Necessary to the security of a free State
What's happening to our rights right under our noses
While everyone’s attention is distracted by the Hamas attacks on Israel, the many Trump indictments, the lack of a Speaker in the House, and a potential looming government shutdown (would that really be a bad thing?), our government is once again working on relieving us of our liberty and showing their disdain for the Constitution and its purpose. If you’re a firearm owner, you may have heard that Lake City, one of the most prolific manufacturers of ammunition both for military and civilian sales (a factory that has produced a lot of product for many well-known companies) has reportedly cancelled all commercial contracts. In other words, none of the ammunition coming off the lines at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant will make its way into the civilian market.
This may seem like no big deal. It’s one plant. It makes ammo for the military. With all of the munitions we’ve been shipping overseas, they just can’t keep up with demand. Nothing to see here. Except…
Last year the Biden administration had considered stopping LCAAP from loading rounds for civilians. Would it surprise anyone then if we were to find out that he finally made good on that promise? Biden has been pushing hard for gun control since long before he was sworn in as President. How much does he brag about his “assault rifle ban” from the Clinton era?
If the LCAAP news was happening in a vacuum, though it means roughly 30% less .223/5.56 (AR-15) ammo on the market, it might be considered nothing more than katzenjammer. Events like this, however, don’t take place in a void. Announced on October 16, Vista Outdoors, the parent company of ammo manufacturers Speer, CCI, Federal, and Remington has entered into a $1.9 billon deal to sell these brands to a Czechoslovakian company named CSG. The Biden administration has already placed restrictions on imports of arms and ammo from places like Russia (where a lot of AK-47 ammunition is manufactured). Would it be far fetched to believe that they would impose the same constraint on CSG? The people seem to think so as panic buying has already begun and prices, as they did with the Covid lockdowns, are already skyrocketing.
At the same time all of this is happening, the Supreme Court has (for now) upheld Biden’s new ATF rule redefining a firearm to include the unfinished receivers (also known as 80% receivers) used in making “ghost guns,” and requiring the same serialization and background checks for these receivers as for completed firearms.
Side note: the term “ghost gun” is nothing more than propaganda to make home-made firearms sound more scary because they don’t have serial numbers - prior to the (unconstitutional) Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms were not required to have serial numbers.
Let’s also not forget Biden’s recent formation of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, an agency overseen by Kamala Harris herself and staffed at the highest levels by anti-gun activists. It’s as if the gun control stars are finally aligning for those who would deprive Americans of their rights protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps you still question why this is such a big deal. No one needs to own “weapons of war,” right? And it’s not like you’re going to take on the government - they have
F-15s and nukes. So why go ballistic over these events?
Usually, when issues around this amendment arise, the focus ends up on the opening clause, “A well regulated Militia” or on the concluding clause, “shall not be infringed.” The second clause is often overlooked, and to our detriment, because this clause is “being necessary to the security of a free State.” The founding fathers believed a militia, not a standing army, was necessary for the people to remain free. This is why they placed so much importance on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” While politicians love to frame this in ways that it applies to target practice, hunting (how often has Biden lamented that if you need 30 rounds you shouldn’t be a hunter?), and even self defense, the issue was one of remaining free. The key purpose of this amendment was to ensure that, not only would America remain unshackled by a foreign force, but that the people would not succumb to tyranny from the federal government itself. To this end, in The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
“But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
The founding fathers believed the people should be armed and trained as well as any standing army (should there be a standing army - the Constitution does not actually provide for one because the founders believed a standing army to be an “engine of despotism”). Notice Hamilton’s statement that, should the government “form an army of any magnitude”, it could never be a threat to our rights if “there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.” If Hamilton expected the militia (we the people - all able-bodied men) to be equal in “discipline and the use of arms” to any standing army such that they could stand against such a military force, clearly Hamilton expected that same militia to be armed equally to that military force.
This is the essence of the Second Amendment, and this is why the government seeks continually ways it may circumvent the Constitution in order to impose unlawful restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. This is why we see the government forming individual “law enforcement” offices in so many bureaucratic agencies and purchasing weapons and ammo en masse to arm and train them. This is why, instead of outright illegally banning guns they seek to take the weapons off the market they feel to be the greatest threat. This is why they are seeking to drain the market of ammo available to the masses, or to make it prohibitively expensive.
Everywhere that the right to keep and bear arms has been eliminated, the government has become despotic and thousands, if not millions, have died. Governments are far more adept at mass killing than any individual or group could ever be. The founding fathers understood this danger and wanted us armed and able to protect ourselves, not just from everyday threats, but from that of an autocratic government. Our “best and brightest” believe otherwise. They fashion themselves “elite,” our betters, those who should rule rather than serve. This is why they want to disarm us and why we all need to stand up for our right to keep and bear arms - an armed populace is difficult to overthrow. This is why they view the Constitution with such disdain. This is why we the people need to know the Constitution well and to elect those who will honor their oaths of office to uphold and defend it. If we don’t, they will continue to assert unjust powers not only over, but against, we the people, and eventually, their efforts won’t be so Machiavellian - they will overtly exert their rule. We the people keeping and bearing arms is necessary to the security of a free America.
*A great article, from an American who was so formerly anti-gun that the author admits to having donated to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, discusses the benefits of keeping our right to keep and bear arms, and the cons of allowing the government to infringe on that right. The article can be found here: Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns. The author has a couple of other articles and a short e-book also defending the Second Amendment.