Although I am not a slavish worshipper at the altar of uncontrolled gun purchasing, I am getting a little disgusted with the slap-dash response from the media and government about taking away a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution.
I believe that “common sense” gun laws shouldn’t lead to an outright gun ban like Australia and Great Britain. Common sense gun laws mean that we don’t make it easy for people to buy fully automatic weapons; we make sure that mentally disturbed people can’t buy firearms and that open carry becomes the law of the land. Heinlein said it best, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
But, there is a dichotomy between the words and actions of the executive branch of the federal government when it comes to guns and gun rights. It appears to be within the bounds of the law for any federal agency to be armed to the teeth, but the voters should not be allowed to decide whether they can exercise their Constitutional right to own firearms.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has purchased $1.4 million worth of firearms over the last decade. You may be wondering what the EPA needs with one gun, let alone $1.4 million dollars’ worth of them. Unfortunately, you are not alone. The EPA is tasked with ensuring that the environment is being protected – sometimes from themselves – but no one actually thought that the EPA would be providing armed guards for protecting the spotted owl mating grounds. It appears that the federal organization has the weapons, ammo and vehicles to do just that.
I would like to point out that the EPA had purchases of “guns up to 300mm.” Metric to English measurements are easy with the internet, but it begs the question, why does the EPA need an 11.8-inch gun? The German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had smaller main batteries. The Navy hasn’t constructed anything with 11-inch guns in a hundred years, what does the EPA know that we don’t?
Here is the bottom line. The Second Amendment has been hashed out over and over by U.S. courts. Court cases have reached as high as the Supremes and, in the end, the Constitution’s meaning is as simple as it is written, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If you want to change the law, you have to change the Constitution. Three quarters of the states have to approve and then the Constitution gets changed. Until then, all the whining in the world for executive action on banning guns isn’t worth the electronic signal it is sent over.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.
Latest posts by Matt Towns (see all)
- Paying the Price – 7 September, 2016
- Are Navy Carriers Vulnerable? – 30 August, 2016
- USS Indianapolis: After 71 Years, Information is Still Emerging – 24 August, 2016