“A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

— The U.S. Constitution Second Amendment

It is very disconcerting to me when I see Marxist leftists who have a poor level of reading comprehension. The simplistic words of the Second Amendment of our individual Bill of Rights should not be cause for confusion. Just as a historical reminder, especially as we approach our 250th Independence celebration, the Second Amendment is rooted in the events of 19 April 1775. It was on that day that 77 Americans stood on a field in Lexington, Massachusetts, against the greatest military power the world knew at that time. The British regiment was marching inland towards Concord to destroy a weapons manufacturing facility that was supplying the Sons of Liberty. On that day, there was no American Army, Navy, or Marine Corps; matter of fact, there was no America. However, there was an understanding that armed individuals could be free citizens who attain liberty; disarmed individuals can only be subjects.

The militia is every American, not the military. Well-regulated means well-trained, disciplined, and the duty of this well-trained group of citizens is the security of a free State. And what part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to comprehend? Isn’t it rather ironic that the State where armed Americans made a stand against the tyranny of gun control, the beginning of our American Revolution, is now home to the most stringent gun control laws?

Laws are made for law-abiding citizens; those who seek to undermine the security of a free State couldn’t care less about laws. And recent events attest to the folly of so-called gun control endeavors. In the end, they only serve to enable the lawless at the expense of the law-abiding.

Australia has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. As a matter of fact, there are many gun control advocates in America who wish to model what they have done “Down Under.” This past weekend, we saw what happens when Islamic jihadists, who have been willingly allowed entry, disregard gun control edicts. Two men, a father and son, ISIS sympathizers, opened up fire on innocent, peaceful Jewish citizens attending a Hanukkah celebration. Two men, out in the open, with bolt-action rifles and a shotgun, opened fire as they exited their vehicle and rained down fire on these people for nearly 20 minutes. And it was a brave man who assaulted the one assailant, taking away his shotgun that ended his shooting spree. For 20 minutes, nearby law enforcement were idle, lest I remind us of the Uvalde, Texas school shooting. The other assailant in Australia on a bridge was engaged by a man who took away the firearm and tried to beat the shooter with the weapon. The shooter retreated to his car, acquired another weapon, and shot the brave citizen and his wife dead. What if the citizen had been armed and able to return fire, instead of wrestling a weapon away?

Here at home, at Brown University, an open campus, a shooter walks into a lecture hall, opens fire, and remains at large. When you create a gun-free zone, it is also a free fire zone for a criminal. There are so many who stood against the campus carry movement in America. I remember speaking at the University of Michigan and the University of Dallas on that very issue. It is unconscionable to me that a student loses their constitutional right just because they are on a college campus. I suppose they could also lose their First Amendment rights? So, where were the Brown University campus police? How was it that an armed assailant could just walk onto the campus, into a building, into a lecture hall where students were conducting a study group for finals and open fire, then calmly walk away?

I reject this whole “assault weapon” rhetoric because anything used as a tool to assault another is an assault weapon. In Australia, bolt-action rifles and shotguns were the tools. At Brown University, it appears that the tool was a 9mm handgun, and just as in Australia, the shooter was able to freely reload. Let’s not forget that Islamic jihadists have used vehicles to run down people in their attacks. Are cars, trucks, and SUVs classified as “assault weapons?”

The founding fathers gave us constitutional protection of a right by which the individual American citizen can protect themselves and the State. No, we are not talking about armed vigilantes running amok, but the adage “a good person with a gun will always stop a bad person with a gun” is applicable. America’s history with gun control is evidence that it is all about tyrannical control and the subjugation of free people. Heck, there was a reason why the Democrat party created the KKK to intimidate Blacks, newly minted, free, American citizens. And Democrats were the ones who rejected Dr. Martin Luther King’s application for a gun license.

Domestic terrorists, Islamic jihadists, violent criminals, and narco-terrorists are walking amongst us; only an idiot would seek to disarm legal, law-abiding citizens. Then again, those very idiots are the ones aligning themselves with said groups and advocating policies to enable them to invade our streets.

A famous Texas Ranger, Captain Bill McDonald, asserted, “No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a-comin’.” I agree with Ranger McDonald, and so did our Founding Fathers, as I say, “An armed individual is a citizen, a disarmed one is a subject,” sadly, as this weekend showed, dead. Being armed is empowering… being unarmed is enticing to evil.

Steadfast and Loyal.

Republished from ACRU Action Fund.