Protecting Citizens
from an Overbearing Government

August 26, 2013

Gun Control has been in the news lately.  We’d like to reflect on the Gun Control Debate and the Second Amendment, attempting to put it all in context.

Our founding fathers believed the right to free speech and to bear arms came not from government but from God. They believed these rights were “inalienable” [“unable to be taken away from, or given away by, the possessor”].

The primary focus of the Bill of Rights was to protect individuals from a powerful government and not to protect people from each other. Our founding fathers knew well what an overbearing and powerful government could do. 

Realizing that the focus of the second amendment is to limit the Government is a key to understanding its purpose.The amendment says that in order to maintain the security of a free state “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Dictators and rulers throughout history have tried to disarm populations that they deem a threat to them, thereby enslaving them.  The Old Testament talks about a time when the Hebrew people were not allowed to have blacksmiths because the Philistines were concerned Hebrew blacksmiths might make weapons.  When their farm implements needed to be sharpened they took them to a Philistine blacksmith [1 Samuel 13: 19-22].  The Philistine kings (the government) feared the Hebrew people!  They didn’t guns back then but they wanted to control weapons.  Hitler controlled the access to guns in Nazi Germany; the Soviets did the same with their people.  The Second Amendment was designed to protect all of us from any attempt by the Government to disarm and enslave us.

Today federal, state, and local governments have designated certain areas as “gun free zones.”  What we’ve seen over the last thirty years is that most of the incidents of mass gun violence have occurred within these “gun free zones.”  We would suggest to you that the reason these incidents happen in these “zones” is because shooters don’t want to face armed resistance. What we are seeing is that when a shooter is confronted by an armed person the shooter either surrenders or commits suicide.  The December shooting in the Portland Oregon Mall is just one example, when confronted by a CHL holder the shooter took his own life.

Mark, John and I don’t believe there needs to be stronger control on guns, magazines and ammunition.  And to the extent that background checks provide the government with a registry of who has weapons, we oppose that as well.  We believe that the best protection against domestic gun violence – mass shootings, home invasions, and armed robbery etc. – is for law-abiding citizens to have weapons and to know how to use them.  If a property/business owner wants to restrict guns on his premises that’s his right but remember that’s what happened in the Aurora, CO theater shooting.  We would also allow properly trained CHL holders on school campuses if that is what the local community wants. We believe properly trained and armed civilians improve our national security, something our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment.

Bill, Mark and John