On Resistance: And the Expansion of We the People's Civil Rights in America

By Reuben B. Collins II

This series of essays address the ongoing debate centered on how patriotism is defined and who is a patriot. True patriotism is much broader than how it has been traditionally described in American society. There is a spirit of opposition within the nation’s history that has never been credited for being the primary source of developing American democracy.

“On Resistance” makes the case that activist groups such as the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, (BPP) have set the tone by making our nation a more just and open society. I offer a new definition for patriotism that highlights the voice of opposition and activism. The nation’s “Radical Democratic Tradition” has been at the forefront of articulating the true meaning of democracy in our society. Readers of this book will see how this “Radical” tradition became the strength behind shifting our nation beyond the preservation of the basic “property rights” of our citizens to an emphasis in upholding our citizen’s basic civil rights.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Jun 29, 2021
• ISBN: 9781662431210

Book preview

CHAPTER ONE

Purpose

On May 2, 1967, approximately thirty members of the flagship Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP) arrived at the California State Assembly Legislature Building in Sacramento. Their presence caused an international stir because they arrived to voice their opposition to an effort by lawmakers to outlaw the public display of firearms in the Golden State. Members of the Party viewed the proposed legislation as an attack on the organization’s ability to express their right to bear arms, as well as their right to free speech. In other words, they did not think that the legislation was a coincidence. The legislation, in their minds, was an attack on the constitutionally protected Second Amendment advocacy of the Black Panther Party. It is hard to imagine that this unlikely group of armed protectors of the United States Constitution had any idea that, at that moment, their protest would be remembered to the degree that it has in the last fifty-plus years. BPP members appearing before the capital building in full BPP regalia were there to protest the implementation of the so-called Mulford Act legislation.

The assembly’s Committee on Criminal Procedure had scheduled to hold hearings on the bill which would make the public carrying of loaded guns illegal. California had always prided itself as an open-carry state that was pro Second Amendment. The author of the bill, Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford, represented the East Bay, which was coincidentally within the BPP’s Bay Area stomping ground. Mulford was quoted at the time as saying that the intention of the bill was to keep [Californian’s] safe from nuts with guns. The act prohibited the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street. It was no secret that the bill was proposed as a response to the BPP that had already, by this time, become a threat to many in the status quo. Increased media attention helped to raise the Party’s profile to make them an international phenomenon.

That attention, particularly the Party’s embrace of the Second Amendment, made them pariahs in the eyes of so-called acceptable society. The BPP was, quite frankly, frightening to many members of the white and black community. The brash nature of the Party made supporters of the civil rights movement uneasy about their approach and skeptical about the organization’s intentions. The image of the Panthers on that fateful mid-spring day caused complete chaos, and as a result, party members were arrested and charged criminally for their open display of defiance although their armed presence was technically legal. Their public display of support for open carrying should have been applauded by gun enthusiasts and adherents of the Second Amendment throughout the nation. The reaction on a national scale was the polar opposite. Conservative assemblymen and liberals as well supported the bill with the understanding that it would limit the open carrying of weapons for every Californian, not just for the Black Panther Party.

The Mulford Act was passed by the California State Assembly and signed into law by then Governor Ronald Reagan. That’s right, the darling of the conservative movement signed sweeping anti-gun rights legislation. Governor Reagan was quoted at the time as saying that he saw no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons. Reagan and others set aside their increasingly conservative interpretation of the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, to respond to the Panther threat. The California State government determined that the state’s interest in protecting the public against a perceived violent threat far exceeded any civil liberties that were lost as a consequence. This event ended up becoming a watershed moment for the fledgling BPP. The Panthers received a significant amount of media exposure which consequentially led to increased Party membership. Spurred, in part, by the publicity received as a result of the Mulford Act incident, the BPP expanded and eventually developed a national membership base with chapters that included representation on the East and West Coast. Figures such as Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, Bobby Rush, Elaine Brown, Kathleen Cleaver, and Fred Hampton and numerous others became radical political icons. The California Assembly event established the BPP as a true revolutionary force during the course of the turbulent sixties.

