I originally wrote and published an article with this theme back in 2012. Based on current events I felt it was time to revisit the subject. Once again, anti-Second Amendment groups are taking advantage of a tragedy to further their gun control agenda and attempt to take away the liberty of our citizens. The conversation is much larger than feelings, which are being manipulated by these groups who seek to chip away at our civil rights. Last week, even our nation’s President played party politics, calling for a reinstatement of the so-called Assault Weapon Ban. What’s more, there are currently no less than four amendments up for vote in the Senate this Monday to legislation that would in various ways, deny due process to Americans by instating a ban on the purchase of firearms by those on the “Terror Watch” and “No-Fly” lists. The very existence of such secret targets lists is Un-American and the notion that a person can be placed on a list without their knowledge and for unknown reasons, and with no way to ever get off of the list, is Orwellian. The Congress is the voice of the people and must gain control of this list making by the Executive branch. Until then, any attempts to expand their use must be stopped. But this move is endemic of an even larger issue. This article focuses on a relationship between commercial firearms industry and the ability to produce arms for National Defense and why the Second Amendment is the linchpin of that connection.
While these calls for additional firearms legislation are a direct threat our rights enumerated in the Constitution, they have other effects as well. A vibrant firearms industry, serving law-abiding citizens purchasing and responsibly using firearms results not only in innovation, but also a robust industrial base which can be called upon by our Nation in times of crisis. Since 9/11 all innovations in military firearms, whether targeting, accuracy, man-machine interface or lethality, have all been accomplished by industry.
Rarely do legislators consider the second and third order affects of laws. Only later, like ripples in a pond do these implications manifest themselves. Now, we can look at the AWB and its affects not only on crime, but also on national defense. Let’s not repeat mistakes of the past.
History has taught us that prohibition does not work. But, from 1994 until 2004 the American firearms industry suffered under a form of prohibition. The “Assault Weapons Ban” not only covered weapon features but also magazines over 10 rounds. This legislation did nothing to alter crime and, once lifted, did not result in any increased gun violence. Overall, it was useless legislation.
These very magazines and weapon features that were banned under the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcemenent Act of 1994” have been crucial to the US Department of Defense’s and our Allies small modernization as part of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as globally against piracy, terror and general mayhem. During the 10-year period of the AWB, US businesses curtailed small arms innovation. The point of a business is to make money. When there is little market for a product (as was the case during the AWB), the business case is not there to service it. This was most definitely the situation with magazines for the M9 Beretta Handgun. Many who served early in the war will remember poorly produced high capacity magazines for that weapon. This is because there was no competition in the marketplace due to a lack of market. Rather, government contractors for that magazine were allowed to produce products that performed poorly on the battlefield since there was no competition. There was no innovation. A pistol magazine might seem inconsequential to some, but a pistol is a self-defense weapon. If the magazine fails, the pistol is useless. The same goes for sub-standard magazines for rifles. What good is an Infantryman if he can’t engage the enemy?
It has been more than a decade since the ban was lifted and an entire industry has grown and flourished, producing innovative solutions for both law-abiding citizens and our military alike. American troops are the best equipped in the world and other countries look to us for technical innovation in small arms. We must maintain that edge.
Contact your Congressional representation (switchboard 202-225-3121) and let them know how you feel about any proposed firearms legislation which would hurt our military’s warfighting capability. A strong Second Amendment fosters a robust American firearms industry which contributes directly to our National Defense.
….“Terror Watch” and “No-Fly” lists. The very existence of such secret targets lists is Un-American and the notion that a person can be placed on a list without their knowledge and for unknown reasons, and with no way to ever get off of the list, is Orwellian….
That is what is scaring me, it would seem the general population has accepted those two “lists” has a legitimate and untouchable aspect of American life and law.
While SSD may be preachin’ to the choir, the choir needs preachin’ to as well. Keep posts like this coming, just because an issue is politicized doesn’t mean it should be dismissed for being political.
All of my liberal-minded friends are just regular people with a different viewpoint, not power mongers hell bent on seizing control of the free world. That said, they are certainly comfortable with forgoing certain civil liberties so long as they feel like they’re doing something to solve the problems they perceive in the world. That’s not something I agree with, of course, but normally I just chalk it up to a difference of opinion / they don’t value civil liberties the same way I do. As such, I’m always very reluctant to declare them as unilaterally wrong as a matter of fact. I’d rather frame arguments or counter points as to why they are wrong.
