lobby, preventing further violence.”(Heritage Foundation)
[xxviii] āHomeowner pulls gun on armed intruders, forcing them to fleeā WSAZ3
[xxix]āThe LA riots were a rude awakening for Korean-AmericansāCNN-US
[xxx]āVideo Shows Armed Residents Protecting Local Businesses From Rioters in Kenosha, WIāNEWSWEEK-US
[xxxi] āThe Hero of the Sutherland Springs Shooting Is Still Reckoning With What Happened That Dayā TEXAS-MONTHLY
[xxxii] āRep. Massie says ‘good guys’ with guns stopping ‘bad guys’ is ‘inconvenient truth’ for Demsā FOX NEWS
[xxxiii] āWhat we know about the armed bystander who killed the shooter at an Indiana mallā CNN-US ; āArmed civilian who stopped Greenwood Mall shooter named Citizen of the Yearā WRTV ABC ; āGreenwood Park Mall mass shooting: 1 year laterā WTHR CBS
[xxxv]āA diner shot a robber in a Texas taqueria and returned his fellow customers’ moneyā USA TODAY
[xxxvi]Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence – āAlmost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)ā NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS DC
[xxxvii] āBlog posts related to the many defensive gun uses.āCPRC BLOG
[xxxviii] Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, has conducted extensive research on the relationship between gun control laws and violent crime rates. In a 1993 study titled “The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates,” published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Kleck and his co-author, E. Britt Patterson, analyzed various gun control measures and their effects on different types of violence across U.S. cities. They concluded that gun control laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates. SPRINGER NATURE LINK
Additionally, in his 1997 book Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Kleck further examined the efficacy of gun control measures and found that most such laws had little to no impact on reducing gun violence. He argued that factors such as the prevalence of gun ownership did not have a straightforward relationship with crime rates. Please note that access to the full text may require institutional permissions or purchase.
[xxxix] Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, āThe ban failed to reduce the average number of vicims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.āNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
[xli] According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data, handguns are used in crimes far more frequently than rifles. For instance, in 2019, there were 6,368 homicides committed with handguns, compared to 364 with rifles. This data is detailed in the FBI’s Expanded Homicide Data Table 8. FBI UCR
Similarly, a 2023 report by the Pew Research Center highlighted that in 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters, while rifles accounted for 3%. PEWRESEARCH
These statistics illustrate that handguns are significantly more commonly used in crimes than rifles.
[xlvii] Following the Civil War, Southern states enacted “Black Codes” to suppress the rights of newly freed African Americans. These laws often included provisions that prohibited Black individuals from possessing firearms (2nd Amendment). The disarmament made Black communities more vulnerable to violations of their rights to free assembly (1st Amendment) and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment), as they lacked the means to defend themselves against groups like the Ku Klux Klan. āRacist Gun Laws and the Second AmendmentāHARVARD LAW REVIEW
[xlviii]United States v. Cruikshank (1876) CONSTITUTIONAL LAWThis Supreme Court case arose from the Colfax Massacre, where a white mob attacked and killed numerous African Americans. The federal charges included allegations of infringing upon the victims’ First Amendment right to assemble and their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court’s decision limited federal enforcement of these rights, effectively leaving African Americans disarmed and more susceptible to further violations, including unlawful searches (4th Amendment) and suppression of free speech (1st Amendment).
The Truth About the Second Amendment: History, Self-Defense, and the Dangers of Disarmament
I. Introduction
My capitalization and choice of words is always intentional and you will learn why if you follow me.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America states:
“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.” [i]
This concise yet profound statement has been the subject of extensive debate, particularly concerning the extent of federal authority to regulate firearms.
āfirearmsā is a creation of corporate statutes. The constitution says āArmsā. You always have the right to bear āArmsā.
The Second Amendment was designed to prevent government infringement on the right to bear arms, and its importance has only grown as modern debates over self-defense, government overreach, and crime continue.