The event that provoked Assemblyman Mulford to propose the bill took place earlier that year. According to the police account on April 1, 1967, Denzil Dowell had been caught breaking into a liquor store in North Richmond, a suburb of Oakland. When confronted by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, who asked him to stop, Dowell allegedly resisted, and his refusal to stop resulted in him being the victim of multiple deadly gunshot wounds. The officers at the scene reported that Dowell had posed a threat to them at the time, which warranted their deadly use of force. The Party became vocal critics of the actions of the state in this instance. Party members perceived the law enforcement response to be an act of the excessive use of force during the course of an arrest. The Party was incensed because this action was part of a growing pattern. This pattern of activity within predominately low-income African American communities encouraged the establishment of the Party’s citizen patrols.

The Panthers construed the language in the Second Amendment of the Constitution which referenced the people’s ability to uncompromisingly keep and bear arms, as fundamental to the Party’s position that oppressed people of all stripes are entitled to be armed and able to defend themselves from overzealous policing tactics under the color of law. The national view of the BPP at the time was not as protectors of the Constitution. News reports framed their efforts as being anarchist in scope and contrary to well-established American values. The BPP’s impassioned opposition to the Mulford Act based on Second Amendment Constitutional grounds rivaled the present-day rhetoric that is spewed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) whenever a municipality or legislative body of any size proposes even the most modest gun control legislation. Writer Adam Winkler credits the May 2, 1967, Panther invasion of the California Statehouse as the igniter of the gun-rights movement as it is interpreted today with its emphasis on the right to bear arms and the de-emphasis on a well-regulated militia.¹⁰

Who would have thought that the Black Panther Party and the NRA would be in joint support of anything, much less opposition to gun control legislation? What should be noted is that the NRA of that time did not align themselves with the BPP in 1967. It is probably safe to say that the NRA would never align themselves with groups such as the BPP. NRA brass, like most of the so-called establishment, viewed the BPP as a threat to society. It is reported that the NRA actually supported reasonable gun control in various forms up until the late 1960s.¹¹ The Panthers were considered a separatist anti-American hate group that was philosophically opposed to the tenets of the United States Constitution. The NRA of that time, as well as today, exemplified a more conservative philosophy. Their philosophical leanings were conservative and in support of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. However, the NRA’s support of the Second Amendment did not amount to ideological support for the position taken by the BPP in opposition to the Mulford Act. The irony is that the BPP took a position that was based on a very specific reading or misreading of the Constitution that has become a mainstay of the political right of today.

Using the standard contemporary argument in support of the Second Amendment, one would think that the BPP and the Tea Party movement, for example, would be naturally aligned spiritual bedfellows. An uncompromising belief that true patriotism is measured by your support of the Second Amendment is a mainstay of the present conservative political movement. You are subject to being called un-American if you are not the lawful owner of at least two firearms from the perspective of many on the political right. It is rare, however, for conservative commentators to acknowledge the role of the BPP in popularizing the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment with its emphasis on the right of the people to bear arms. Conservatives have championed the cause of the Koreshans and other anti-government extremists for their willingness to stand up against a tyrannical United States government. An interesting thought is whether our nation’s views on gun ownership and the Second Amendment would change if the African American population owned guns at the same percentage rate as White Americans.

Taking that thought even further, it would be interesting to ponder how our views on gun ownership would be if the majority of this nation’s ethnic and minority populations possessed guns on a larger scale than the majority population. Imagine if you will the response of our nation if 80 percent or more of every African American, Latino, Asian, and Arab origin male between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five sought a concealed weapon permit and NRA membership. Are you of the opinion that this increase in a select type of gun ownership would, if anything, receive the support of the NRA and gun enthusiasts? Or do you believe, like me, that this condition would trigger sweeping changes in our present gun ownership regulations? It would also predictably result in a significant spike in gun sales in the majority population. This reaction on a national scale would influence the thinking of lawmakers on the federal level to respond to a threat in similar fashion to the California legislature in 1967. The racial makeup of who actually owns guns in our society has some bearing on overall gun ownership regulation.

