Hello,  Another chapter in An Ole Man’s Blog.  This time let’s discuss the right to bear arms.  It all starts with the Second Amendment passed by the first Congress in 1791.  Yes, that’s  over 227 years ago.  It starts out with rather profound words. It states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.  These, in my mind are the activating words of the Amendment.  It pronounces, of course, that a militia (in 1791) was vital to the survival of our country.  It goes on to say that because of this necessity the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  One must take the whole amendment for its meaning in 1791.  Historically, our country in the late 18th century had only colonial militia to defend the immerging country. It was the individual colonies (now states) that could provide the military to defend this new country.  It was purely voluntary and  necessary that the states provide the man power to defend us.  Muzzle loaders and all.  Alexander Hamilton confirmed this concept when he said that the regulated militia (of the states) is the most natural defense of our country.  This concept held true for many years. Even during our great a civil war, it was state militias that rose to the cause of the country (i.e. remember Col. Vincent of the 20th Maine at Little Round Top, and the 83rd Infantry, Pennsylvania and 16th Brigade, Michigan and 44th Infantry, New York, all heroes at Gettysburg).  This concept of national defense held true for many years.  It was necessary for individuals in every State to be able to come forth with their own weapons to defend to country. 

This all changed in the late 19th century with the Spanish-American War and then WW1.  It became necessary to have a national armed forces (run and maintained by the national government).  Thus emerged the modern US Army., Navy, Marine Corps, and after 1947, the Air Force (paid by, run by and financed by the national government).  No longer was the national defense dependent on the states to provide this necessary protection.  The average American citizen was no longer needed to provide the man power, unless they joined or were drafted (in time of war) into the armed services, and then they were provided with the necessary weapons to fulfill that obligation.  Keep in mind that a volunteer or draftee in the service can not bring his own weapon with him or her.  They are provided with the necessary arms by the national government to assume the roll they undertake.  Today we have armed forces ( 1.5 million strong) that are under the totally control of the national government. State militias are no longer part of the National defense.  Now you might argue that there is the National Guard run by the States.  However, they are used for disaster relief in their particular States (hurricanes, floods, fires, etc) .  If they are called up in a time of war, they come under the control of the federal government and all the regulations concerning the armed forces of the United States.  And no, they can not bring their own AK-47  or AR-15 with them.  Thus, there is no need for civilians to have certain types of weapons to come to the defense of our country.  

Mind you, I have no objection to someone owning a hunting rifle that is designed for hunting game, such as a bolt action rifle that shoots one round at a time; or, someone who wants to own a side arm pistol for self protect in their home, especially in this day and age of home invasions or intruders.  Semi-automatic or fully automatic rifles are ridiculous.  Consider the fact that those who own such weapons go to a range, do not shoot at bulls-eye targets, but shoot at human silhouettes. Obviously the weapon is used to shoot multiple rounds into human beings. These assault weapons were designed and built by the military and not for civilian use.  They were designed for the battle field.  As a former captain in the United States Marines , I am well aware of the intended use of such weapons, and believe they were not intended for civilian ownership or use.

One more point and I will then stop my commentary on weapons.  Concealed weapon carry permits are foolish.  It is argued that a person who is armed with a concealed weapon can stop someone with a weapon from hurting others.  This is nonsense.  I say this based on training and experience.  In the Marines, we had to qualify on a shooting range with a pistol.  In my case, it was a .45 caliber side arm.  These qualification sessions were conducted on a range with targets from 25 feet to 50 feet. (the true effective range of a side arm).  Under calm conditions, and holding the 45 with two hands (one to steady the pistol and the other to pull the trigger) only 35% of those seeking qualification were able to even qualify as a sharp-shooter (lowest of the qualifications). Only 10% of us qualified as an expert (remember I am talking about Marines).  This was under calm and deliberate conditions.  On the battle field, in a fire fight, with incoming rounds from an enemy, the conditions are not calm and the nerves are at an edge.  This would be true in a dangerous situation where someone was shooting at you or others.  Nerves are at their edge and everything is chaotic.  The chances of being effective with a side arm under those circumstances is nil to none.  The chances however of inadvertently spraying rounds into bystanders and innocents is great.   Concealed carry is insanity.  I would dread being somewhere when a bad person is shooting at others and some citizen pulls out his concealed weapon and starts to shoot. My fear of being hit with a round would be tripled.  

Enough said on the subject of guns from an Ole Man