A smokey city under siege is the vision people see when they chant “Save the 2nd!” And a cunning Trojan horse won’t save it. The 2nd Amendment is the annoying right adversaries want to abolish.
As a fundamental right, public perception is the biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment. Social media and instant news loops tell people this is an antiquated right. Public perception campaigns influence legislative actions against their self-interest.
Yes, it is infuriating that people don’t see the harm in their actions. Let’s explore the frustration together below.
How Public Perceptions Threaten the 2nd Amendment?
A tragedy brings unwanted negative news coverage to the 2nd Amendment.
Immediately after an incident, public outcries for gun control are their most vocal. And public support for civilian liberties is at its lowest.
Citizens crowd the streets urging authorities to implement stricter gun-control laws. They see the tragedy as the failure of government firearm regulation.
Does the public look at these tragedies on an individual basis?
In short, the answer is no. Public perceptions change like a shifting wind in a sail.
One minute the sail is full of vigor taking you on the intended journey. The next minute it shifts direction leaving you wondering where the wind went.
In essence, the unpredictability of public perception poses a threat to the 2nd Amendment. It’s concerning to have a fundamental right at risk due to constantly changing opinions.
Public perception is a battle of the minds. Opponents do their best to vilify the 2nd Amendment making it the people’s enemy. What they forget is the 2nd Amendment is the government’s enemy put as a check on authority.
By stripping the average citizen of firearm rights, you weaken a functioning government.
Similar to young children, swift government mandates arise due to their reactionary nature. They fail to see the long-term effects of their actions.
Basing policy on emotion and not logic results in strategies as a band-aid instead of a true fix. I will give you more examples of this in the legislative part of the blog post below.
Furthermore, the public perception resembles that of pure democracy. In the United States, an average citizen isn’t as politically savvy anymore. There are many distractions such as your phone, work, or family obligations.
According to a recent Gallup poll stated, only 38% of people closely follow politics. This is slightly over 1/3 of the population capable of engaging in an intelligent discussion about policy. The other 2/3s fail to educate themselves on the issues.
Although we all have the opportunity to learn, many of us fail to acquire knowledge. Instead, we live in ignorant bliss.
Have you seen YouTube videos of people interviewed walking along a park or beach? Hosts ask them basic questions such as:
- What is the Constitution?
- What happened in 1776?
- Who is our current President and Vice-President?
It is scary to see the lack of effort people exert. They can’t answer these basic questions.
Our Founders built our constitutional republic on civic involvement and an educated populace.
Why would I want people who fail to answer these basic questions to influence a right such as the 2nd Amendment?
Unlike public perception, the Bill of Rights doesn’t consider people’s feelings.
In a tyrannical state, you observe blissful individuals who lack education. The more ignorant populations are less of a threat to a dictator. Political dissidents are the brave ones that speak out against the tyrant’s injustices.
Overall, public perception threatens the 2nd Amendment. The biggest hazard is individuals’ reactionary response to biased news reports. Populations fail to recognize their own ignorance. And they don’t use enough logic in their decision-making process.
A group’s unwillingness to learn the basics of U.S. civics shouldn’t cause the loss of a right- like the 2nd Amendment.
We all can learn. And people put effort to learn the knowledge where they see fit.
Gun Owners Brandishing Firearms- A Threat?
{None of the following analyses in the sections below counts as legal advice. I’m not a lawyer.}
Are people who walk with rifles in Capitol buildings a threat to society? Or are they keeping a rogue government in check? Is it brandishing a firearm?
How people act in this instance is how the public perceives gun owners.
Here are the 2 sides to this saga.
Pro-Gun Side:
In mid-2020, many concerned citizens-like in Michigan- thought their state governments went rogue. Covid restrictions limiting freedom of movement became too much for local populations.
To display ridiculousness, stores roped off sections deemed non-essential to keep people out. You couldn’t buy gardening seeds as the state considered them non-essential.
Frustrated, local organizations staged an armed protest in the capitol building. At the time of the protest in April/May 2020, Michigan law stated a citizen could carry a firearm in a state capitol.
Thus, protestors wanted to send a clear message to the government. “We the People” didn’t approve of the restrictions.
Would the Founding Fathers approve of the protest’s style? Did it do more harm for public perception or good?
I won’t answer these questions for you. But I’m giving data you to decide for yourself.
Anti-Gun Side:
For those that don’t like firearms, armed individuals in a capitol are scary. Lawmakers felt threatened and harassed. They feel modern society doesn’t need this kind of potential violence.
Many on this side believe that this action equates to brandishing a firearm. And they compared these citizens to criminals.
From their viewpoint, carrying a weapon into a state house takes the 1st Amendment too far. And freedom of speech doesn’t involve the use of firearms because it isn’t peaceful.
