The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
    • Contact
  • Investigations
    • Data
  • Donate
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Supreme Court Lets Trump Admin Move Forward With Slashing Education Department Staff
  • Youth Injured in Shooting at the Same Lewiston Housing Complex Where Another Teen Was Fatally Shot Last Year
  • Connecticut Man Arrested For Allegedly Luring a Minor to Lewiston Park
  • Troopers Investigating Fatal Hit-and-Run in Albion That Left Child Dead, Two Injured
  • Portland Bomb Squad Deems ‘Suspicious Package’ at Busy Intersection Not Hazardous
  • Lawsuit Against Midcoast Maine Private School Alleges Student Abuse That Officials Strongly Deny
  • Amelia Earhart’s Maine Airport PR Stunts Weren’t Virtuous As Once Portrayed, New Book Says
  • Beyond Hope? Will There Ever Be Answers in Union Slaying, Mainers Begin to Wonder
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Monday, July 14
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
    • Contact
  • Investigations
    • Data
  • Donate
The Maine Wire
Home » News » Commentary » Question 3 Intentionally Confusing to Isolate Gun Owners
Commentary

Question 3 Intentionally Confusing to Isolate Gun Owners

Joshua DurginBy Joshua DurginOctober 3, 2016No Comments4 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Question 3 isn’t just an attack by anti-gun forces on our individual right to keep and bear arms; it’s an attack on our rights as a community. A lot of people forget that there are two parts to the Second Amendment; the most quoted is the second part: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This is an individual right applied to the people of the United States; as individual members of the public we each have the right to keep and bear arms.

The less quoted, first part of the Amendment is an explanation of why the second part exists: “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Basically, we have the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the second part, because the first part asserts that doing so maintains the security and freedom of our country.

The Second Amendment gives us an individual right, but it’s tied in repeatedly to a much broader concept of community. The words “militia” and “people” mean that while the right may be individualistic, it is a part of something bigger than any one individual. We are a community of free individuals, not isolated islands.

It’s easy to forget when you’re alone hunting in the woods, or carrying concealed in a dark parking lot, that while friends may not be present, they are connected to you. Firearms go far beyond the individual who wields them to include a whole community of people, from those you hunt with, to those you protect, to those you are just trying to share the shooting experience with by introducing them to marksmanship.

Question 3 puts regulations on more than just the sale of firearms; it also regulates the borrowing and sharing of them. This is because the anti-gun forces wish to attack the building blocks of our communities: the firearms which connect us to the great outdoors and serve as the centerpiece of family security and national liberty.

By not only regulating our firearms, but also how we interact with those firearms, Michael Bloomberg and other Question 3 advocates wish to strip our freedom-based community from us. By disconnecting like-minded people, they seek to destroy the bonds which strengthen us and oppose their will; they know that if they can isolate us, they can destroy us one by one.

This same tactic worked in England and other countries where guns were removed from the public by attacking one kind of gun at a time, one kind of gun owner at a time and by tearing down the relationships between different gun owners.

They wish to isolate us so we feel alone and powerless against them; this is why the anti-gun community hates the NRA, because it is the largest pro-gun community in the United States and as a result it is the strongest.

In the October issue of NRA’s America’s First Freedom in the article “Reign of Confusion,” that the anti-gun forces do not need to ban guns, but “simply [have] to make American gun owners so confused that they are afraid to practice their right to bear arms.”

This was striking because this is how the legislation for Question 3 is worded. It is so confusing that it will make innocent gun owners in Maine fearful to carry on their rights within the firearm community in the way they have always done.

The wording doesn’t have to explicitly ban the lending of firearms; it just has to word it so confusingly that the average gun owner is afraid to trust his own best friend due to legal liability.

How and when a hunting buddy can borrow a rifle when his own has malfunctioned is debatable, who and where a friend may borrow a shotgun for clay shooting is regulated and the teaching and training of youth is complicated by legal interference.

The law does not explicitly say it is against the firearm community, but it doesn’t have to because its very wording waves a warning finger against those who would share their passion.

The greatest strength of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is not in the individual himself, but in the greater community of gun owners and those they would share their love of firearms with. The anti-gun crowd is not just attacking us as individuals, but attacking our very right to have a community, so they can isolate and weaken us in the eventual hope of destroying our rights altogether.

This isn’t just an attack on guns; it is an attack on our right to pursue happiness. This law will impede our ability to freely pursue relationships involving firearms with our fellow citizens.

background checks bloomberg Featured Opinion question 3 referendum Second Amendment UBC
Previous ArticleEntrepreneurship: America’s Modern-Day Frontier
Next Article Ballot Questions Are Terrible Ways to Make Law
Joshua Durgin

Joshua Durgin works with his father as a Maine lobsterman while taking classes from St. Joseph’s College on psychology and criminal justice. He was homeschooled by his mother, a public school teacher for over thirty years, with special attention to reading and history. In his spare time he enjoys music and debating every philosophical topic under and including the sun. He also gives presentations on politics and theology to those who are interested.

Subscribe to Substack

Related Posts

Maine’s “Success” Battling Overdoses Lost In The (Chinese) Weeds

July 12, 2025

New Maine Energy Law Promises Ratepayer Relief, but Instead Delivers Political Cover for Democrats in the 2026 Midterms

July 9, 2025
(Screen Capture: PBS News Hour)

TRENT ENGLAND And JASON SNEAD: Time To Say Goodbye To Ranked Choice Voting

July 8, 2025

Leave A Reply

Subscribe to Substack
Recent News

Youth Injured in Shooting at the Same Lewiston Housing Complex Where Another Teen Was Fatally Shot Last Year

July 14, 2025

Connecticut Man Arrested For Allegedly Luring a Minor to Lewiston Park

July 14, 2025

Troopers Investigating Fatal Hit-and-Run in Albion That Left Child Dead, Two Injured

July 14, 2025

Portland Bomb Squad Deems ‘Suspicious Package’ at Busy Intersection Not Hazardous

July 14, 2025

Lawsuit Against Midcoast Maine Private School Alleges Student Abuse That Officials Strongly Deny

July 14, 2025
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.