I have heard the following argument on several occasions in the past and again yesterday as to why the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is obsolete: “Armed with only rifles and pistols, how could you possibly prevail against the Army?”

That question in and of itself should be a self-evident answer as to why the Second Amendment is in place and why it is important that we not allow it to be undermined.

All throughout history there have been many military conflicts in which an outnumbered and out-gunned force was able to either hold their own for a significant time and/or prevail in the conflict.

They also had talented and dedicated people who were able to design and manufacture weapons under extremely trying circumstances.

People who use this as an argument, I suspect, aren’t fully informed about a number of things including the fact that there more armed people in the United States than there are military personnel, the dedication of those armed people to protect and defend freedom and liberty, that the illegal use of the military against the civilian population would certainly be met with intense resistance, probably in the form of guerilla warfare, and the possibility that many members of the military may refuse to follow illegal orders to attack the civilian population.

Further, people don’t realize that it wouldn’t take many armed citizens to overpower some elements of the military and take control of the more advanced weapons at hand.

Consider the use of the Liberator pistol provided to the French resistance during WWII. These cheaply made, single shot pistols (I’m told that it took longer to reload one than to manufacture one) was used to eliminate a single enemy soldier and take his arms.

Although I am unable to locate the source of this bit of info, I recall hearing that the Rhodesian military was ordered not to fire their weapons on full-auto in order to conserve ammo when faced with a vastly superior force that was constantly re-supplied by the Soviet Union. The Rhodesians were able to hold their own for some time in the face of a larger force.

One must also consider how the Soviet Army was eventually defeated by the people of Afghanistan.

However, I find the idea that a person could even consider the possibility that the United States government would use the military against the civilian population to be more than a little disturbing.

Seriously, how could anyone suggest such a possibility? Are they suggesting that the United States federal government would deploy tanks and aircraft against us?

No, I think it unlikely that the U.S. government would do that. Certainly the government is aware of two things: one that to mobilize the military against civilians is illegal and second they know what the response would be.  They do know this, don't they?

Actually, I think a greater threat is the militarization of the local police but I will leave that for another discussion.

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.

I recently had an epiphany of sorts, thanks to a video I watched by Penn & Teller called Bull$#it! 309 Gun Control.

I have read the Second Amendment and I thought I understood the meaning of the Second Amendment. I have listened to people, so-called experts on both sides of the gun control argument, express their ideas as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Now, I’ve always understood that the need for and the purpose of the Second Amendment was for the PEOPLE to be able to rise up and defend themselves from a federal government becoming tyrannical and turning against the people.

Anti-gun people contend that the MILITIA referred to in the Second Amendment is a standing federal army or the National Guard and that the Second Amendment provides for same.

The MILITIA, in this case, is viewed by gun proponents the same as an armed populace that can be deployed along with a standing army (just as occurred during the recent Revolutionary War) in the event of attack from without.

However, I would suggest that the MILITIA refers to a standing army that the PEOPLE would have to defend against.

It is the comma after the phrase “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” that is at the center of the dispute.

That comma has caused a lot of misunderstanding, in addition to the brief wording of the Second Amendment. Two hundred years later, we don’t understand the Second Amendment, in part because we have not recently fought a war of independence from an oppressive government.

Additionally, there is the fact that our use and understanding of certain words has changed during the last 200 years.

Further, since that time, a well regulated militia of the people, organized and properly trained has not been maintained. On the other hand, the federal government has maintained a well regulated military.

In order for the Unites States to be able to defend itself against foreign attack, a standing army is necessary that the people of the United States may remain a free people, a free state. However, because we are fearful that a central, Federal government, with command and control of said standing army, may, at some point in time become an oppressive government just as the one that we recently threw off, and may deploy said standing army against the civilian population, said civilian population, the PEOPLE, shall have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed by the Federal government.

I cannot ascertain the reason the founders chose to write the Second Amendment the way they did, however, I believe I now know exactly what they meant.

I suggest that you view Penn & Teller’s video and you will too.

Please be aware that Penn Jillette tends to use colorful, vulgar, obscene language, but he makes the point quite well what the Second Amendment is for.

While some people may say that it would be fruitless to go up against our modern military with the small arms available to us, an idea that I may address at a later date, the fact is, the Second Amendment was written for such a purpose at that time and is still in place today. I will say that I find it hard to believe that the founders would have imagined that our military would possess weapons that the people would not have access to, either by denial or impractical to possess.

The fact remains that the government, by law, cannot infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

The need for the people to be armed is even more necessary today, to throw off an oppressive government, no matter how futile such an attempt may be.

Further, with the threat of terrorism in our country, local governments may fail. During times of natural disasters, to defend against gangs of looters, it is vital that the people be armed in order to defend home and community.

However, even if the Second Amendment wasn’t written for the specific purpose of armed defense against criminals, that the Second Amendment exists allows us to present an armed defense against criminals who would do us harm.

Our freedom and liberty is dependent upon that right.

I would also like to include here a quote attributed to Ronald Reagan about freedom: “Freedom is indivisible – there is no ‘s’ on the end of it. You can erode freedom, diminish it, but you cannot divide it and chose to keep ‘some freedoms’ while giving up others.”

We are either a free people or we are not. We have certain liberties but when those liberties are curtailed we cease to be a free people.

That being said, any law that curtails our ability to arm ourselves as envisioned by the founders is inconsistent with the Second Amendment and therefore illegal.

That being the case the Second Amendment and gun control are by their very nature at odds with each other.