The right to keep and bear arms is a right of every individual American citizen of sound mind and good moral character. Indeed, it is a right of every such human being on planet Earth, and of every such intelligent creature in the universe--this means all galaxies, not just the Milky Way!
Of course, the United States Constitution has no legal force on other planets, or in other galaxies. Not Yet. But just wait till we Clingons get there; Article Two of the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about "on Earth", ok? Nor does "the people" specify only humans. Let's get something straight right now: we humans, and other intelligent creatures throughout the universe, do not get our unalienable rights from the government--any government.
What does the Declaration of Independence say? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Well. Just what does "their Creator" mean? It may be interpreted differently by each reader of the Declaration, and no doubt has been taken many different ways; in all likelihood, this was the deliberate intent, not only of Jefferson when he wrote the words, but of the Continental Congress that approved them. They didn't write "God" or "Nature" or "whatever gods may be" (as the ancient Romans often did in their official government documents), or even "the Great Architect of the Universe" as the Freemasons among them might have preferred; they didn't write "the Force" or "the Sons of Light" or anything specific at all--just "their Creator", leaving the phrase open to interpretation--and acceptance--by people of all beliefs, any belief, or no belief. Pretty clever.
What they did get specific about was the duty of government--or at least, of a just government: "...to secure these rights..."--period. Clear enough for you? Governments exist, we all understand, now, then, and all through history that don't give a tinker's damn about the people's rights, except how to infringe them, reduce them, restrict them, suppress them, or utterly obliterate even the concept and memory of them--but we know what these governments are rightly called, don't we? Tyranny. They exist for the benefit of the tyrant and his friends, his party, his political machine of oppression--not for the benefit of the people, howevermuch they may claim otherwise. Such governments are not just, and do not derive their powers from the consent of the governed, although they are ususally quite efficient at organizing public displays of adulation by the governed.
What were those rights again, specifically? Well, there are obviously a lot of them, too many, in fact, to be listed in any single document even if it were a whole library of volumes. Hence, Jefferson saw fit to mention only a few of the most important, to give readers the idea: "...life, liberty..."--first and foremost, life. Without that, it's pretty obvious you won't be enjoying any of the others.
So, just what does a government have to do to secure everyone's right to life? Well, there are a number of positive steps that must be taken, like defending the people against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So much is obvious. Of course, there are times when the government--or actually, it's human agents--is not around; at such times, if we are attacked, we must defend ourselves--or die. Indeed, if we value our liberty, and hence our privacy, we must insist that there be times and places when the government's agents aren't around, and that must include many places, and most of the time.
So, the government's duty to protect us in no way limits our own right to protect ourselves; indeed, I argue that we have not only a right to protect ourselves--and our families, neighbors, and even fellow humans, countrymen especially--but a duty to do so.
"No man is an island, alone unto himself, but each is a part of the maine; and even as the mightiest continent is diminished by the loss of so little as a single clod, so much am I diminished by the death of any man..." (with apologies to John Dunne)
Now, if we take our responsibility to defend ourselves and our fellow man seriously--and if you don't take that seriously, what should you take seriously?--then we are obligated to prepare ourselves to actually do so--mentally, legally, and physically.
Well, how do we prepare to defend human life? We must prepare ourselves to defeat the criminals who would murder us. We must, in fact, prepare ourselves just as any police officer is prepared to defend the public. This means physical training, and it means mental preparation, and it means weapons. What weapons? The same as those used by any cop; as a matter of fact, not just weapons, but equipment generally. Whatever a police officer needs to protect the public, the public needs to protect the public--logical? This includes body armor, handcuffs, tactical radios, pepper spray, tasers, clubs, night-vision optics, tactical flashlights, knives, and guns. The honest, peaceful citizen needs each of these things for the exact same reason the police officer does; to protect himself and the public. It is the police officer's duty; it is the citizen's legal right--and moral duty, too.
We CLINGONS insist on doing our duty, and we insist on CLINGING to our right to defend ourselves--and our families, and our neighbors, and--well, even you, if we see you in trouble.
What kind of guns do we need to defend--you? Exactly the same types of guns used by the police, and for the reason that these are the best types of weapons available for the purpose. Of course, in some cases we may feel we have need for different weapons than those actually issued to the police, because we may be in different environments, different circumstances than a police officer on duty.
My point is that we CLINGONS feel entitled to choose any weapon appropriate to the situation, as long as it is compatible with responsible use by a prudent and reasonable man. This, in turn, will depend on the circumstances. As a general rule, we should learn to categorize weapons by the effect they have on the target when used properly--as a prudent and reasonable man would use them. This means, as a practical matter, that we need only distinguish between firearms that launch non-explosive projectiles, and those that launch explosive projectiles. Any other distinctions are trivial. As that great firearms expert, Marina Oswald, said when questioned about the type of firearm her husband Lee kept in the garage, "Rifle? Shotgun? Machinegun? What difference does it make? They all shoot."
Yes indeed, Marina--they all shoot. And they all make neat little round holes in paper targets at the shooting range, or in whatever else they happen to hit. And they all kill. Thank God, for that is what they are intended to do, and it is precisely this ability to kill which enables them to save so many innocent human lives every year.
