Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Replying to Chipper Jones


Chipper Jones, Hall of Fame baseball player and avid hunter, says that ordinary people do not need AR-15’s assault rifles (first ignorance is not knowing that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle). While being a famous person who likes to hunt, that does not qualify him to determine what other people need for self-defense. Based on his lack of knowledge of the Constitution, history and the 2nd amendment he is only qualified to talk about: Baseball and hunting.


“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.”


At first reading many people get confused (or want to be conveniently confused) because they try to figure out what a militia is. What is the definition of ‘Militia’? is it this? Is it that. Is it the national guard? Is it the Army? The answer is contained in the amendment itself. The statement is complete. The militia is the people and the people are the militia and in order to have a “militia” “the people” need to be armed.


People (including Chipper) are arguing that ordinary citizens shouldn’t have weapons of war, i.e. AR-15’s. To pour water on that argument, we need to look at the original function of the militia.

Originally the militia were ordinary citizen (the people) who gathered and defended the states even before the Revolutionary War, even before there was an army. Militias were common even back to the days of swords, bows and arrows in old Europe. During the Revolutionary war, militias would fight alongside the Continental Army using the same weapons as the army (remember that). After the war there were primarily state militias used to support the regular army (see the Militia Act of 1792). The limitation of the state militias was that many would not cross state lines to fight. The war of 1812 saw this happen. In the Civil war militia groups were some of the first to be organized into the regular army and fought. In 1863, the Militia Act of 1792 was amended to allow blacks to serve in the militia.


In early America people did not trust government enough to have large standing armies so the Army was reduced in size (partially due to lack of funds) and the militias (the people) was depended upon to support the army. The militia was still in use up until the early 1900’s. Because American’s were so well armed it is reported (unverified) that Japan was not willing to attack our mainland because the people had so many guns.


So, it remains that 'if' there were an outside invasion, insurrection or military type takeover, the militia (the people) could still be called upon to defend our country and our freedom. If necessary, join and fight alongside regular military units. In any of those cases then, yes, we would need weapons like the AR-15. People will of course say that such an event could never happen. But then nobody thought 911 would happen, or Sandy Hook or the 17 killed on Valentine’s Day. As divided as we are today I wouldn’t trust anyone who wanted to take guns away or limit us to the point of helplessness. So, let’s keep the 2nd amendment as it was intended and let the people have the guns they want. Just in case.


The point I am making is that the reason for the 2nd amendment is just as applicable today as then. If we lived in a perfect world then there would be no need for the 2nd amendment. But the reality is there will always evil in the world from small criminals to tyrants bent on world domination. As long as we have the 2nd amendment without infringement, criminals will fear us and tyrants will be deterred.


The Constitution is more about human nature. Using 2000 years of history, the founders determine the best way to govern was a limited divided government further divided among the people and the states. Has human nature improved with technology? No. Then the Constitution is just as relevant today as it was 250 years ago.


Please note. People keep calling AR15's weapons of war and assault weapons. AR15's are not military weapons. I believe any solider would think an AR15 is inadequate as a battle weapon compared to his actual military rifle.


People say the AR15 is designed to kill lots of people. All guns are designed with the ability to kill. Preferable for hunting game, preventing crime and for self-defense. The AR15 is no more capable of killing more people than a pistol. Check out the Virginia Tech shooting. 32 people killed with a pistol and a few extra magazines. A shooter could easily shoot as many rounds per minute with a pistol as an AR15. Functionally both the pistol and AR15 are semiautomatic weapons. They shoot the same way. One trigger pull, one bullet. One, the AR15, just looks scary. They look like weapons of war. But I can go to toys-r-us and buy something that looks just as scary. Looks do not make a gun more dangerous.

1 comment: