While guns and gun control have escaped the forefront of the media cycle these past couple of weeks, the issue will appear again. Last month, I published a breakdown of a few misconceptions or falsities about guns. I will address a couple more in this story.

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment almost always comes into play when gun control is discussed. It has been twisted, spliced, and misinterpreted by many on the left. For those who haven’t read the constitution, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

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.

This twenty-seven word sentence has been interpreted in many ways over the years. The most common misinterpretation, however, is that the Second Amendment only applies to the technology of the time and that ownership of assault rifles should not be protected under this amendment. Some say that the Second Amendment was written only with muskets in mind and argue that, because the founding fathers had no conception of the rifles we produce today, ownership of today’s rifles is not protected under the amendment. They also argue that the constitution is antiquated and that certain amendments, including the Second Amendment, must be amended or changed to reflect the technology of the time.

The founders drafted this document in the wake of the Revolutionary War and were wary of large governments — specifically those with a standing army.  While the Articles of Confederation intentionally omitted provisions for a standing army, the U.S. Constitution did not.  The Constitution included provisions for a standing army and a commander-in-chief, specifically because the Second Amendment would protect private gun ownership and allow for citizens to form militias for the preservation of liberty.

Some may say that the Second Amendment is antiquated and that it doesn’t reflect a shift in technology, but Dana Loesch argues otherwise in her book, Hands Off My Gun.  In the book, Loesch dedicates an entire chapter to discussing the founding fathers.  In it, she discusses the fact that there was plenty of firearm technology emerging before the Constitution was drafted.

“The patriots were armed from the start of the war with the British Brown Bess, which was the firearm of choice for the British Army.  In addition, the founders were familiar with weapons’s evolution and technological advancement.  In the time prior to the Revolution and during it, match-lit muskets progressed into matchlock muskets, which progressed into flintlocks,” Loesch said.  She then points to two guns: the first was the Puckle Gun, one of the first machine guns ever invented.  The Puckle Gun appeared around 1718, well before the Revolutionary War.  The second gun was the Belton Flintlock, one of the first “assault rifles,” utilizing a superposed loading mechanism that allowed the firearm to fire multiple shots without reloading.  This gun appeared before the Revolution as well.

The founders knew that technology would change because it was already changing when they wrote the Second Amendment.  It was written with the knowledge that technology would change.

Steven Crowder also provides a good breakdown of the Second Amendment in his video.

“Do it for the children!”

In quarrels over guns and gun control, this line often comes up: “We need gun control to save the children!” Sandy Hook and Columbine routinely surface as grim reminders of how guns produce horrible scenes of violence against young children.

Don’t get me wrong, what happened at Sandy Hook and Columbine is reprehensible and there’s a special place in hell for Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Adam Lanza; however, it’s unlikely gun control would have stopped these mass murders.

But what might stop these atrocities is this: get rid of gun-free zones at schools and allow teachers to carry inside the school, to protect the children.

Before everyone freaks out at the prospect of teachers having guns in schools, my proposition obviously comes with restrictions.

  • For a teacher to conceal and carry, he or she must go through rigorous firearm safety training, even more so than is required for a standard CCW license.
  • They must go through an active shooter course that teaches them how to respond properly in an active shooter situation.
  • Teachers must also go through extensive mental health exams and background checks.

If teachers are mentally sane, have no prior history of conviction, and are well-trained, then they should be allowed to defend themselves and their students from mass shooters.

Columbine survivor Evan Todd agrees with me.  In an open letter to Obama, Todd, who was wounded and rendered defenseless in the shooting, wrote the following:

“I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.  Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more.  These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.”

If we actually want to stop these macabre scenes of death on our streets and in our schools that plague our news cycle, then we should allow and encourage individuals, including teachers, to be armed and prepared.

Evil does not obey laws.