The media reported on the occasions of the election and reelection of President Barack Obama that the nation witnessed a significant upsurge in the number of firearm purchases at both points in time. If you recall a significant number of Americans, mostly on the Far Right, politically determined that Obama was plotting to take away their guns. It was also reported that gun sales increased in response to the then anticipated election of Hillary Clinton in late 2016. A March 6, 2017, Washington Post article highlighted an interesting twist to that narrative. The article reported that the election of Donald Trump resulted in a precipitous decline in gun sales; however, that overall decline was accompanied by some unusual growth: gun clubs and shops that cater to black and LGBT clients saw a surge in firearm sales.¹² The increase was attributed to the environment of fear that Trump’s rhetoric against Muslims, Mexicans, and other minority groups had created. The rhetoric prioritized the idea of purchasing a gun for protection against racially motivated acts of violence.

A 2014 Pew-Research Study shows that in America 41 percent of non-Hispanic whites say they have at least one gun while only 19 percent of blacks and 20 percent of Latinos are gun owners.¹³ This rather large disparity based on race shows that gun ownership is much more prevalent in white American society. We will discuss how the nation’s black codes of the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and most of the twentieth centuries contributed to these disparities in chapter 9. This fascination with guns is even more interesting when we see the areas of the nation with the highest percentages of gun ownership. These areas are generally less densely populated and not as culturally diverse. Imagine if those numbers were reversed and the Latino and black populations owned guns at the rate of the white population. Would the Tea Party love affair with the Second Amendment stay intact? Suppose this gun advocacy included the establishment of highly organized rifle clubs in Black and Latino neighborhoods. Suppose members of minority groups chose to push for laws that relaxed the regulations that are in place that limit an individual’s ability to carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon. I wonder if the NRA would support the continued development of gun right advocacy by these groups. These possibilities would be in place if more Americans fully appreciated the significance of the political ideology expressed by the BPP in the 1960s.

The Panther’s support of the Second Amendment threatened the conscious of conservative America. The BPP used the language of the Second Amendment to justify the organization’s belief that the African American community had a constitutional right to arm themselves against police aggression. This is an important distinction from the argument that we have a constitutional right to simply possess guns. The Party was not blindly advocating for mass gun ownership without legitimate cause. The Party tailored gun ownership as a remedy to arm the people against the illegal actions of the police that disproportionately impacted the black community. The Party described their beliefs on the use of guns in this way:

We don’t use our guns, we have never used our guns to go into the white community to shoot up white people. We only defend ourselves against anybody, be they black, blue, green, or red, who attacks us unjustly and tries to murder us and kill us for implementing our programs. All in all, I think people can see from our past practice, that ours is not a racists organization but a very progressive revolutionary party.¹⁴

Historians have generally dismissed the Party’s stance on gun ownership as hot-aired rhetoric that lacked any intellectual strength. Many of these so-called experts have downplayed the Party’s usage of this language in the context of the United States Constitution. This has persisted because many of these historians have been unwilling to acknowledge that the United States, as a government, has, from time to time, trampled over the rights of its citizens in violation of the Constitution.

