“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.”   Amendment II – Constitution of the United States of America

Just twenty-seven words in length, the Second Amendment to our nation’s Constitution simply and clearly states the the importance of both a well-regulated militia and an armed population in order to preserve and protect a free nation. Over the past few decades, and even more so under the current administration, these twenty-seven simple words have been subjected to a rigorous and ongoing assault. Under the guise of keeping the country safe by restricting or banning the citizenry’s right to own and bear a gun, elected and appointed officials in all branches of government and organizations devoted to assisting them have attempted to use examples of violent crime to twist and oppress the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Oppression: A Timeless Threat

This is not a new idea. In fact, the reason that the Second Amendment is worded to clearly and succinctly call for both a militia and an armed citizenry is the fact that the framers of the Constitution had already experienced the oppression of an over-reaching English government and they wanted to prevent this type of tyranny from happening again on American soil. They knew by experience that attempts to disarm the citizenry have nothing to do with keeping the population safe and instead have everything to do with amassing power and control within the governing body.

Manipulating the Narrative

One of the most common arguments voiced by those who decry the population’s right – or need – to own a firearm centers around violent crimes committed with guns. With the help of the media, every new shooting incident focuses only on the gun itself, instead of placing the responsibility for the crime with the shooter.

Personal responsibility and facts about the moral character and beliefs of the shooter are rarely discussed as both news commentators and political figures rush to place blame on the gun itself, and often, even the manufacturer or retailer of the gun. This type of message is a disservice to the majority of the public who get much of their news from these commentators or social media and may never be exposed to the actual facts surrounding the shooting or the fact that gun control does not make the population safer.

The false narrative offered by those who strive to achieve strict gun control legislation never offers up pertinent facts that the population should know in order to make an informed decision, such as:

  • most mass shootings are held in locations known to be gun-free zones
  • most gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtainedonly about ten percent of the violent crimes that occur in the United States involve
  • a gun
  • surveys of those who have been convicted of home invasion or burglary crimes admit targeting homes where no one was home to lessen the risk of being shot by an armed occupant

Every citizen of the United States has the right to make up their own mind about whether or not the Second Amendment should be kept intact and whether or not they will exercise their right to own and carry a firearm. But these same citizens also bear the heavy responsibility of making sure that they are basing their decision on actual fact and not the false narrative being spread by those who strive to increase their power and control.

Weakening, changing or eliminating the Second Amendment will not only impair the ability of the current citizenry to assert their right to protect themselves from oppression and tyranny, it will also prevent future generations from protecting themselves against an even more oppressive and tyrannical governing body in the future.

Source
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/constitution#essay-142

This Harvard Study Debunks the Left’s Gun Control Rhetoric

Crime and Guns

Mass Shooters Prefer Gun-Free Zones