We will explore the historical importance of the Second Amendment, real-world self-defense cases, the fallacy of gun-free zones, and the constitutional arguments that reaffirm gun rights.
II. Historical Context of the Second Amendment
A. English Common Law and the English Bill of Rights
The origins of the Second Amendment can be traced back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 [ii], which codified the right of English subjects to possess arms for their defense. This right was seen as fundamental, allowing citizens to protect themselves against both external threats and potential tyranny from their own government.
B. Colonial America and the Militia Tradition
In colonial America, the concept of a militia composed of ordinary citizens was integral to defense and law enforcement. Militias were not only a means of protection against external threats but also a safeguard against potential government overreach. The framers believed that an armed populace was essential for maintaining the balance of power between the state and its citizens.
C. Founders’ Writings on Ownership of Arms
Key figures such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson emphasized the importance of an armed citizenry. Madison, in The Federalist Papers, argued that “the advantage of being armed” was unique to Americans and served as a check against potential governmental tyranny [iii]. Jefferson wrote, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” [iv]. George Washington said, āA free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined.ā [v]
D. Lessons from History: Disarmament and Tyranny
There are multiple historical examples where disarmament preceded oppression and genocide:
ā¢ Nazi Germany (1938): The Nazi regime imposed strict gun control laws, disarming Jews and political opponents, which facilitated their persecution. [vi]
ā¢ Soviet Union (1929): Joseph Stalin implemented firearm registration, which enabled state control over armed resistance, leading to purges and state violence. [vii]
ā¢ Cambodia (1975-1979): The Khmer Rouge disarmed civilians before conducting mass genocides. [viii]
ā¢ Venezuela (2012): A nationwide disarmament law left civilians defenseless as the Maduro regime cracked down on dissent. [ix]
ā¢ Turkey (1911-1915): The Ottoman Empire disarmed Armenians before committing the Armenian Genocide. [x]
ā¢ China (1949): The Communist Party under Mao Zedong imposed gun bans that made it easier to control and suppress opposition. [xi] 40 to 80 million people died under MAOās rule.
ā¢ Uganda (1970s): The regime of Idi Amin confiscated firearms from civilians, leading to mass killings of those who could not defend themselves. [xii]
ā¢ Rwanda (1994): Gun confiscation left ethnic groups defenseless before the genocide that killed nearly a million people. [xiii]
ā¢ Afghanistan (1978-1992): Civilian disarmament under Soviet influence left resistance fighters scrambling for weapons when fighting back against oppressive rule. [xiv]
ā¢ Myanmar (2021): The military junta cracked down on civilian gun ownership, making resistance against state-sponsored violence nearly impossible. [xv]
ā¢ Bosnia (1992-1995): Civilians were left defenseless against ethnic cleansing when they were forcibly disarmed before the Yugoslav Wars. [xvi]
ā¢ Poland (1939-1945): Firearm confiscation under Nazi and Soviet occupation left Polish resistance fighters struggling to arm themselves. [xvii]
III. The Core Purposes of the Second Amendment
A. Defense Against Tyranny
The framers were acutely aware of the dangers posed by a centralized authority. They believed that an armed populace was a safeguard against potential government overreach. [xviii] The right to bear arms ensures that citizens can resist dictatorship, state oppression, and political violence.
B. Self-Defense in the Home
The right to protect oneself and one’s family is fundamental. The Second Amendment ensures that individuals can defend their homes against intrusions, recognizing the limitations of relying solely on law enforcement for immediate protection. The Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) reaffirmed the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense within the home. [xix]
Real-World Cases of Armed Self-Defense
ā¢ Texas (2021): A homeowner shot and killed an armed intruder attempting to break into his house, preventing a likely violent crime. [xx]
ā¢ Oklahoma (2012): A teenage widow, left alone with her baby, used a shotgun to stop an armed intruder. [xxi]
ā¢ Georgia (2019): A woman in her home shot an armed burglar who was trying to enter through a window. [xxii]
ā¢ Florida (2020): A father used his legally owned firearm to stop a home invasion, protecting his family. [xxiii]
ā¢ Missouri (2021): A woman defended herself from a stalker who broke into her home. [xxiv]
ā¢ Alaska (2022): A homeowner stopped a bear attack with a legally owned rifle. [xxv]
ā¢ Washington, D.C. (2022): DC woman defends herself against armed carjacker. [xxvi]
ā¢ Nevada (2023): A concealed carrier stopped a mall shooting by neutralizing the suspect before police arrived. [xxvii]
ā¢ California (2023): A homeowner stopped a violent burglary by using his arm to protect his family. [xxviii]
C. Defense Against Mobs ā Armed or Not
During periods of civil unrest, arms have allowed business owners and civilians to protect their property.
