April 26, 2009

Letter to an Ignorant Hero

It is more than a little sad that a man like Mr. Crumbo put his life on the line in dangerous combat missions in the service of a Constitution and Bill of Rights he clearly knew nothing about.

As various other posters to the op-ed linked above have made clear, the 1994 "assault weapons" ban did not ban so much as ONE assault weapon or machine gun capable of firing one shot per trigger pull. It was, for all intents and purposes, a law to ban scary looking features on some firearms, and did not in any way affect their lethality or rate of fire.

The Second Amendment that Mr. Crumbo so clearly does not understand was not written to protect your hunting rights. It was written by a group of very wise men who had just watched a army comprised largely of civilian militiamen defeat one of the most formidable land armies on the planet. The Second Amendment was expressly written to protect the rights of following generations to own arms that would be suitable for them to use as militiamen if the need again arises, as it has repeatedly through American history, most recently (to my knowledge) in the Battle of Athens/McMinn County War in 1946.

The semi-automatic intermediate-caliber rifles that mimic the look and feel of today's modern military weapons, far from being something not protected by the Second Amendment, are the very weapons that should be most protected by a Right that ensures Americans never again need feel the boot of a tyrant on their necks. It is perhaps the Right most singularly responsible for ensuring that our United States boasts what may be the oldest continuously-functioning government on Earth.

The Second Amendment was never about home defense, or hunting, or target shooting. The clear purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to create a nation of riflemen, a citizenry armed with weapons suitable for use as a militiaman.

If former Navy SEAL Kim Crumbo is the weapons expert he claims to be, perhaps he can point out a civilian weapon more suitable for the militia use imagined by our Founding Fathers that the very semi-automatic rifles that he now says should be banned.

I thank Mr. Crumb for his service, and hope that he uses his retirement to educate himself about a Constitution he defended, but so clearly never understood.

(h/t NC Tea Party Revolution)

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 26, 2009 02:00 PM

"The clear purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to create a nation of riflemen, a citizenry armed with weapons suitable for use as a militiaman."

CY, the Second Amendment was written, (not created as that term often carries) to recognize that there is the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's it. Nothing more. It was written to reinforce a clear understanding that the government had no power to infringe on this right.

The reasons for the right are, for all intents and purposes are irrelevant, including recognition of the benefit that this right brings to the government and society in the form of having a well regulated militia available to tap if needed.

Posted by: Dusty at April 26, 2009 03:30 PM

I should clarify my previous comment. There are three reasons, if you will, that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Posted by: Dusty at April 26, 2009 03:35 PM

I always find it intersting that the 2nd Amendment was penned immediately after the Amendment regarding Freedom of Speech. I cannot help put personally think that protection of one Freedom might someday be dependent upon the second "right." Just a personal thought.

Posted by: Mike at April 26, 2009 05:48 PM

Crumbo is a long-time greenie activist and Sierra Clubber. It doesn't surprise me a bit that he supports the Left's position on this as he does on everything else.

Posted by: Tully at April 26, 2009 06:33 PM

IF... the basis for the 2nd amendment was to protect the right of the people to collectively defend themselves, then why are machine guns and bazookas and rocket launchers off limits? What good are hunting rifles against a modern armed army?

Posted by: steve sturm at April 27, 2009 11:21 AM

[Posted by steve sturm at April 27, 2009 11:21 AM]

Gee, I'd never considered the power of a moronic argument such as that one. I've changed my mind now.

Posted by: Dusty at April 27, 2009 03:17 PM