Why Defending the Second Amendment is Necessary

My most recent article in the Washington Times came out yesterday. You can check it out here or read it below. Enjoy!

In discussing Second Amendment issues with other gun rights advocates, I have sometimes encountered an attitude along the lines of, “Why even argue about this? If they don’t like it, they should try and repeal it.”
I am actually sympathetic to this point of view because the Second Amendment speaks for itself. Regardless of what anyone thinks about gun ownership, our right to keep and bear arms is legally guaranteed by this amendment. In theory, repealing it is the only way that anyone can address this right legitimately.Theory and reality are often quite different, though. Many disagree with the constitutionality of gun control, but gun-control advocates have succeeded in getting legislation passed that most certainly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 placed strict limits on the transfer of automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and destructive devices such as grenades or missiles. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, though it established some laws to protect the rights of gun owners, also placed additional regulations on fully automatic firearms, consequently causing their prices to rise far above what the average person can afford. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 prohibited the transfer of a wide range of semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns for a 10-year period before expiring in 2004.States and municipalities have imposed even heavier limitations on Second Amendment rights. Maryland, a “may-issue state” for concealed-carry licenses, issues licenses only to those who can demonstrate a specific need to carry a firearm. As a result, licenses are granted to hardly anyone, including many active-duty military members and veterans with honorable discharges. The District of Columbia is one of the most difficult areas in the nation to purchase a firearm legally, and carrying one is out of the question for all but law enforcement personnel.In fact, most states have at least some laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Yet the Second Amendment has not been repealed. It has not been modified. In case you disagree with the premise that this right has been infringed, consider some of your other rights. Would you consider the right to free speech to be infringed if you had to obtain a permit to say what you wanted? What if there were entire cities or states where you were not allowed to practice your religion? What if you had the right to trial by jury only when you paid a federal excise tax? Why are these things acceptable when applied to the Second Amendment?

In every case of infringement, the legislative bodies responsible for the decision to pass these laws apparently have sided with the arguments against the right to keep and bear arms. It may stand to reason that these individuals may not want to hear the arguments for them, but it is our responsibility as a freedom-loving people to exercise our First Amendment right in protection of our Second.

That is not the only reason to maintain our side of the public discussion. Though there is not enough serious political support to effectively repeal the Second Amendment right now, there could be some day. If arguments are heard only from gun-control advocates, their views will slowly sway public opinion. If the only rebuttal to “Guns kill people, and they are evil,” is “If you don’t like it, then repeal it,” then the long-term effect will be diminishing support for the Second Amendment.

This fundamental right may not be at stake tomorrow or even a few years from now, but it is up to us to make sure our children and their children are born with the same rights that we enjoy. The discussion will take place — whether or not we participate.

Paul Brown, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who served in the Marine Corps for five years, writes about Second Amendment rights at why2a.blogspot.com.

Brown: The semantics of gun control

This is about a week late, but here is my latest gun-control article in the Washington Times. And if you're interested, it's kind of off topic (so not really deserving of its own post), but I also got an article about North Korea published in Doublespeak Magazine here.

A side note, this title in the Washington Times is the one I actually gave them almost word for word, so that's kind of nice. Additionally, this one was edited less than any of the other ones before it. The text from my gun-control article is below. Enjoy!

