Gun Rights, Personal Security and You

In many ways, 2014 had been an exhausting year filled with events that illuminate the triumph of the human spirit as well as tragedies that shake us to our core.  It is unfortunate that the impact of the tragedies often outweigh the buoying nature of the triumphs.  Regardless, near-instantaneous global digital connectivity, the 24 hour news cycle and an unprecedented access to information send us an endless stream of facts, figures and opinions on just about every major event.  Even when supposedly objective data is presented, extreme elements of both sides obscure any kernel of truth by manipulating, exaggerating or committing hyperbole to promote their particular point of view.  This can leave the average American citizen to ask two essential questions: “What should I believe and what can I do about it?”

In terms of triumph, tragedy and longevity, few social and legal issues can match the Gun Rights debate.  Rather than analyzing the merits of both sides of this long-standing issue, I will focus on the foundation of the Gun Rights debate, place it in the current context of personal security, and conclude with some thoughts on personal actions available to you.

The Gun Rights Debate

 

The Gun Rights debate traces its roots back to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.  The original Constitution focused on establishing and delineating the powers of our three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial), but made no specific mention of gun rights.  Over two hundred years of hindsight make the ratification process seem clean and straight-forward.  However, Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions hotly debated each and every issue within the document.  As a result, the Constitution was founded on extraordinary compromise, but many issues were left unresolved.  In order to get the Constitution ratified in 1788, the framers agreed that the document was a foundational “start” to the process, but would continue debates on contentious issues that would be amended at a later date.  In 1791, the first 10 amendments were encapsulated into the Bill of Rights.  The Second Amendment, stating: “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,” was included in the Bill of Rights.

Since then, any number of events from the Civil War through the Cold War and

some of our current tragedies stress our understanding of those 27 words.  In general, there are three different interpretations of the Second Amendment.  The first interpretation focuses on the initial clause and believes that it only authorizes each state the right to maintain a militia.  The second interpretation expands the viewpoint of the first by purporting that only individuals who are part of a state militia may keep and bear arms.  The third interpretation strongly focuses in the words as written, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Today, these differing interpretations are adopted by the political parties that align themselves with their belief in which entity is most responsible for ensuring and providing public security.  One extreme believes in a very powerful government that provides collective security supported by citizens who willingly submit individual rights to have their security provided for them.  The other extreme believes in a limited government that provides only the level of security required to protect from external attack while ensuring the rule of law supported by those who believe in strong individual rights and the right to provide for one’s own security.

So, where do you fall within this continuum?

 

If there was ever a metric that was hard to define, it is “American Popular Opinion.”  From our country’s foundation through the current day, there have been extreme views and thousands of intermediate variations on “what is right or what is the collective good?”  In the last 30 years, we have seen public or popular opinion in regard to gun rights vacillate and even spike in relation to major events.  While lawful use of firearms in self-defense tends to be woefully under-reported, unlawful use of firearms tends to be grossly over-reported.  In the wake of major events, parties on both extremes entrench in their respective ideological positions while the flames are fanned by an equally ideological media.  The truth, of course, can be found obscured somewhere in-between. Read More >>

About Author – Howard Hall

 

Howard Hall “Range Master at Aegis Academy“ – has served for nearly 20 years in the Marine Corps. He has served as a Platoon Commander, Company Commander, Battalion Executive Officer, Regimental Operations Officer, and Battalion Commander. He has multiple combat tours to include serving as a military transition team member in Fallujah. He is an NRA Certified handgun instructor and holds numerous Marine Corps training credentials. An active competitor in action pistol (United States Practical Shooting Association), long range rifle (NRA F-Class), and shotgun (Amateur Trapshooting Association, National Skeet Shooting Association), Howard has earned numerous accolades and medaled during DoD competitions with the 1911 platform in bulls-eye shooting.

 

Gun Control Advocacy - Toxic in 2014?

With the re-election of Sherriff David Clarke, we can see the beginning of public backlash against the push for senseless anti-gun laws. Gun Control Advocacy has been toxic in a number of races, and most recently we can see it playing out the Colorado Governors race. Incumbent Democrat John Hickenloper is virtually tied with newcomer Republican Bob Beauprez. This doesn’t happen in Colorado where incumbents tend to retire from the office rather then be voted out and democrats traditionally hold the governor’s office considerably more then republicans. The number one issue that swing voters cited in a recent poll – Passage of Colorado’s gun restrictions.

In fact, reaction to the gun control advocacy of two Colorado state senators ( John Morse and Angela Giron ) resulted in their recall and both were cast out. Here was Bloomberg’s response just last month to a question about the recall:

“The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads. It’s as far rural as you can get. And, yes, they lost recall elections. I’m sorry for that. We tried to help ‘em. But the bottom line is, the law is on the books, and being enforced. You can get depressed about the progress, but on the other hand, you’re saving a lot of lives”.

