The Second Amendment and pro-gun community is very diverse — both in believers and beliefs. As a blogger and an administrator of multiple social media sites, I encounter many followers who support some of my posts, but rage against some of my others, even though we are on the same side of the argument.
I do believe the open discussions in our community give us a broader view of our right to keep and bear arms, while also helping us learn different verbal defenses against the anti-gun community.
However, I want the pro-gun community to understand that there is a group of us who needs to be confronted and corrected or — disavowed. I have been using the term "Second Amendment absolutists" to describe them in previous discussion for quite a few years. An abolutist thinks the Second Amendment allows anyone to own any gun at any time and at any location they choose.
My motivation to write this article was posting a story on my Facebook group page (fb.com/2ndAmendmentUSA) about a Massachusetts resident who reported that a neighbor had unsecured guns in his house. Per Massachusetts state law, firearms must be secured in a locked safe or closet, or with a trigger lock. The man’s house was searched and over 100 guns were seized by police. The state that took such an active part in helping us gain our independence and subsequent Constitutionally-protected freedoms, has now basically removed to ability to defend oneself in their own home. ("Hold on, Mr. Home Invader, give me a minute to find that trigger lock key!")
Of course, with a story like that on a 2nd Amendment page, the comments section started filling up. I run my page loosely but do not allow hardcore profanity, racist comments or threats, or calls for violence.
I had to remove a few comments, but one meme exposed an absolutist. It was a picture with the words "The Start of Freedom." The picture was one of a dead policeman with a bullet wound to the head. I believe it was a fake pic, but nonetheless offensive.
I immediately deleted the meme and the man who posted it. I commented letting everyone know about my actions and the reasoning. A small chain of argument broke out by some who defended his post. The primary argument of his defenders said that police, who were following state law, were acting unconstitutionally and should have been shot.
I understand that if there is ever a true gun confiscation action taken by the government, a Civil War will probably ensue. Of course, if such an event occurred, God forbid, there would be much bloodshed. Many in the Second Amendment community refer to them themselves as "three percenters" and believe that they will be the ones to overthrow a tyrannical U.S. government.
For those who do not know, during the Revolutionary War, never more than 3 percent of the Colonial population actively fought against the king’s troops or loyalists — hence the name of the movement.
\However, in the instance of the referenced story, the police officer was following a state law which was voted on, and passed by representatives elected by the Massachusetts citizens. Although many of us believe that law to be an overreach by the government, it does not give us the right to shoot fellow Americans who just happen to be in uniform. They are fellow citizens.
This article will be unpopular with some, but to those who think that unconstitutional laws are an invitation to violence against police, I would like to remind you of the guidelines given by Captain John Parker, of the Lexington minutemen on April 19, 1775, "Don't fire unless fired upon."
This was echoed by a quote from one of the founders of the modern day three percenter movement, Mike Vanderboegh, "These four principles — moral strength, physical readiness, no first use of force and no targeting of innocents — are the hallmarks of the three percent ideal.
"Anyone who cannot accept them as a self-imposed discipline in the fight to restore the Founders' Republic should find something else to do and cease calling themselves a 'three percenter.'"
So, to the absolutists who think that the 2nd Amendment gives you the authority to kill police enforcing state laws, please recognize your actions will accomplish only three things:
1. Make you a murderer
2. Drive away any semblance of public support for gun owners
3. Leave an American family to grieve
Obviously, government confiscation would change that entire dynamic, but rest assured, most police and military would not follow those orders.
The Second Amendment is not a license to kill. It is an affirmation of our right to keep and bear arms for defense from criminals, invaders, and tyrants.
John Cylc is an eight year U.S. Army veteran. He is also a contributor to LifeZette. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.