ā¢ 1992 Los Angeles Riots: Armed Korean store owners defended their businesses when law enforcement failed. [xxix]
ā¢ Kenosha, WI (2020): Armed citizens prevented widespread looting and arson. [xxx]
D. Defense in Public Spaces
The right to carry firearms in public extends the principle of self-defense beyond the home. Armed citizens have, in various instances, intervened to stop mass shootings, demonstrating the practical benefits of this right.
ā¢ Sutherland Springs, Texas (2017): An armed civilian stopped a church shooter before more lives were lost. [xxxi]
ā¢ West Virginia (2022): A woman with a concealed carry permit stopped a mass shooter in a crowd. [xxxii]
ā¢ Greenwood Park Mall, Indiana (2022): A legally armed civilian neutralized a mass shooter within seconds, preventing further casualties. [xxxiii]
ā¢ Washington, D.C. (2023): Concealed Carry Holder Ends Violent Carjacking Attempt. [xxxiv]
ā¢ Houston, Texas (2023): A restaurant patron legally carrying an arm stopped an attempted robbery before the suspect could harm customers. [xxxv]
IV. The Prevalence of Defensive Gun Uses
A. How Often Are Guns Used for Self-Defense?
Arms are used in self-defense far more frequently than many mainstream media sources acknowledge. According to a 2013 study commissioned by the CDC, guns are used defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times per year in the United States. [xxxvi] This means that lawful arm owners prevent violent crimes at a significantly higher rate than gun control advocates admit.
In addition to the CDC’s findings, the National Academies of Sciences reviewed multiple studies and concluded that defensive gun use is a major factor in deterring crime. Further research from John Lottās Crime Prevention Research Center supports these numbers, demonstrating that legally armed citizens frequently stop crimes before they escalate [xxxvii].
B. Examples of Unreported Defensive Gun Uses
Many defensive gun uses go unreported due to lack of media coverage or because no shots were fired. These cases demonstrate how armed citizens prevent crime on a daily basis:
ā¢ A woman in Detroit used her arm to scare off a potential carjacker before he could commit the crime.
ā¢ A store owner in Chicago pulled a gun on armed robbers, causing them to flee without incident.
ā¢ A man in California stopped a kidnapping attempt in a parking lot by brandishing his weapon, preventing harm without firing a shot.
ā¢ A security officer in Florida de-escalated a robbery with his arm, making the criminals surrender.
ā¢ A driver in Philadelphia deterred an armed carjacker by pulling out his own weapon, leading the suspect to flee.
ā¢ A homeowner in Nevada successfully defended his property from an intruder simply by presenting his arm without firing.
Studies from John Lottās Crime Prevention Research Center confirm that many of these incidents go unreported because the mere presence of a gun deters crime before escalation occurs.
C. International Comparisons
Countries withĀ high gun ownership see lower crime rates. This is a chart of Homicides per 100,000 and Number of Guns Owned per 100. The top chart consists of the 7 countries with the least recorded gun ownership sorted from least guns to most guns. And, the bottom chart consists of the 7 countries with the most recorded gun ownership sorted from most guns to least guns. The last field is the actual percentage of homicides for each country per 100,000 (of course, that means it is the nationās percentage as well).
