“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.” There is no reason why ‘shall not’ should be interpreted in any other way. We can even take a look at Thomas Jefferson who makes it downright clear.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed,” stated Jefferson in a letter to John Cartwright on June 5, 1824.
Even with the knowledge of the Second Amendment, the attorney general of Massachusetts Maura Healey is attacking every gun dealer and gun manufacturer in her state by banning what she deems “copies and duplicates” of “assault rifles.” With numerous American lives being lost in Orlando, Baton Rouge, Dallas, etc., it initially seems that politicians like Healey have the answer to the issue at hand; if there are less guns, there would be fewer deaths.
But when has the government legislated solutions to problems without stripping away our freedoms? Let’s take a look at one of our 1977 videos for the answers. “Are Guns to Blame?” by Charles Smith uncovers insights that are just as applicable today.
The basic argument used is that the guns are the reason for the crime. If the government can create the illusion that guns cause crime, then the government will feel entitled to swoop in and take care of the gun problem. But are gun control and crime control the same thing? We know that going back to the first murder Cain didn’t have a gun to kill Abel and logically murders can occur in any way, shape, or form with or without a gun.