But this recent matter of putting people on secret lists, which they seem to wholeheartedly support, is hard for me not to flatout declare them wrong about. I get it, if these lists or any other means keep scary guns out of people’s hands, liberals would feel like they did something good for the world, and they don’t see being disarmed as something bad. Makes sense that they would feel that way, given their priorities and their typical “the end justifies the means” approach to government. In their minds, pooping on the second amendment isn’t a problem.
But unlike legislation that restricts guns and ONLY poops on the second amendment in doing so, using these secret lists poops all over due process, which affects all Americans. Dissolution of the second memdment is only going to directly affect people who would be inclined to own a gun in the first place (indirectly it affects everyone, of course), but freaking everyone benefits from due process. There is no way that liberals can deny that an erosion of due process will hurt them as much or more so than conservatives. Think about it. Conservative, typical mom-and-dad families aren’t blazing any legal trails. Disinfranchised minority groups –who live in states with a legislature that isn’t willing to recognize their rights– are seeking to have limitations on their freedoms removed via the court have no chance in hell without due process. It is incredibly shortsighted for liberals to accept an erosion of due process even if it creates the political expediency by which they can accomplish one of their goals, because, at best, it means that they are only safe so long their people are the ones making these lists. You get another republican who is interested in increasing the power of the executive branch or one who is willing to push the envelope concerning what is constitutional (e.g. George W.), and suddenly liberals are on the receiving end of secret lists.
The fact that they are not willing to think, “Wait an minute. I know we really want to stop the scary guns, but the particular way we’re trying to accomplish this opens Pandora’s box and can bite us,” is troubling.
E.G.
+1, call them on it. Trading liberty for perceived security is a fool’s bargain regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum.
TLB
Well said.
I’ll cite the case of Britian’s SA80 and it’s original magazine, to further supplement the point.
Crippling the civilian firearms market would suit the anti-gun crowd. After the market collapses the government would have to take over manufacturing of certain items… Skillcraft M4… shudder.
You’re absolutely correct about the dismal AWB of 94. We went into Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan with some of the worst quality magazines imaginable for our M9s. Before each mission (flight), we would literally remove the top round, then turn the mag over and pour out the rest. The springs didn’t work right. We had to disassemble it and stretch the spring out, then hope it worked if we needed it. Since that cosmetic policy went away, I’ve encountered better and better mags & products almost every year. Armor is head and shoulders better than it was at the start of this particular conflict. I dread that another “assault weapons ban” might be passed.
Well written.
Excellent opinion piece, and something that is being completely overlooked.
The United States has been one of the driving forces in small arms development in the world, and most of that originated outside of the military’s big arsenals.
For last century and a half, American inventors like Colt, Spencer, Gatling, Maxim, Browning, Thompson, Garand (okay…Canadian), Stoner and many, many others, have driven some of the major advancements in small arms technology, all mostly from the private sector, or at least starting in the private sector.
On the software side, in the last few decades, private parties like Cooper and his contemporaries, three gun, IPSC, IDPA and all manner of marginally tactically-oriented or action shooting sports, along with the plethora of talented tactical trainers and actual scientists studying humans under critical stress have driven the actual art and skill of gunfighting to new levels.
Gun bans will kill our ability to innovate new technologies and have skilled gunfighters. I wonder how much the 86 FOPA ban on new MGs has held back the kitchen table/garage inventor from developing the next generation of automatic weapons, because.
European countries have lost a lot of personal skill with small arms. We will too. You can already see the difference in parts of the US that have excised their gun culture (NYC…lookin’ at you…) where line officers demonstrate execrable marksmanship in real world gunfights. Contrast that to the Southwest, where marksmanship and gunhandling may often be taken with mothers milk…
Private industry and individual accomplishments are a large part of what has made American gun building and gun fighting great. Gun Control is a national security issue; we need freedom to own, build and shoot firearms to enhance the security of our nation and spur development of advanced weapons and gunfighting skills.
Again, bravo, Eric.
Thanks Nate. Your opinion means a lot to me.
SSD,
Excellent article. Here is what is scaring me the most about the current push to “do something”. It is that politicians on both sides – and far too many of their supporters – seem comfortable, even eager to curtail or deny the civil liberties of the people who have been put on these lists.