This constitutional position put the Party at odds with so-called civil society. To be fair, the BPP and its emphasis on self-defense was not entirely embraced by liberal America either. Very little effort was made at the time to clarify the Party’s views on gun ownership, so they were predictably ostracized by the so-called Left and Right as being extremists. Racial solidarity did not make the Party a favorite of the more traditional civil rights movement. In fact, it is safe to say that a majority of the African American population viewed the Party as being violent and contrary to the goals of a more acceptable approach to achieve black liberation. Clearly, the argument that the BPP set forth in opposition to the Mulford Act was consistent with the rhetoric that we hear today from hardline conservatives and was only distinguished by the Panther’s emphasis on self-defense against police aggression. This line of reasoning was reflected in Point Seven What We Believe of the BPP’s Ten Point Plan. The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense’s Ten-Point Program effectively spelled the Party’s goals. Under point 7 the Panther’s stated as follows:

We believe we can end police brutality in our Black community by organizing Black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our Black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives us the right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black people should arm themselves for self-defense.¹⁵

This provision was in response to the climate that existed then and still exists today between the nations, primarily African American, Latino populations, and law enforcement. This line of reasoning was considered the offshoot of Malcolm X belief that Black people would be well within their rights to arm themselves against governmental oppression. Malcolm’s reasoning followed the well-documented tradition of establishing an armed defense within the African American community despite the perception that America’s former slaves were reluctant to defend themselves from acts of terrorism and violence. A closer look at the history of our nation will show that the tradition of armed resistance in support of individual liberties, such as the right to bear arms, was not unique to the traditional European American experience and could be traced to pre-constitutional times in the United States.

A Tradition of Resistance Is Established

The origins of the revolutionary ideology that embraced the Second Amendment also furthered the principles established by the framers and, more specifically, their progenies. This uncompromising revolutionary fervor that opposed far-reaching government dominance over the lives of its citizens was not limited to Second Amendment advocacy. Opposition to dictatorial leadership was a significant influence on the beliefs shared by the early settlers. Representative government was favored over an oligarchy, and the people resisted efforts by the state to impose on their privacy without legitimate cause. A distinct culture of agitators has always appeared to have a place in American society. Remember that pre-constitutional America was technically not an actual nation per se. The goal of the opposition was, therefore, not necessarily to overthrow a government that did not exist. Their objective was to ensure that the government operated in the interests of every citizen. According to historian Howard Zinn, by the year 1760 alone, there had been eighteen uprisings aimed at overthrowing colonial governments.¹⁶ As the foundation of the future nation began to develop, class differences quickly became exposed as well.

The economy as a whole was a century away from the Industrial Revolution. An agrarian economy that thrived on the production of tobacco and, later, cotton became the staple of the early nation’s wealth. Only a small percentage of those early settlers could afford slave labor. This class was, in most instances, of the ranks of the wealthy and educated. In contrast to the elite class, most early American settlers farmed on smaller tracts of land owned by large landowners with the hope that they could eventually buy those lots to make a modest living for their families. This lower economic class of people possessed little, if any, influence on the politics of their communities. The advantages and disadvantages of a fledgling economy based on the principles of raw capitalism would inevitably surface. The general theme for most of these conflicts was the demand and the interest of the powerful and wealthy over the interest of working-class people.

Regulator Movement

Between the years 1764−1771, North Carolina was embroiled in an uprising titled the Regulator Movement, which consisted of poor, industrious white farmers from the inland portion of the state who attempted to democratize local governments in their respective counties." The name was based on the belief that the people should regulate their own affairs. These working-class citizens lacked the political influence to manipulate the direction and thought process of the elite class of citizens in power. The people behind the Regulator Movement believed that wealth and political power created a tax system that unfairly burdened the poor. These conditions made it difficult for those that lacked established wealth to make a living and to provide for the basic needs of their families. At one point, during the course of the Regulator uprising, over seven hundred armed farmers forced the release of two regulator leaders. It is estimated that at least seven thousand men were considered supporters or, at the very least, sympathizers of the movement.

