2A

A New Perspective on the 2nd Amendment

As seen in seacoastonline.com on September 3rd, 2019.

By: George Halsey

August 29th, 2019

To the Editor:

For years when we have tried to alleviate the problems of gun crime, many Americans have adopted a central philosophy of restricting people’s use and ownership of weapons (firearms).

This typically plays out with Democrats advocating for extreme government intervention whilst Republicans agree to compromise and deliver modest intervention. Legislation flows only in one direction and lawmakers only look through a singular prism, that is weapons = bad (government excepted). Fighting = bad (government excepted). Empowered citizens = bad.

Young Republicans believe in a different approach. We believe the same mindset behind the 2nd Amendment lies also at the core of individual success, enlightenment and achievement of happiness in life.

Our founders understood that being brave and free were crucial in the pursuit of happiness. They knew unlocking our full potential to be the best people we can be, that is to improve ourselves so we can better elevate the happiness of everyone, requires a warrior’s mindset. We say ‘conquer your fears’ for a reason! This means in order to thrive and overcome our own demons, we need a thick skin and a tenacious attitude. We need to take risks and leave our comfort zone, being courageous in knowing what is best for our own life. It means fighting for our own selves and what you know to be trueand to be willing and capable to fight for our lives if necessary.  

Before we discuss implementing new restrictive interventions, we must radically rethink the philosophies behind the current ones

George Halsey

Secretary

Rockingham County Young Republicans

The Myth of the 'Assault Weapon'

By George Halsey, Secretary

May 21, 2019

To the Editor:

Of the anti-2nd Amendment legislation currently doing the rounds in Congress, two notions make a significant priority for Democrats (and certain Republicans): Universal background checks and ‘assault weapon’ bans. The former’s nonsense and unconstitutionality has been well covered by others, so allow me to tackle the latter. Quite simply, ‘assault weapon’ is a fake term used as cover to justify prohibition of the exact arms that the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects.

The word ‘assault’ only appears once in the world of firearms, within the term ‘assault rifle’. It is distinguished from a regular rifle by the presence of three features: capability of full-auto fire, use of a certain type of ammunition and having a detachable magazine. The first one, full-auto, has been highly regulated under federal law since 1934 so is irrelevant to this argument. The latter two have little to do with lethality in the wider context of firearms; any number of commonly available rifles, shotguns or pistols are comparable in this regard.

In contrast, when a layperson hears the phrase ‘assault weapon’, criminal assault comes to mind; a legal offense as opposed to defense. To that layperson the gun must be different from others supposedly intended for defensive use, by surely being designed to attack and injure individuals offensively. This is a complete misunderstanding - the term ‘Assault’ here actually refers to the small-unit infantry tactic, or combat action, of firing and advancing towards an enemy. It certainly does not concern violence towards an individual or relate to whether a weapon is wielded offensively or defensively.

Unfortunately, absent of this information or anything like it in the mainstream media, one might be persuaded to believe that these weapons are so dangerous only the correct authorities should be trusted to use them. This is the foundation upon which ‘assault weapon’ bans work, in practice prohibiting the sale of guns possessing features useful in combat. The designated features have nothing to do whatsoever with assault rifles or criminal violence but included things like pistol grips, which make a rifle slightly more comfortable to hold, flash hiders, which slightly reduce the muzzle blast at night and standard-capacity magazines, which are unrelated to the ‘assault’ definition.

The 2nd Amendment inarguably codifies the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of combat, especially militia combat, which has always been the domain of any individual or unit of persons-at- arms. To prohibit arms exclusively because they are useful in combat is to obliterate the 2 nd Amendment.