Without even a fig leaf of due process! So this isn’t just the usual attack on the 2nd Amendment in isolation. This is about also effectively nullifying the IV, V, and XIV Amendments. And thereby all but eliminating the very foundation of the covenant between the citizen and the government in our Republic.
In the last few days I have heard people of both political persuasions publicly declare that “of course we don’t want terror suspects to have access to guns”. That sounds logical. But it is a trap.
The key word being “suspects”. The majority of people on these lists have committed no crimes or been indicted or convicted of a crime. Nor will they ever be. I know, as long as the guy is named Abdulla or Hernandez some people won’t care. Donald Trump has said as much many times and Hillary just says it a different way.
But I say be careful what you ask for and what you allow to happen in your name. If you support the civil liberties being stripped from some without due process now. Don’t be surprised when your civil liberties are denied next. As you point out, its bigger and more dangerous then just the 2nd Amendment this time.
TLB
Well said. Those on the left who think they want to have secret lists that are not subject to due process must not think it’s remotely possible for Trump to win this year’s election. If they did then you’d think they’d not want to play right into his hand, as they are doing.
But you are right to point out that people on both sides of the aisle are playing a role in all of this.
Reads well written comment, adds “execrable” to vocabulary, pretends he didn’t have to google it, something, something, profit?
😉
Good read, very sad state of affairs as I whole hardheartedly agree with this article and these posts. Trading “Liberty” for a false sense of security is paramount to insane in my humble opinion. Very sad.
The fact that our Constitution has proven so difficult to work around for politicians hell-bent on ignoring due process and stripping rights for their own means shows it’s working exactly as intended in limiting government from abusing its authority and usurping the rights and liberties of its citizens.
Most troubling however, is the presence of such individuals who — despite these checks and balances– still have no respect for them. They prove time and again that they have no qualms about cherry-picking, selectively supporting, or disregarding the Constitution altogether to achieve their agendas, as if its contents only existed when politically convenient. That fact is very disturbing and merits sufficient attention and public feedback.
I completely agree. I was debating someone on a forum recently about regulatory law (which, for the record, I am not one who thinks that all regulations are bad), and he explained how inconvenient it is that one branch doesn’t have all of the authority it needs to do something, and how congress can’t accomplish anything without compromise. Yeah, champ. It’s almost like that’s how it’s supposed to work. 😐
Expediency.
Wah wah wah. “Our rights are being trampled”. “Those who would sacrifice freedom for security, blah blah blah”
What a pile of crap. I could have written every comment posted on this before it was written with “Copy/Paste”. Same old arguments, same old bullshit. Same old Circle Jerk.
Your right to arm yourself doesn’t trump my right not to get shot. I’m sorry if an infinitesimally small percentage of gun owners are fucking it up for everyone else, but too bad. EVERY FUCKING TIME this happens we do nothing. It is the definition of insanity. No where else in the world does this happen with any level of the same frequency. We disarm other societies when we invade: Germany, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc.
We have a National Religion, and that religion is our love of guns. If you think that the founding fathers would have condoned the threat to public safety and personal liberty by allowing any law-abiding person over the age of 21 to have more destructive firepower than a Revolutionary War Infantry Company, then you are fooling yourself.
You have cashed-in your humanity if you think nothing needs to be changed.
And before you start some “Libtard, Democratic, Hippie Peacenik, Communist” bullshit, go fuck yourself. 27 years US Army, ranks of E1 to 03, 3 Overseas COMBAT Tours, Combat Action Badge, Combat Arms.
Now, go to town and eat a dick.
Stan McCrystal has got a deal for you.
Now I may be a lowly Navy man but if you were combat arm wouldn’t you have a CIB not a CAB? Also by your argument it’s ok for those under 21 to have more destructive firepower than a Revolutionary War Infantry Company? That is blatant ageism.
All b.s. aside you right to not get shot is the reason that it is a crime to shoot someone in any manner than self defense. I find your abuse for your First Amendment rights to be offensive and that you should be added to a secret list without due process and that your freedom of speech be stripped.
Good day.
CIB is only for Infantry and Special Forces, Combat Arms includes Engineers, Artillery, Cavalry, etc.