Since the SenateJudiciary Committee passed Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s “assault weapons” ban March 14, a fitting question might be, what is an “assault weapon”? A term that originated in the 1980s, it was popularized after the original “assault weapons” ban in 1994. “Assault weapon” is now the popularly accepted term for the AR-15 and many other rifles and pistols that would be more accurately described as “defense weapons.”
Mrs. Feinstein’s ban, which suffered a setback Tuesday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid excluded it from the larger Senate gun bill, defines an “assault weapon” as any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one military feature: a pistol grip; a forward grip; a folding, telescoping or detachable stock; a grenade launcher; a rocket launcher; a barrel shroud; or a threaded barrel. The exhaustive list is much longer and also includes restrictions that would ban most pistols.
How are firearms usually named or defined? In the military, weapons are defined by their primary use or simply by their nomenclature, such as M16A4 or M240G. Never once in my time in the Marine Corps did I hear an M-16, the fully automatic military version of the AR-15, referred to as an “assault rifle.” The M-16 and other service rifles such as the M-14, and as far back as the M-1 Grand in World War II, have often been referred to as “main battle rifles,” because that is what the military uses them for — battle.
Local, state and national law enforcement organizations throughout the nation have another word for the AR-15: “patrol rifle.” Standards vary by agency, but the deputy sheriffs in Loudoun County, Va., where crime rates are significantly lower than the national average, carry at least one pistol on their persons while on duty and keep a loaded AR-15 and shotgun in their patrol vehicles at all times. It makes sense that they do not refer to these rifles as “assault rifles” or even “battle rifles.” They take them on patrol, and they very rarely use them. They do not use them to assault people.
In civilian circles, hunting rifles are known as hunting rifles. That is because they are made for, and generally used for, hunting. People have used hunting rifles to assault other people in the past, but this is a minority usage, and the fact remains that hunting rifles are for hunting.
So that means “assault weapons” are generally used to assault people, right?
Wrong. According to a study published by the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology for the National Institute of Justice in 2004, only 2 percent of gun crimes were committed with “assault weapons” of any kind before the first “assault weapons” ban went into effect in 1994.
There is no exact count on the number of “assault weapons” in the United States, or of any specific firearms for that matter, but an estimate in Slate magazine in 2012 pegged the number of AR-15s in the United States at around 3.75 million. According to FBI crime statistics in 2011, of the 12,664 homicides committed in the United States, 323 were committed with rifles of any kind. Though data on the number of AR-15s used in killings are not available, an incredibly liberal estimate would be that, of the 323 rifle killings, 32 were with AR-15s. If this number is accurate, this means that in 2011, .00085 percent of the 3,750,000 AR-15s in the United States were used as “assault weapons.” So what were law-abiding Americans doing with the other 3,749,968 AR-15s in 2011?
They were defending their homes.
According to Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, private citizens in the United States use firearms defensively to prevent crimes about 2.5 million times per year, a number that has even been defended by self-proclaimed gun-control advocate Marvin Wolfgang.
The AR-15, like all other firearms in the United States, is used to defend private citizens far more often than it is used in crime. But Mrs. Feinstein, California Democrat, and other gun-control advocates still brand it an “assault weapon.” Why? It comes down to control.
The Second Amendment was put in place to give citizens the ability to defend themselves, not just against criminals, but also against invading militaries and even their own government. AR-15s and other defense weapons would be the go-to firearms for private citizens if they had to defend themselves from local, state or even federal forces. Perhaps this bothers some career politicians who would prefer keeping that sort of power for themselves.
The label matters because words matter. He who defines the terms often wins the argument. We may be arguing about the relative dangers of swimming pools, but if swimming pools became branded “watery death traps,” it would certainly cause a negative shift in public opinion over the years.
AR-15s are no more “assault weapons” than hunting rifles, revolvers, knives or hammers. They are the primary defensive weapon of a freedom-loving people, and a favorite of military veterans. Don’t let the left define its way into taking our tools of liberty.
Paul Brown, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who served in the Marine Corps for five years, writes about Second Amendment rights at why2a.blogspot.com.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/the-semantics-of-gun-control/#ixzz2Oxzre1I3 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Brown: Liberals only protect the constitutional rights they agree with - Washington Times

My latest article in the Washington Times just posted! Check it out here!

I will post a copy on here in a day or two.

I know the blog has been fairly sparse on content for the last few days, but I have a few ideas in the works that hopefully I can get written in the next week or so.

Enjoy!

BROWN: Gun control advocates would leave women defenseless

About a week ago I submitted an article I wrote to The Washington Times. That article was published on their website in the Opinion section on Sunday. I thought I'd post it on here as well. Check out the actual article on the Times for comments and whatnot. Enjoy!