DATA MAY VERY AS YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH. BUT VERY MUCH THE SAME RESULTS OCCUR.
It goes without saying that the countries with the most guns are far, far safer than those with the least. This does not even account for the fact that the countries with the least amount of gun ownership have no way to protect themselves from tyranny.
In examining the bottom chart, one notices that the united States of America republic, even though still a very low percentage, is higher than the other nations in the chart. A gun-control advocate, without giving any serious thought to the matter, would simple say, that there are too many guns and then push the country into a state of less gun ownershipā¦ which would end badly, with an even higher rate of gun homicides. You canāt buck the trends of humanity.
But, if one gives a little thought to the matter, it is easy to understand that America has serious cultural, political, and drug abuse problems. Our cities are among the largest and most of them have fallen prey to social programs that inhibit the ability of its people to escape poverty.
A socialist and communist mindset has taken over a large portion of the population. History has shown time and time again that when a nation moves away from morals and into secularism, all hell breaks loose. And so it is, here in the united States of America republic at this time.
When I speak of drug abuse, I speak of the insanely high percentage of the population that is on SSRIs and other neurological tampering drugs ā¦ drugs that haveĀ violent behaviorĀ andĀ suicideĀ as side-effects.
So there are many things that must be done, culturally, politically, and spiritually to correct the situation that we have here in America.
V. The Fallacy of Gun Control Arguments
Despite constant calls for gun control measures, history and statistics show that gun bans do not reduce crime. [xxxviii]
A. The Failing Argument for Gun-Free Zones
Data indicates that mass shootings often occur in designated gun-free zones, suggesting that such areas may inadvertently become targets for attackers who anticipate unarmed victims. There is debate as to the percentage of mass shooting in gun-free zones. But, this is in part, due to the FBI changing its definition of āmass shootingā several times in recent years.
B. The Ineffectiveness of “No Firearms” Signs
Posting signs prohibiting firearms does not deter criminals. Instead, these signs are advertisements for would-be criminals, as they know there will be a lack of armed resistance, inviting robbers and deranged mass murderers.
C. The Fallacy of “Common Sense” Gun Laws and Regulations
While termed “common sense,” many proposed gun control measures fail to address the root causes of violence and instead impose restrictions on law-abiding citizens. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had no measurable impact on violent crime rates, according to a Department of Justice study [xxxix]. Should you decide to read the report, you have to really read the report. It has a bias, but when you read and understand the words for what they are, you get the whole picture.
D. The Problem with Magazine Bans
Limiting magazine sizes to 10 roundsĀ does not prevent crime, as criminalsĀ carry multiple magazines. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens are left with fewer immediately available rounds for self-defense. Unlike TV and Hollywood depictions, an attacker doesnāt just fall over when they get shot. They continue shooting. And they will have maximum capacity magazines regardless of what the law says they can or canāt have. They are criminals after all!
The shooter is on adrenaline and even if shot in the heart will easily be able to unload an 18 round magazine into you before he finally falls over from lack of blood and oxygen. If you are limited to 10 rounds, then you would have to try to reload while a flail of bullets is still headed your way. The likely outcome!? ā¦ you die.
Further, if tyranny ever required the people to defend themselves against an active military, ā¦ or there is a terror attack with well armed terrorists, or there is a land invasion on the united States of America, and all you have is 10 round magazines against 30 and 60 round rifle magazinesā¦ wellā¦ again ā¦ you die.
E. The Reality of Background Checks
Most criminals obtain guns illegally and do not pass background checks. The 2016 Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that over 90% of firearm-related crimes were committed with guns obtained outside of legal channels. [xl]
F. The Myth of āAssault Weaponsā Bans
Despite the media’s demonization of semi-automatic rifles, the FBIās crime statistics show that handguns are used in crimes far more frequently than rifles. [xli]
VI. The Constitutional Argument for Unrestricted Gun Rights
A. The Two Clauses of the Second Amendment
The phrase “A well regulated Militia” has been interpreted to emphasize the necessity of a disciplined and prepared citizenry, while “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” underscores an individual’s right to possess arms.
