Writer clears up misconceptions concerning the Second Amendment

• Tweet
• 

Upon reading Mike Phillips’ letter to the editor in the April 23 issue of
CM LIFE, I found myself sighing yet again at another person who does not understand
the meaning of ‘militia,’ and who, therefore, sees fit to tell that I
have no rights under the Second Amendment.
Phillips arrogantly orders me to read it, as if he somehow understands it better
than anybody else. It is obvious that he has not read the Second Amendment, and
unfortunately, due to the wording that its composers chose, he misinterpreted
as many people do, the meaning of the word ‘militia’ as used in its
context. It says, “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms .
. .” [emphasis added].
May I remind the readers of this column that in 1787-92, after the war, when the
Second Amendment was drafted, there was no National Guard. There was only a ‘well-regulated
militia,’ comprised – as it was during the war – of volunteer farmers
and citizens using their personal firearms. It was merely a fact of life that
every man or boy who could walk and shoot a rifle not only had a self-won right
to do so, they were obliged to do so. It was – and still is – our duty.
Yes, times have changed, but not as much as we would like to think. At the risk
of sounding like an alarmist, there are still times when we must fight off tyranny
in some form or another, even in this day and age. It happens whether we notice
it or not. Those of us who adhere to the Second Amendment defend the rest of the
Bill of Rights, without even having to pick up a gun (thank God).
How is this, you ask? Well, if the government wants to take our guns away so badly,
why don’t they just do it? Because of a simple matter of odds; a few thousand
ATF agents are no match for several million American gun owners who wouldn’t
tolerate such an infringement upon what they feel is a sacred and hard won Bill
of Rights.
WE are the militia, not the National Guard, though granted, a few courts have
on occasion wrongfully ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect the people’s
right to bear arms. The National Guard is a state-controlled entity that basically
functions as the U.S. Army does, only at the state level; their commander in chief
is the governor, just as the president is the commander in chief of the federal
Armed Forces.
See why it doesn’t make sense to place the responsibility of your final line
of protection in the hands of the government? Not that I am anti-government, but
that would be like trusting the British soldiers to protect you from King George
III.
When I say we are the militia, I don’t necessarily mean the Michigan Militia,
who are a paramilitary organization, I mean every store clerk, mechanic, burger
flipper or student who may have a rifle, and who would rise to the occasion if
they saw the need to do so.
Thankfully, in 200 years this has not been necessary, which says something about
the effectiveness of the mere presence of the Second Amendment. Don’t be
mistaken, it has already been proved once in this country that a rag-tag band
of hunters and marksmen can prove themselves a worthy opponent to the world’s
mightiest army.
The other problem in Mike Phillips’ letter is that he states that our new
CCW law is based on John Lotts’ ‘flawed’ study about the effectiveness
of CCW. This is not wholly true even if it were flawed – our Michigan legislators
have looked extensively at the 31 (not 29) other CCW-legal states in the union
where actual results have been in existence for some time. If these results showed
murder and bloody mayhem, then I doubt Michigan would be looking into getting
a similar law for themselves. In fact, wouldn’t there be a massive abandonment
of the right to carry a handgun for protection? I should hope so, but there’s
not.
Mike Phillips has the same syndrome that most other anti-gun people have, and
that is to rely on quoting many statistics that they fail to list sources for.
This is a practice that I would hope should have been corrected by the time one
is studying at the university level.
He goes on to claim that many ‘experts’ have debunked the John Lott
study. If this is true, then why not explain how they did it, and who the ‘experts’
are so that we can follow along, instead of accepting hearsay.
He also states that handgun owners are more likely to have their gun used against
themselves, or to have some kid accidentally get shot with it than they are to
use it against criminal attack. Once again this is merely a statement which he
chooses not to provide any evidence for.
Adam Barrett is a Livonia sophomore and a member of Michigan Coalition of Responsible
Gun Owners. He can be reached for comment atBarre1ap@cmich.edu.