For many, it is of little consequence that the right to bear arms is legally protected by the Second Amendment. They want to see more practical arguments than just what a piece of paper says. While the Second Amendment certainly carries real, stand-alone significance, there is also a real need for practical arguments in its favor. Although there are many practical arguments supporting the right to keep and bear arms, there is one point that is not often discussed.
Gun control that limits the availability of firearms to law-abiding citizens disproportionately disadvantages women. If you don’t believe it, consider some of the facts and arguments surrounding the issue, some of which the left has used itself.
Though there are women who can fight off male attackers, they are not the average. According to a study conducted by Doctor Callie Marie Rennison for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations committed by current or former significant others in 2001, about 85 percent were against women. Her study also showed that while 440 men were killed by their intimate partners in the year 2000, over 1,200 women were killed by their intimate partners in the same year. Moreover, the CDC reports that in 2009 around 1.3 million women were raped in the United States.
These are sobering data, but they present an indisputable fact: Women are in much greater danger from physical attack than men. According to a 1995 study conducted by Florida State University Criminology Professor Gary Kleck, guns are used in self-defense as many as 2.5 million times per year. Self-proclaimed gun-control advocate Marvin Wolfgang said in “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” “I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.” In other words, these numbers are sound.
Even though women daily use firearms to defend themselves and their families, it is easy for people like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. with personal protection details to argue that the average citizen doesn’t need a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle with 30-round detachable magazines. In a speech in Minneapolis in January, President Obama said regarding assault rifles, “Weapons of war have no place on our streets.”
Mr. Biden suggests that women buy and use shotguns. He said in an interview, “You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use. And, in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun.” Yet, as demonstrated by a popular Youtube video, shotguns are not wieldy for anybody, and AR-15s are actually much easier to use and aim than many other firearms.
According to the FBI, out of 12,664 murders committed in the United States in 2011, only 323 were committed with rifles of any kind, while 728 people were murdered using hands, fists, feet, etcetera; 1,694 were killed with edged weapons; and 1,659 were murdered using “other weapons” such as baseball bats, hammers or clubs. Focusing on one of the least used items for murder in the United States is not a solution. It’s a political statement.
Right now federal and state legislatures are primarily discussing legislation that would limit the transfer of “assault weapons” to law-abiding citizens. These laws would no more limit the sale of firearms to criminals than current laws do, but they would allow law enforcement officers to enter the houses of law-abiding citizens to inspect their rifles, throwing out the Fourth Amendment with the second. It is already illegal for many classes of criminals to own, buy or sell firearms. It is obviously illegal for anyone to use a firearm in committing a crime. Regardless, lawmakers want to take away citizen’s rights to purchase rifles such as the AR-15, one of the best home-defense weapons on the market due to accuracy, low recoil, ease of use and custom accessories.
It is ironic that the same lawmakers who recently passed the Violence Against Women Act are so willing to take away women’s ability to defend themselves. If you care not only about women’s rights, but the rights of all Americans, then contact your representatives and let them know you are opposed to gun-control legislation that further limits the self-defense options available to law-abiding citizens. Maybe they will remember that passing these laws will not only hurt men who hunt and target shoot, but it will take away women’s ability to defend themselves and their families as well as they possibly can.
Paul Brown, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who served in the Marine Corps for five years, writes about Second Amendment rights at why2a.blogspot.com.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/10/brown-gun-control-advocates-would-leave-women-defe/#ixzz2NHs6a900Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Published Article in The Washington Times

Readers - Looks like I finally got my big break and got an article published in The Washington Times! It is about the effects of gun control on women. Check it out here. 

I will post the full article sometime tomorrow, after it has been up on the WT site for at least 24 hours. 

Additionally I have another article that they should be publishing next week. Stay tuned!

Get An NRA Lifetime Membership.... For $300

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was founded in 1871 by Union Civil War veterans Colonel William C. Church and General George Wingate. Over the years the NRA has evolved to become one of the leading training and safety organizations for firearms in the US for civilians and law enforcement and additionally lobbies for preservation and furtherance of second amendment rights. Many serious advocates of second amendment rights are members, and current membership sits just under four million people.

The NRA offers one year, two year, three year, five year, and lifetime memberships at graduating costs, and each level of membership comes with various benefits. Benefits include insurance for accidents or loss or damage to firearms, a magazine subscription for the term of the membership, invitation and admission to NRA events, a membership card which may be used for discounts at stores where discounts are offered, and best of all, the knowledge that your money is being used to defend the second amendment.

For a long time I have wanted to purchase the lifetime membership. Lifetime memberships come with $10,000 of accidental death or dismemberment insurance instead of $5,000, and longterm the lifetime membership makes more sense financially. But good value or not, it is still expensive. An NRA lifetime membership will usually cost you $1,000. I had been waiting patiently to see if I could get access to some discount at some point for a few years now.

Well, patience pays off.

A few days ago I got an email from Cheaper Than Dirt, a gun and firearms accessories store based in Forth Worth, Texas. In this article they were promoting an NRA campaign to increased membership through discounted member rates. Until April 16, 2013 the NRA is offering discounts for one year, three year, five year, and lifetime memberships. The lifetime membership has been discounted by 70% to a low, low $300. If you are interested in this offer, check it out here.