The movement was led by men such as Rednap Howell, James Huner, and Herman Husband.¹⁷ These men, and I’m sure many of their spouses, mothers, and daughters, were philosophically committed to the belief that all people, no matter their stated class in society, deserved to be treated fairly and as human beings. It did not matter whether you were wealthy or lacking in monetary resources. If you were a citizen, you were entitled to be treated in the same manner as your community’s aristocrats, notwithstanding economic status. In 1770, there was a large-scale riot in Hillsborough, North Carolina, where regulators disrupted the court, forced a judge to flee, beat three lawyers and two merchants, and looted stores.¹⁸ North Carolina state authorities finally reined in the uprising in 1771 when, with the use of cannons, they defeated several thousand Regulators. The Regulator Movement, like so many of the uprisings that occurred prior to the signing of the United States Constitution, predated the continued tension that existed between the rich and poor and shed light on the need throughout American history to reign in the control that government has maintained over the people.

Not surprisingly, the focus of this organized act of disobedience was harnessed by the need to address clearly localized injustices taking place within colonial North Carolina. The Regulator Movement was just one example of the extent of revolutionary spirit brewing throughout the early United States. These pre-constitutional colonial days of American culture were influenced by the beliefs of the nation’s early settlers, which sought the pursuit of a quality of life that was not limited by the whims of the British monarchy. Racial animus clearly existed during these early days of the republic; nevertheless, the ability to use race and class as vehicles to separate the people was not a viable option for the society’s underclass. The underclass lacked the power and influence within society to change the direction of policy or decision-making. In each of these uprisings, acts of civil protests and then the use of firearms as protection and in the pursuit of liberty was considered a standard mode of operation. It is from these humble beginnings that Malcolm X’s refrain, The Ballot or the Bullet, established itself as a revolutionary rally cry.

It’s no wonder that one of the consequences of this spirit has been a growing appreciation for the establishment of a uniquely American gun culture. Defenders of the gun culture would argue that a significant factor in its development has evolved out of necessity. The early uncivilized United States was considered to be inhabited by savages that were in desperate need of being domesticated. Manifest Destiny and the advancement of Western civilization in the New World was accomplished by forging the early settler’s interest westward. Weaponry in the form of the gun became the most effective equalizer that allowed the Europeans to inhabit and eventually take possession of the North American continent. The European’s reliance on the musket to explore and discover the western North American continent is romanticized today with little regard to the destructive nature of that journey. This advancement was, of course, at the expense of the North American continent’s indigenous population.

The nation’s African American population is rarely viewed from the perspective of being pro-gun ownership rights. That is, perhaps, because gun ownership, by tradition within the Black community, was the result of the need to defend themselves from the government as well as from individuals that sought to terrorize the nation’s African population. Out of the necessity to survive, the nation’s African American population viewed the need for firearms for sport as a secondary interest and not as a priority. With that said, African Americans, particularly in the Southern states of the union, enjoy hunting as a sport with the same enthusiasm as their white counterparts. Gun ownership is generally at a higher level in less populated areas of the nation. That tradition, which will be discussed in more detail later in chapter 9, was represented by scores of individuals; however, no person personified this pro-gun ownership rights philosophy more than Robert Williams, who is also discussed in that chapter.

The introduction of the BPP as an organization was met with a degree of trepidation by many in the black community. They did not fit the mold of the traditional civil rights organization. The foundation of the group was not based in the church nor was it limited to the southern United States. The media gravitated toward its stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment. That focus separated the group from other black organizations. It was not a message advocating nonviolence. The BPP embraced self-defense and the belief that the people had a constitutional right to protect themselves from overreaching government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens. This approach would, by any other standard, be considered conservative. The way that the BPP was described then and the way that it is still described today is that the Party was a radical hate group.

What’s interesting is that support of the BPP in 1967 and their position on the Second Amendment would have been consistent with the goals of the NRA as the nation’s premier civil rights organization. The NRA chose, however, to be in opposition to the Panthers even though the Party’s rhetoric against an overreaching government made them a natural grassroots ally for gun-ownership advocacy and the protection of the Second Amendment. The Mulford Act oppressed the ability of all private citizens in California to be armed if it was their choice. This seems to be in total contradiction to every conceivable gun-rights advocacy stand that is or was ever articulated by the NRA. This chapter in history is just one example of where members of the majority were willing and able to suppress the rights of all Americans in order to destroy the rights of the African American population. The NRA in this instance and the nation’s people overall should have been willing to unite and stand up to the forces of an overzealous component of government, the police in California’s Bay Area.