B. Supreme Court Cases Upholding Gun Rights
ā¢ District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Established that individuals have the right to own firearms. [xlii]
ā¢ McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Prevented states from infringing on Second Amendment rights. [xliii]
ā¢ New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022): Reaffirmed the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. [xliv]
ā¢ United States v. Miller (1939): Reinforced the idea that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common use for lawful purposes. [xlv]
C. Arms Equivalent to Infantry ā The Intent of the Founders
The framers intended for citizens to have access to arms comparable to those used by contemporary military forces, ensuring a balance of power. This perspective challenges modern regulations that limit access to certain types of firearms. The logic behind this is clear: if only the government possesses effective weaponry, then citizens lack the means to check tyranny.
Alexander Hamilton writes, āIf the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government… The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” [xlvi]
While Hamilton does not explicitly state that the populace should be as well-armed as a tyrannical military, he implies that anĀ armed citizenry is essential for resisting governmental overreach. This perspective underscores the importance of the people’s ability to defend their liberties against potential tyranny. Quite obviously, if the people do not possess as many semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles as an infantry then it will not succeed at defeating tyranny.
D. No First and Fourth Amendment Protections Without the Second
The Second Amendment underpins other constitutional rights. A disarmed populace is more susceptible to violations of freedoms such as speech and privacy, as there is diminished capacity to resist authoritarian encroachments. Historically, governments that suppress free speech or unlawfully surveil their citizens often seek to disarm them first. [xlvii] [xlviii]
VII. Conclusion
The Second Amendment remains an essential safeguard against government overreach, personal threats, and national security risks. The historical evidence of disarmament leading to oppression, combined with real-world examples of arms being used defensively, underscores its continued relevance. Despite calls for increased gun control, the overwhelming number of self-defense cases highlights the necessity of an armed populace in deterring crime and ensuring personal safety.
As debates over gun rights and regulations persist, it is imperative to acknowledge that the Founders envisioned the right to bear arms as a fundamental element of a free society. Upholding this right ensures that Americans retain the ability to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from both immediate and long-term threats. Ensuring that this right remains uninfringed is not merely about personal defenseāit is about preserving the very freedoms upon which the united States of America republic was built.
Hashtags
#SecondAmendment #GunRights #SelfDefense #2A #ShallNotBeInfringed #GunControl #Freedom #RightToBearArms #Liberty #Constitution #GunFreeZones #Tyranny #Crime #Patriot #AmericaFirst
FOLLOW ME! Join “my” Private Member Association called “Garās Worldā and support my endeavors. I am happy to provide information and insight.
You “are” welcomed here! Iāll provide lots of awesome music, photography, art, media, commentary, and āinformation on the stark truth of our world’s state of being, morals, ethics, political and economic realitiesā. All one has to do is have the time to sit back, be still, and watch what is happening.
I have been blessed to have that opportunity to not be overburdened with the rat race where no one can really look at the big picture because they are just trying to get by, pay the rent or mortgage, tend to the family, and try to have time to just sit and watch a football game and release tension.
It’s no wonder that those we place in charge are so abusive. They get paid no matter what… they aren’t worried about the next meal… They take advantage of their situations and rake in millions by answering to a cabal that doesn’t give a rats ass about you and I.
Well… my friends…. it is long past time that we get fully involved in our government and take charge again. Not just in the states, but all over the world. It is time for the united States of America to be a shining beacon of liberty once again, to motivate the rest of the world to follow suit so that the world can live in liberty… probably for the first time in recorded history.