Gotcha, the only Combat Arms I was around in Afghanistan was Infantry. Everyone else was support personnel regardless if they left the wire or not
Tony, your profanity laden anti-gun ranting doesn’t change the fact that guns aren’t the problem. Yes, I will concur that a few idiots are messing it up for everyone else, but punishing the 99.9% of law abiding gun owners who have done nothing illicit or damaging to their friends, neighbors and communities is cause for concern (or whining as you referred to it). Yes, you have a right to both be and feel safe, just like everyone else. And you can definitely do so without issue or fear of being shot in most areas of this country. We aren’t the wild west. However, your feelings on how to go about being/feeling safe do not trump rights. I choose to defend myself, my home, and my family by owning and carrying weapons. You are free to do whatever you wish. The right is there whether you choose to exercise it or not; that’s the beauty of how this whole freedom thing works.
So if you, as an American, don’t think stripping Constitutional rights and broadly denying individuals the right of due process and effective legal redress of grievances when those rights are infringed upon is “bullshit”, it is my not-so-professional non-medical opinion that you need your head examined. Or at the very least a thoughtful review of your political priorities as they relate to this nation and its founding principles.
Shootings get more sensationalized and reported on than in times past because of our 24/7 connection to news and social media. That and the fact that mainstream news outlets appear to have partnered with politically motivated agendas against firearms and the 2nd Amendment.
If you would actually look at the statistics instead of telling people to eat dicks because they don’t share your statist views on weapon ownership, gun crime in the US is relatively low, and has been on a general decline for several successive years. Consult the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Survey(s) and see for yourself.
We are 1st on the list of guns per capita (Roughly 93 firearms per 100 people) yet 91st for murder, with 3.43 murders per 100,000 citizens. Suicides and accidents take 2x (totaling 6.87 per 100,000) more lives per year than intentional gun violence and crime. Even with those numbers, we are still much lower on the list than of some of those gun-free utopias you opined in your previous comment. Compared against strictly-enforced “gun-free” Honduras — whose population is about 1/37 of ours but carries a murder rate 19x higher (66.64 murders per 100,000) — we look like Disney World.
So, I will say again (at the risk of another barrage of keyboard commando abuse) guns are not the problem. The problem is idiots wanting to infringe on rights and blame it on everything but the actual cause: people, (criminals in particular).
I rarely chime in here because I’m not a vet and don’t have much to offer that other members don’t know better but the constitution applies to all citizens whether they’ve had the privilege of donning the uniform or not.
Even if hypothetically restricting guns would save lives I still don’t believe the government has that right. Our country was based on the idea that the individual is sacrosanct our justice system is based on Blackstone’s formulation that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” which Benjamin Franklin later paraphrased as 100 guilty men.
Imagine how much damage 100 free rapists or murders can do. Does the math not say its better to let Bob take one for the team than unleash that much carnage on the rest of us? It comes down to the fact that Bob’s rights are inalienable and no one has the moral authority to do that.
In the same manner you don’t get to tell someone whose life could have been saved by a gun that they had to take one for the team because the math worked out.
The whole idea is moot anyways. You can find plans for home made firearms on the internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH76VoI_hsw
You’re absolutely right. I use a similar analogy to explain this concept to folks and it’s downright shocking how many people don’t learn this until I explain it to them. It’s simple. Our Bill of Rights can be summarized as, “You know what’s worse than X? The government controlling the means of X or arbitrarily limiting it.” Substitute anything you want in there which pertains to the bill of rights. “You know what’s worse than frivolous lawsuits? The government arbitrarily deciding you can’t access the courts.” “You know what’s worse than someone getting away with murder? The government denying someone the right to a fair trial.” “You know what’s worse than Scientologists? The government telling you you can’t join that religion.”
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Before I was born my parents’ neighbor died because he was part of a religious group that apparently didn’t believe in using doctors or medicine. If only those pesky 1st Amendment protections for speech and religion didn’t exist he might never have been taught that and would still be alive today.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic, but there is not an unlimited freedom of religion. Many parents have been prosecuted due to not getting medical attention for their children for religious reasons.
Tony,
You are entitled to your opinion.