CHAPTER TWO

Toward A More Perfect Union

An integral component of the United States of America’s historical narrative has been the tailoring of its story around the emphasis of a handful of overriding themes. Our story has been thoroughly romanticized to convey the image of an exceptional brand of citizens that makes the United States unrivaled by any other people throughout the globe. That carefully crafted history is universally described in the following terms. The US War of Independence was the result of steadily building frustrations between residents of Great Britain’s North American colonies and the colonial government, which represented the British crown. The Stamp Act of 1765, Townshend duties on imports in 1767, and the Tea Act of 1773 were just three of the attempts by the British monarchy to raise revenue by taxing the colonies. The Colonialists resented these actions and based the core of their disdain on their lack of representation in Parliament. These actions led to the cry by the citizens of No taxation without representation.

Open acts of Colonial resistance led to violence in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire on a mob of Colonialists, killing five men in what we all recall as the Boston Massacre. After December 1773, when a band of Boston patriots dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded British ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor, an outraged British Parliament passed a series of measures (known as the Intolerable, or Coercive Acts) that were designed to reign in the growing civil disturbances that were rocking the colonies. In response to the actions of Parliament, a group of colonial delegates that included a who’s who of American heroes, such a George Washington and Samuel Adams, met in Philadelphia in September 1774 to give voice to their grievances against the British government. That convening of the First Continental Congress collectively pronounced opposition to taxation without representation, as well as triggered the creation of a police state where the British Army occupied the colonies without the Colonialists’ consent.

When the Second Continental Congress convened, the delegates voted to form a Continental Army and voted George Washington as its commander in chief. Despite continuing setbacks against the well-polished British Army, a growing majority of colony dwellers came to favor the idea of independence from Britain. On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress voted and adopted the Declaration of Independence in response to the Colonialists’ growing need for freedom. The makeup of the Colonialist force included about a fourth of Colonialists who remained loyal to the British crown. These loyalists or tories became the Continental Army’s most bitter enemies. African Americans were represented on both sides of the conflict. It is estimated that over two hundred African Americans fought in the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Bunker Hill.¹⁹ Initially denied the opportunity to serve by General George Washington due to Southerner’s fear that arming enslaved Africans would lead to slave rebellions, African Americans would prove to be valuable members of the Colonialist cause.

In November 1775, Colonial Governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore issued a decree that agitated the Colonialists. I do hereby further declare all indented servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to rebels), free, that are able and willing to bear arms, they joining his Majesty’s troops.²⁰ This promise of freedom brought tens of thousands of Africans to His Majesty’s Army. General Washington was concerned that the Ethiopian Regiment, as they were described, would assist in overtaking the badly outmanned Colonial forces. The Colonialists were forced to retract Washington’s decree barring African fighters due to an inability to fill soldier quotas. The Colonial states that made up the Deep South continued to be hesitant when it came to arming their slave population despite continued pressure from the Continental Congress to increase manpower to fight the war. It is estimated that 5,000 African Americans fought in the Revolutionary War while hundreds more worked as manual laborers.

One element of the conflict that has not been fully appreciated by many Americans was the French role in our independence. France’s assistance helped the Continental Army force the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781. The French had been secretly aiding the American Colonialist side since 1776; however, their support became overt support after the Colonialists’ victory at Saratoga. The French government formally declared war against Britain in 1778. The most difficult period of the war began to close out by the fall of 1781. American Commander Nathanael Greene had forced the British to withdraw to Virginia’s Yorktown peninsula. Supported by General Jean Baptiste de Rochambeau, General Washington moved to Yorktown with a total of fourteen thousand (or as many as seventeen thousand) men while a fleet of thirty-six French warships offshore prevented British enforcement or evacuation.

