Supposedly, a great “march on Washington” in support of the Second Amendment is being planned for spring 2010, according to a recent article on WorldNet Daily, however, to anyone who is truly familiar with the Second Amendment and with these several organizations that purport to protect it, the truth is that this planned event will just be more verbal and emotional sleight of hand.

Take, for example, the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the event’s sponsors. The NRA has been, from its beginnings, an organization that seeks not to preserve our inalienable right to be armed, but rather, seeks to cooperate with every step in the institution of gun control legislation, as it did recently, following the Virginia Tech shootings. The NRA also supports concealed carry laws, which require a gun owner to apply for a license from the state in order to exercise what the Second Amendment guarantees every gun owner already has the right to do.

Also sponsoring the march is Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, an organization whose very name should raise a red flag as to their true intent. MCRGO has also backed concealed carry laws, which don’t promote freedom, but restrict it by making a right into a state-granted privilege. Apparently, what MCRGO means by “responsible” gun owners is those who fully cooperate like good sheep with every government step in the removal of their rights.

To be fair, not all the organizations sponsoring this march are agents of the gun grabbers. For example, there is Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, an organization that does seem to understand what the concealed carry laws are really all about and, not only do they “get it” when it comes to this, they also have campaigned to wake up cops to the martial law agenda and now have aware policemen pledging not to participate in the disarming of their fellow Americans.

Gun Owners of America, another of the event’s sponsors, is a little harder to pin down, regarding their stance on concealed carry laws, which seems to flip-flop between both viewpoints, depending upon who the author of the organization’s publication may be. Several of their articles have supported concealed carry permits for women.

Yet another of the march sponsors is the Second Amendment Foundation. I could find no mention of concealed carry on their website, so it’s hard to say what their stance on the issue is.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League, on the other hand, makes it glaringly apparent that they support concealed carry laws, as one glance at their homepage confirms.

The Virginia Shooting Sports Association, another march sponsoring organization, appears to also be in the same camp with the NRA. In fact, they even admonish gun owners to join the NRA in their “Six Steps to Protect Our Second Amendment Rights” page.

Lastly, Ohioans for Concealed Carry are yet another sponsor and their name makes their position on concealed carry laws quite obvious.

Sen. Alan Cropsey, who sits on Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners’ board of directors, makes it apparent this “march for the Second Amendment” won’t achieve anything other than the continued illusion of the “freedom” we supposedly have: “In the wake of last spring’s D.C. vs. Heller U.S. Supreme Court decision which protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use [in reality, it does no such thing] and the renewed importance placed on the issue of gun rights across the country, the time is ideal for this historic gathering of gun owners at our national and state capitols.”

What Cropsey and the leaders of these other supposed pro-Second Amendment organizations want us to believe is the myth that the Supreme Court’s decision last year was a “victory” for the Second Amendment. In fact, it was anything but, and I have elaborated upon this here before.

To clarify, let’s briefly examine the Second Amendment, which states only:

“…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.”

Despite the nonsensical arguments over what the framers meant by “militia,” the amendment is quite clear in its intent. It clearly does not restrict:

  1. Who may own or carry a gun. It doesn’t even limit gun ownership to only sane people who have never committed a crime.
  2. The type of “arms” (i.e., weapons) to firearms, only. As it is worded, any weapon of any type can be used by anyone.
  3. Where weapons may be carried or how they may be carried.
  4. The purpose for carrying a weapon.
  5. The type of ammunition one may possess or use.

Given this, every gun control law ever passed is a clear violation of the Second Amendment, as these laws have added all the above listed restrictions upon firearms ownership. So, I ask you, how are organizations that have consistently accepted these restrictions in any way defenders of the Second Amendment?