My recommendation is do it. I did it. Even if $300 seems like a lot, it's a long term investment in your second amendment rights, and it's on sale! 

The Case for Looser Carry Laws

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is something I can understand. What I don't understand is why  those who put so much effort trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals seem to be putting so much effort into keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens as well.

The difference in those two goals should produce incredibly different initiatives, but time after time we see state and federal laws that hurt law abiding citizens more than criminals. Banning the sale, purchase, or transfer of any certain types of weapons only prohibits law abiding citizens from acquiring them. Laws that prohibit anyone from carrying firearms in certain locations or under certain circumstances only limited firearm carriers to two groups: law enforcement and criminals. That's interesting, but we'll come back to that.

It would seem the overall purpose of gun control is to save lives. Preserving life is a noble cause. Did you know that guns are used by private citizens to stop crime about 2.5 million times per year? To be fair, there are people who contest these numbers. That's fair. So, what if we cut it in half? 1.25 million. And just to be extra fair, let's cut it in half again. 512,500. In 2011 there were just over 11,000 firearm homicides in the US.  But we're not just talking about homicides. We're talking about crime. Based on these numbers and some very sloppy math on my part, it looks like a little more than 250,000 total crimes are committed with firearms in the US per year between homicides, robberies, and assaults. Whether you find these numbers compelling or not is up to you, but consider the quarter of a million incidents difference in the two data sets.

But we haven't really touched the topic of carrying firearms yet. At this moment there are states and cities in the US where concealed and/or open carry is illegal for most of the population. Even in jurisdictions where carrying is legal, there are many specific locations where it is still off limits: schools, government buildings, places of worship, bars, and other locations. It all varies from one jurisdiction to the next.

One thing we have all noticed over the last few decades is a lot of mass shootings. You may have noticed that many of these shootings happen in schools, one of those locations where only two groups of people can carry guns: law enforcement officers and criminals. But law enforcement officers generally wear uniforms. So when they are present they are easy to target or avoid, and when they are not present it is pretty obvious.

I hear a lot these days about "Police being outgunned."In fact the President of the United States mentioned it at his recent state of the union address:

Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they're tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.

But the problem is not really police officers being outgunned. It's us, everyday, law abiding citizens, who are outgunned. 72 police officers were killed in the line of duty in in 2011 but in 2012 law enforcement officers killed 583 people. By contrast, the total number of people wrongfully killed by lawful concealed carriers for all time is less than 500 people. It sounds to me like the cops aren't outgunned. The fact that they can carry firearms anywhere and everywhere at all times, usually wear body armor, and often have fully loaded AR-15s and shotguns locked in the cars they drive would present a completely different picture to me, and in this picture the cops are not outgunned. We are.

Some still argue that the common denominator here is guns: take away guns from everyone and nobody dies. How about we look at some comparisons before we try that though. Apparently about 195,000 people are killed by medical errors per year in the US alone. The highest number I have ever heard for deaths caused by firearms in the US per year including homicides, suicides, and accidents was around 30,000. Based on these numbers you are over six times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by a gun. So while we're taking away all the guns, be sure and take away all the doctors. Oh and don't forget cars, which produce over 40,000 deaths per year in the US.

The fact of the matter is we can't take away all of the guns because it is A) Impossible B) Incompatible with our cultural and legal construct and C) Will create an unnatural balance of power.

If you have learned anything from all this information I hope it is that people can and often do use firearms for good. No matter what you prohibit, there are still people who will break the law and in the case of firearms, that leaves criminals with the advantage. Firearms are unique in that respect. When laws prohibit the use of other things like narcotics, criminals are not at an advantage by using them. They are at a disadvantage. Since the opposite is true with firearms it would seem counter intuitive that we would make them illegal or restrict them in order to disadvantage criminals.

The fact of the matter is, restricting how, when, or where a law abiding citizen can carry his or her firearm leaves that person vulnerable to criminals who are stronger, more numerous, or better armed. If the police could be there to stop every crime that would be wonderful, but as you may have already heard, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Ultimately you have to decide based on logic, the numbers, and your basic American instinct for liberty if you think it makes more sense to leave yourself at the mercy of a turf war between cops and criminals or if you believe that self defense is a right and a duty that we as Americans should uphold at all times and in all places.