ENDNOTES
[i] “Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights (1791).”(National Archives)
[ii] “English Bill of Rights (1689), (UK Parliament Archives)
[iii] “James Madison, The Federalist No. 46(1788), (Congress.gov)
[iv] “Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Virginia Constitution (June 1776).”(National Archives)
[v] “George Washington, First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790.”(Library of Congress)
[vi] “Nazi Germanyās 1938 Gun Control Laws restricted firearm ownership for Jews and political opponents, facilitating their persecution.”(Halbrook, Stephen P. Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”, 2013)
[vii] “In 1929, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin implemented strict firearm registration, enabling state control over armed resistance and facilitating purges.”(Halbrook, Stephen P. Gun Control in the Third Reich and Soviet Russia, 2014)
[viii] “The Khmer Rouge regime (1975-1979) disarmed civilians, leaving them defenseless before orchestrating mass genocides.”(Cambodian Genocide Program, Yale University)
[ix] “Venezuelaās 2012 Disarmament Law restricted civilian firearm ownership, leaving the population defenseless as the Maduro regime intensified crackdowns on dissent.”(BBC News)
[x] “The Ottoman Empire disarmed Armenian civilians between 1911 and 1915, facilitating mass arrests and the Armenian Genocide.”(Armenian National Institute)
[xi] “In 1949, the Communist Party under Mao Zedong implemented strict gun bans, aiding in the suppression of political opposition.”(Chang, Jung & Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story, 2005)
[xii] “During the 1970s, Idi Aminās regime in Uganda confiscated civilian firearms, leaving targeted groups defenseless against mass killings.”(Kanya-Forstner, Michael. The Rise and Fall of Idi Amin, 1980)
[xiii] “Prior to the 1994 genocide, the Rwandan government restricted civilian firearm ownership, leaving targeted ethnic groups defenseless.”(Human Rights Watch)
[xiv] “Between 1978 and 1992, Soviet-backed Afghan regimes imposed civilian disarmament, forcing resistance fighters to seek alternative weapon sources against oppressive rule.”(Katz, Mark N. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, 1980)
[xv] “In 2021, Myanmarās military junta intensified firearm restrictions, making civilian resistance against state-sponsored violence nearly impossible.”(Amnesty International)
[xvi] “Between 1992 and 1995, Bosnian civilians were forcibly disarmed before the Yugoslav Wars, leaving them defenseless against ethnic cleansing.”(United Nations ICTY Archives)
[xvii] “Between 1939 and 1945, Nazi and Soviet occupations of Poland involved widespread firearm confiscation, forcing Polish resistance fighters to struggle for arms.”(U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum)
[xviii] “The framers recognized the dangers of centralized authority and viewed an armed populace as a safeguard against government overreach.”(The Federalist Papers No. 46, James Madison)
[xix] “In District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense within the home.”(Cornell Law)
[xx] “In 2021, a Texas homeowner shot and killed an armed intruder attempting to break into his house, preventing a likely violent crime.”(Click2Houston)
[xxi] “In 2012, Oklahoma teenager Sarah McKinley, left alone with her baby after her husband’s death, used a shotgun to fatally shoot an armed intruder who broke into her home.”(ABC News)
[xxii] “In 2019, a Georgia woman shot and killed an armed intruder attempting to break into her apartment.”(WSB-TV)
[xxiii] “In 2020, a Florida father used his legally owned firearm to stop a home invasion, protecting his family.”(Heritage Foundation)
[xxiv] “In 2021, a Missouri woman defended herself by shooting a stalker who broke into her home.”(KRON4 News)
[xxv] “In 2022, a retired Coast Guardsman on Kodiak Island, Alaska, used a shotgun to kill a Kodiak bear that had entered his neighbor’s home.”(Coffee or Die Magazine)
[xxvi] āDC woman defends herself against armed carjackerā FOX5-DC
[xxvii] “In June 2023, an armed employee at Turnberry Towers in Las Vegas, Nevada, intervened to stop a gunman who had opened fire in the building’s lobby, preventing further violence.”(Heritage Foundation)
[xxviii] āHomeowner pulls gun on armed intruders, forcing them to fleeā WSAZ3
[xxix] āThe LA riots were a rude awakening for Korean-Americansā CNN-US
[xxx] āVideo Shows Armed Residents Protecting Local Businesses From Rioters in Kenosha, WIā NEWSWEEK-US
[xxxi] āThe Hero of the Sutherland Springs Shooting Is Still Reckoning With What Happened That Dayā TEXAS-MONTHLY