Overpowered by the display of force, the British army surrendered on October 19, 1781. Another two years had passed before British and American negotiators signed peace terms in Paris in 1782, and on September 3, 1783, Great Britain formally recognized the independence of the United States in the Treaty of Paris. The fate of African Americans in particular that fought in the war varied. Many who were loyalists fled with the British Army. Some headed to the Caribbean while others left for Nova Scotia or London. The story of American independence is filled with drama and intrigue. What is of most importance to those who ascribe to the notion of American exceptionalism is that our tradition of being victor in wars between agents of good and evil was cemented.

The Revolutionary War saga also set the stage for the eventual passage of several enumerated principles through the Constitution that we, as Americans, hold dear. Those include free speech, the right to bear arms, and the right against excessive and unlawful searches by government agents. Open acts of defiance, such as the public assemblies that took place leading up to the Revolutionary War in opposition to the actions of the British Crown, are now staples of our form of democracy. The First Amendment gives each American the right to speak in opposition to government policies that are contrary to those shared rights of citizenship that we enjoy. The minutemen militia’s and the fundamental belief that every man possessed a God-given right to be armed for the purpose of protecting himself formed the basis for the Second Amendment. The people acquired a particular scorn against an overzealous government that could violate an individual’s privacy through unreasonable searches and seizures initiated without just cause. These rights are expressed in the form of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

No other right and ideal has been praised more than the right to bear arms. This right has been instrumental in carrying the profile of the rugged American that successfully rebelled against government tyranny and then conquered the Western frontier to create the greatest nation that mankind has ever seen. And it was, of course, America’s destiny, manifest destiny, to fulfill this operation to create the United States of America. We’ve tailored this message to make Americans the toughest and the smartest people on the face of the earth. And this unique narrative all began in the form of the pioneering spirit of those minutemen, those patriots that fought in the name of freedom over two hundred years ago. The story of the United States has been tailored for years to convince each one of us of how unique our nation is in comparison to the rest of the world. During the course of this ride, there remained one constant. And that constant was a firearm in some shape or form.

We are a nation of guns. The American fascination with firearms distinguishes this nation from the entire modern world. Our nation was established with an emphasis on extolling every American citizen to evoke their right to defend themselves from every form of unwarranted private- and public-induced harassment. What separates the United States from virtually the entire world is our national obsession with firearms. As a consequence, the Second Amendment debate continues to escalate as our society grapples with the increased number of mass-shooting incidents and random acts of gun violence that inevitably occur every single year. The public outcry that each incident evokes appears to only encourage copycat follow-up events. These tragedies have taken place at some of the most sacred settings, such as our schools, where our children have been the victims. They have also occurred at churches, movie theaters, and shopping malls where innocent people are massacred. Proponents of gun control have offered proposals for national gun control legislation that would include universally accepted legislative components such as background checks. Opponents have intensified their opposition to any gun control proposals making the case that guns are not the problem, bad people are the culprit, so they argue that tougher criminal sentencing is the real solution. The result of the debate is a renewed interest in the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This single sentence has been interpreted by some as an absolute enabler arming every citizen with the unadulterated right to walk around, packing some type of weapon. It gives you the right to bear arms in any public setting, including places of worship, where you are entitled to own semiautomatic weapons. And this right, to those who take this position, supersedes the right of the state to regulate or modify its usage. Opponents of gun control have voiced their disapproval toward proposed legislation that would mandate background checks for individuals considered mentally disturbed that seek to purchase guns. The Supreme Court has been asked to rule on the meaning of this amendment in the past, and it is my guess that one hundred years from now, the court will be asked to review its meaning with still no resolution of its actual meaning in sight. It does not appear that this uniquely American debate will be settled anytime soon.

The Party’s Agenda Expanded beyond Gun Rights

The Mulford Act incident defined the BPP in the minds of many. Ironically, the