In one action, demonstrators used their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights to petition their governments. They used freedom of speech to inform authorities of their disapproval. Then, they exercised the 2nd Amendment rights of open carry.
The average citizen looking in has a negative public perception of these individuals. As a result, Michigan officials banned firearms in the state capitol building.
State officials considered these actions against society’s interest. Consequently, they advocated for stronger brandishing laws as mentioned above.
As I close this section, here are some more questions to ponder:
- Did the Michigan incident threaten the 2nd Amendment by prompting state officials to ban firearms?
- Does public perception matter in this case?
- Or are people too sensitive?
- Who’s in charge of government: state officials or the sovereign people?
Here are a couple links to news stories during that era:
Politico Article
CBS Article
Legislative Actions that Jeopardize the 2nd Amendment
Regulating the 2nd Amendment requires lawmakers to balance public safety vs crime prevention.
Often, legislators overlook the 2nd Amendment as written. They focus more on crime prevention.
They forget that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. It is equal to the 1st Amendment along with others listed.
Instead of laws balancing a person’s rights and public safety, they aim for maximum public safety. Ben Franklin warned about giving up liberty when he said:
“Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin
Here is an example of potential legislation that harms the 2nd Amendment:
- Red Flag Laws (Known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders)-
States that have these laws generally have no due process for taking away weapons. Typically, a family member, co-worker, or teacher makes a claim against an individual.
Then, a judge will sign an order to send law enforcement to remove firearms from the suspect’s house. The accused has no due process to defend themselves in court before police come knocking on the door.
Would you want the police to remove your firearms without a chance to defend your honor in court? No, you wouldn’t.
Red Flag Laws are a threat to the 2nd Amendment. Essentially, it is to confiscate the guns first and ask questions later.
These laws don’t keep liberty at the forefront.
- Bans on “High Capacity” Magazines
What is “high capacity”?
One lawmaker says 15 rounds is too much. A week later another lawmaker swears you only need 7 rounds.
Do you see the problem?
Opinions vary on “standard capacity” vs “high capacity”. Standard capacity for a Glock 17- a typical law enforcement firearm- is 17 plus 1. The plus 1 includes 1 round in the chamber.
Is that too many rounds for law enforcement? I’d say yes today but not tomorrow depending on how I feel that day.
Moreover, lawmakers argue civilians do not need that many available rounds for self-defense. Arbitrary power displayed by laws such as these threaten the 2nd Amendment. They attempt to restrict capacity in “common use” firearms carried by citizens across the U.S.
Who is the face of the 2nd Amendment?
The biggest companies have a spokesperson. They have an entire team to represent them in times of crisis.
Like giant corporations, the 2nd Amendment needs someone good at public relations. Who do you want to represent it on your behalf?
In short, the answer is everyone. You’re the ideal representative for our rights.
As 2nd Amendment supporters, remember public perception is the biggest threat to your way of life. We need a combined community effort. Your goal is to convert as many anti-gunners as possible to the 2nd Amendment.
Friends will do more to benefit the 2nd Amendment than enemies. As a general rule, we know not everyone will come to our side.
For those that don’t, it will be a long battle. We shouldn’t have to convince people that self-defense and self-preservation are important.
Yet, somewhere along their life journey, our opponents lost their way. They aren’t well-versed in the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
Likewise, what are some actions that exhibit a positive 2nd Amendment community?
- You’re a moral and ethical user of firearms
- You avoid conflict while armed and don’t seek it out
- You understand firearm safety
Keep the 2nd Amendment image positive. And let me remind everyone, people who don’t respect the above qualities don’t represent the core of the 2nd Amendment movement.
2nd Amendment Articles:
Why does a face matter to the 2nd Amendment if it is gone? LEARN MORE by reading my article on America without the 2nd.
With everything negative about the 2nd Amendment, LEARN MORE about the positive attributes of guns.
Conclusion
The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights always under attack. Its supporters play the defensive too much. And the mass media convinced the public that it is like an illegitimate child of the Constitution.
Why is the 2nd Amendment under siege?
Public perception is the biggest threat to this amendment. Frankly put, people don’t like it because it puts weapons in civilians’ hands.
To save the 2nd Amendment, we must decide who represents the core supporters. We discussed different scenarios on laws and past events affecting public perception.
In closing, public perception can change toward the 2nd. It takes time and dedication from a fine group of individuals such as yourselves.
What do you see as other threats to the 2nd Amendment? What current events do you see as negative public perception?
J. Liberty
References:
Saad, L. (2021, 16 November). Political News Receiving Heightened Public Attention. Retrieved from GallUp.
Photo Credits