We’ll ignore his delusions life saving grandeur in this article and just focus on the tactical errors he made. In reality the recalled state senators were from Colorado Springs, the second largest city in the state which hosts the Air Force Academy and the U. S. Olympic Training Center, and Pueblo, the 7th Largest city in the state. I’ve dove through Pueblo in 1995 and shockingly was able to stay on concrete and asphalt the entire time. I also spent few days in Colorado Springs a few years back. They not only have roads, theaters & restaurants, they have clean running water and them fancy new flush toilets all over the place! My guess is regardless of which side of the political fence residents are one, they probably don’t appreciate his comments.

Bloomberg’s mistaken or more likely intentionally false comments are not surprising as has never been one to let the facts stand in the way of pushing his agenda. The best part of this continued mantra of ignorant BS is that Bloomberg and his money are becoming toxic in some pretty contested states. Even better is that he and his organizations continue to double down on their largely failing attempts. While that is good news, relying on the opposition to screw it up is not necessarily a solid strategy for success.

The NRA has been mostly silent on a number of issues that they have intelligently chosen to support. They are not shouting their successes from the rooftops, nor rubbing it in the face of those who opposed it. Politics and guns are intertwined, and so far this election cycle the NRA has done a great job of staying in the lane of gun rights, and out of the lane of “extremist organization”. I doubt the NRA will suddenly become the organization of choice for democrats after spending all of 2011 & 2012 bashing left leaning ideology as freedom hating control freaks, but they are making progress with what is a simple message. The truth.

The key point here is that the numbers speak for themselves. Despite the emotional tone of the arguments, there are hard facts we can point to. People who fear guns are not attempting to take our freedom, they are simply afraid of something they do not understand. Calling them socialist or fascists or comparing them to Adolf Hitler, does not make one person want to actually do the research to find the truth. According to Bloomberg and the like, gun owners are a bunch of intolerant backwoods extremists, clinging to our bibles and our guns. My experience with gun owners is actually quite different.

As foreign as it may be to most of you reading this article, there are many, many people who are undecided on the issue. We see them every week in our entry-level courses. They are turning out in droves to learn something about the issues, and to consider a firearm as tool they may want as an option in taking responsibility for their own safety and security. Those are the people we have to influence.

The fight over gun rights will be won or lost by which side can attract the most moderates. Currently, moderates are rejecting the Bloomberg funded nonsense. That is quite likely to continue, if we give them access to the truth without blending it with a message that is incompatible with their core beliefs. The battle ground states are not Kansas, or Arizona, or Texas. The guns rights battle is being fought in New York, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts. It is being fought in places where a conservative majority does not exist and in places where conservative rhetoric is largely rejected. That is where their anti-gun experiments are victimizing citizens.

I find it amusing that Canadian Libertarian Candidate Tim Moen was the first person I heard articulate what was at the time the polar opposite position to the NRA’s approach to gun rights in 2011 and 2012. He said “I want every married gay couple to be able to defend their pot farms with an assault rifle”. I am not advocating that become the mantra of gun rights in this country. What I am recommending is that we stick to the truth about gun ownership and not lose that message in our personal choice of religion, lifestyle or recreational activities.

The fact is that gun ownership is associated with less crime, less victims of violent crime, and more law-abiding citizens. We have an opportunity in this election cycle to put people in offices who can repeal these unconstitutional state restrictions on American gun ownership. If we simply stick to the core message and the facts, we’ll be more successful. My recommendation this election cycle is that we don’t over reach. People are tired of the unfounded BS that Bloomberg and his lobbies are spewing. We can’t fall into the same trap. And that’s the best part of being right, we don’t have to make stuff up…

Have a great week!

About Author

 

~ Patrick Henry

 

Patrick Henry received his operational training and experience from the U. S. Government, 22 years of which were spent in the Marine Corps where he served in the Reconnaissance, Infantry and Intelligence fields. During his active service, he spent more then seven years deployed overseas in combat, operational and training assignments. After the military, Pat worked as a contractor and as the Director of Operations at a private paramilitary company, specializing in training special operations forces and providing protective services to select private clients. His education consists of an MBA from the University of Southern California (USC), and a BS from San Diego State University with an emphasis in Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology and a minor in Psychology. He holds an extensive list of security and training related certifications from a variety of government and nationally recognized entities. He currently sits on the advisory committee at USC’s Master of Veterans Business Program, and is an active member of Infraguard and the American Society of Industrial Security (ASIS). He has been a guest speaker at ASIS, the San Diego Industrial Security Awareness Council and other private organizations on physical security, travel security, and competitive intelligence collection counter-measures.

First Published at Aegis Academy