[xxxii] āRep. Massie says ‘good guys’ with guns stopping ‘bad guys’ is ‘inconvenient truth’ for Demsā FOX NEWS
[xxxiii] āWhat we know about the armed bystander who killed the shooter at an Indiana mallā CNN-US ; āArmed civilian who stopped Greenwood Mall shooter named Citizen of the Yearā WRTV ABC ; āGreenwood Park Mall mass shooting: 1 year laterā WTHR CBS
[xxxiv] āConcealed Carry Holder Ends Violent Carjacking Attemptā COLION NOIR
[xxxv] āA diner shot a robber in a Texas taqueria and returned his fellow customers’ moneyā USA TODAY
[xxxvi] Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence – āAlmost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)ā NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS DC
[xxxvii] āBlog posts related to the many defensive gun uses.ā CPRC BLOG
[xxxviii] Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, has conducted extensive research on the relationship between gun control laws and violent crime rates. In a 1993 study titled “The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates,” published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Kleck and his co-author, E. Britt Patterson, analyzed various gun control measures and their effects on different types of violence across U.S. cities. They concluded that gun control laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates. SPRINGER NATURE LINK
Additionally, in his 1997 book Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Kleck further examined the efficacy of gun control measures and found that most such laws had little to no impact on reducing gun violence. He argued that factors such as the prevalence of gun ownership did not have a straightforward relationship with crime rates. Please note that access to the full text may require institutional permissions or purchase.
[xxxix] Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, āThe ban failed to reduce the average number of vicims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.ā NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
[xl] Criminal Victimization, 2016: Revised US DEPT OF JUSTICE
[xli] According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data, handguns are used in crimes far more frequently than rifles. For instance, in 2019, there were 6,368 homicides committed with handguns, compared to 364 with rifles. This data is detailed in the FBI’s Expanded Homicide Data Table 8. FBI UCR
Similarly, a 2023 report by the Pew Research Center highlighted that in 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters, while rifles accounted for 3%. PEWRESEARCH
These statistics illustrate that handguns are significantly more commonly used in crimes than rifles.
[xlii] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) JUSTIA US SUPREME COURT
[xliii] McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) JUSTIA US SUPREME COURT
[xliv] New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) JUSTIA US SUPREME COURT
[xlv] United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) JUSTIA US SUPREME COURT
[xlvi]Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 28, 178–79 PRESS PUBS UCHICAGO
[xlvii] Following the Civil War, Southern states enacted “Black Codes” to suppress the rights of newly freed African Americans. These laws often included provisions that prohibited Black individuals from possessing firearms (2nd Amendment). The disarmament made Black communities more vulnerable to violations of their rights to free assembly (1st Amendment) and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment), as they lacked the means to defend themselves against groups like the Ku Klux Klan. āRacist Gun Laws and the Second Amendmentā HARVARD LAW REVIEW
[xlviii] United States v. Cruikshank (1876) CONSTITUTIONAL LAWThis Supreme Court case arose from the Colfax Massacre, where a white mob attacked and killed numerous African Americans. The federal charges included allegations of infringing upon the victims’ First Amendment right to assemble and their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court’s decision limited federal enforcement of these rights, effectively leaving African Americans disarmed and more susceptible to further violations, including unlawful searches (4th Amendment) and suppression of free speech (1st Amendment).
FACEBOOK COMMENTS
composer
the world according to gar
COLLECTIONS
recent posts
tags
The Truth About the Second Amendment: History, Self-Defense, and the Dangers of Disarmament
The Climate Change Hoax: Exposing the Lies, Fearmongering, and Scientific Reality
BIG BROTHER: Iām in your Car!
14th Amendment is the Root of all Evil
USAID OFFICIALLY CONDEMNED
CATCH YOUR BREATH, CHUCKY