According to the most reliable sources available, of which I will mention only three--the work of Prof. John Lott, the research of Prof. Gary Kleck, and the report, ordered and funded by the Dept. of Justice under Jimmy Carter by Profs. Wright and Rossi--innocent, peaceful people use firearms to prevent or defeat violent, vicious, criminal attacks--attempted rapes, robberies, muggings, kidnappings, murders--over a million times each year; and that is just here in the United States!
And in the great majority of cases, these guns need not even be fired--merely displaying a gun to the criminal in question (henceforth, CIQ) by the intended victim, whom the CIQ had expected to be totally unarmed and helpless, actually rehabilitated the CIQ from his life of crime; at least, until he got out of range. Permanent rehabilitation usually does not occur until the CIQ is shot for the second or third time, after which he decides to forego mugging and rape for something less evil--like kiting bad checks, or selling narcotics to children.
Well, just what kind of guns do we CLINGONS need to defend ourselves and our fellow Earthmen? Logically, the same kind of firearms used by the police for the very same purpose--defending themselves and the public. And not just firearms, but all the equipment used by the police, we CLINGONS need and have a right to--body armor, tactical radios, pepper spray, tasers, tactical flashlights, night-vision gear, clubs, knives and GUNS; what the police need to protect the public, the public needs to protect the public. We also need training--more of that another time.
And what firearms do the police use to protect the public? A wide variety. To begin with, a service sidarm worn on the belt in a holster; but this, while indispensable, is not the police officer's weapon of first choice in a fight. It is, like all pistols, short on power and accuracy--but it is instantly available when desperately needed, and that is what counts most.
Most police favor the weapon found in the trunk of every squad car: the shotgun. Powerful, and firing a burst of pellets with each shot so that even a semi-trained officer can hit a badguy with fair frequency, it is the weapon of choice for most at ranges from point-blank out to 50 yards. For greater ranges or situations requiring penetration of barriers of any kind, another weapon found in nearly all police cars is favored: the automatic rifle. In the hands of most officers, this is effective out to about 200 yards.
Beyond this range, police departments almost universally provide a long-range precision rifle of high power with a telescopic sight: to the media, this is a 'sniper rifle', although it is instantly recognizable to any hunter as just a good hunting rifle. Effective use of such an arm requires an officer to train more than most, although it can improve the effectiveness of any officer if he has to deal with a situation in which pin-point accuracy is needed, such as a badguy hiding behind cover or worse yet, behind a hostage. Such a weapon is indispensable in such cases, and in the hands of goodguys has saved many an innocent life.
Many officers who are good shots prefer a weapon known as an 'automatic carbine' to the shotgun; this is just an automatic rifle firing a less powerful cartridge which is, therefore, more easily controlled allowing the shooter to fire rapidly with greater accuracy than if he were using a high-power rifle. Such weapons include the M-16 which has been the standard infantry weapon of American and many other armies for over 40 years, and no matter how often they call it a 'rifle' (which it resembles) its 'intermediate' (read low-power) ammunition makes it in fact more a carbine than a genuine rifle. This weapon is in fact the most widespread 'automatic rifle' currently used in American police departments; and it's a good weapon for civilians to master as well, especially if they live in rural areas. Even in town, it can be used responsibly in built-up neigborhoods if proper ammunition is selected to avoid over-penetration.
Last is a type of firearm very popular with both civilians and police: the 'back-up gun'. This is nothing more than a very small, light pistol suited for constant, long-term carry in a pocket or purse (or 'shoulder bag' for you macho types) and intended to be used either by civilians who can legally be armed but don't want to be seen as armed (thus doing a great service to all the rest of us, since it means the badguys can't tell who among is helpless, and who is armed and ready to defend anyone they see being attacked)--or by police officers who wear a large, heavy pistol, but feel the need for a backup in case their service sidearm is empty, jammed, or ripped out of their hand by some thug.
Out where I live (Los Angeles) a police officer was recently assaulted by a gang-punk who walked up behind him and hit him in the head with a baseball bat. The officer was knocked to the ground, bleeding, with a concussion, but still conscious--he drew his service sidearm--a large automatic pistol--and tried to bring it into action but, no doubt due to the concussion, fumbled with the controls and rather than releasing the safety, released the magazine instead, dropping the magazine to the ground with a sickening clunk! Dropping his now empty automatic, as the gangbanger advanced toward him to deliver a second, fatal blow with the baseball bat (and, no doubt, steal the officer's gun) he drew a snubnose .38 revolver from its concealed holster on his ankle and shot the badguy dead. This happened in the parking lot of Roosevelt High School in broad daylight, in front of numerous witnesses (all of whom, no doubt, would have been terrified at the prospect of testifying against a gang-banger in court).
The moral of this story is: if you need one gun, you need two. The second moral is: the most powerful pistol in the world isn't always a .44 magnum (sorry, Dirty Harry) it's whatever you can carry with you 24/7 so you have it when, unexpectedly, you need it to save someone's life. And the third moral is: while living on planet Earth, carry a gun; the life you save may be mine.
So there you have a very brief and incomplete summary of the kind of firearms all CLINGONS must own and be proficient with in order to be CLINGONS IN GOOD STANDING IN THE ORDER OF BATTLE. We CLINGONS will continue to do so, and will be monitoring the Supreme Court and anyone else who threatens to restrict our right to live--in peace.
Live long, and prosper. Buy a gun.
NEXT WEEK: CLINGING TO YOUR MACHINE GUN