But allow me to provide you more accurate information on a couple of points. We did not ever have a policy to disarm Afghan or Iraqi civilians. We would confiscate RPGs and machine guns but we left AKs and other rifles unless we detained the individual. In fact in both OIF and OEF we provided weapons to local people so that they could defend themselves. I wasn’t in Bosnia but I don’t believe we did any such thing there either.
So no, we don’t completely disarm other countries when we invade. So why should we even consider disarming the citizens of our own country? And yes, contrary to your assertion, the Founding Fathers considered the armed citizen / civilian as essential to guaranteeing civil liberties and public safety. If you take the time to read some of what they wrote on the subject you can easily confirm what I’m saying.
The Founders were not only comfortable with civilians having the “weapons of war” of their day, they encouraged it and made a point of codifying it in our highest law, the Constitution. Not for hunting, not for sport but for defense, period.
You are right on one thing. “An infinitesimally small percentage” of murderers break multiple laws and use a gun in the commission of a crime. But that doesn’t mean that we should respond by trampling on the civil liberties of all citizens and violating the letter and the spirit of the Constitution out of fear.
TLB
Iraqis are allowed an AK type rifle in their home, that is one machine gun allowed per household. That’s quite the opposite of being disarmed.
Your right to not get shot does not trump my right to arm myself. Rather, those rights are of equal concern and merit. You wrote:
“You have cashed-in your humanity if you think nothing needs to be changed.”
I have not cashed-in my humanity and I won’t tell you to go to town and eat a couple of dicks. I’ll instead ask you to further elucidate as to specifics… You call for change. What should change, and how?
As others have pointed out, you are indeed entitled to your opinion. I will go a little further and point out that you are entitled to air it here, free of charge(s).
(brought to you by First Amendment. ability to keep consolation prizes courtesy of Fourth Amendment. halo provided by Ninth Amendment. overwatch courtesy of Second Amendment.)
But you don’t have a right not to get shot. You only have the right to defend yourself.
You might be able to get away with arguing that you have a right not to get shot by the government, but that doesn’t happen as often.
It’s funny. My father is a hard core left wing. Like goes and votes straight democratic ticket. He is so for a lot of thing the left says. But in contrast, he says that you know what I will give the right their firearms. I would never touch that if I ever ran. Yet on the other hand I would want to have the right give something I return. He says if he runs. Which he is considering for the next election, only for congress. Then he says if he would ever run for president. He would actually go for the real fair and balanced way. Have a right wing running mate. That way if he is doing something that was way to left then his VP would say hey that’s pretty left. And if his VP was going to right he would say hey that’s to right.
Now on to the no fly list. That list is kind of messed up. I have a carry permit. In Indiana, we are a shall issue state. And it’s not a CCW. It’s just a carry. You can open or conceal either or. But back on topic. Went to the airport to pick up my wife. Went to pick her up. And was in the area next to where the gates are. But you can go to. I was excited to see her I hugged and kissed her. Accidentally passed the point where you get introuble if you cross it. Just like 6inches. And I was placed on it. Also, people get on the no fly list for drunken behavior and grab assing on planes. Or had a friend whom was flying to do a mission trip in another country. Forgot to pack his hammer or didn’t want to have the extra weight in his checked baggage. So, he threw it in his carry on. He was placed on the no fly list for a period of time because of it. So in my mind I think the no fly list is a little strict for something as dumb as a hammer. Mind you this is friend is a double amputee from Iraq. So I think they should look harder as reasons why they are putting on the no fly list. And wasn’t there a time when veterans whom were buying firearms and had multiple combat tours on the terrorist watch list? Also, if if they decide to put you on any list they need to make it so you can find out why and if you are even on it.
I always tell people who bring it up the “secret terror watch lists” to be careful what they wish for. Today it’s them, tomorrow it’s us on it. I cannot even process what it would take to get cleared and off of one if you were placed on it by mere accident. Anyone who has ever dealt with any .gov agency knows it’s a nightmare.
Going off what was mentioned above about veterans returning from OEF/OIF and DOJ notifying local PDs about it. It was true and DOJ apologized for it.
Should a Veteran who hates the government but loves his Country, owns guns, shows public dismay against the government be placed on such list? Should a middle eastern legal immigrant who travels to ME and attends specific mosque be put on that list? What are the criteria to be put on that list and should it be secret??
If history teaches us anything I say let’s be careful about making “lists of people”. Especially “secret” kinds.