View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Tammy Messina: Protecting Second Amendment

Posted: July 18, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 18, 2014 2:00 a.m.

Does anyone else find it interesting that our Founding Fathers made no mention of establishing a police force to protect the citizenry of the country?

They did, however, explicitly write into the Constitution that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The Founder Fathers knew. They knew what it was like to be disarmed. They knew what it was like to be ruled without representation.

And they knew what it was like to have the government infringe on citizens’ rights.

They also knew that citizens needed to be able to defend themselves. No police force can ensure every citizen’s safety all the time. We have to have personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, so much of that responsibility has been stripped, and our right to keep and bear arms has been infringed. And not just a little bit ... a lot!

It’s a difficult balance maintaining safety while allowing an armed citizenry. Many say we have no need for guns and that we need even more gun control.

Yet statistics show that in cities where gun control laws are the strictest, crime escalates, especially gun-related crimes.

How can that be? If guns are against the law, where are all these guns coming from to commit these crimes?

Gun control advocates conveniently forget that criminals, by definition, do not adhere to the law. Gun control laws only control guns in law-abiding hands.

There’s no denying that some very sick people do very bad things with guns that result in senseless loss of life.

However, there’s also no denying that most of those tragic events, like Sandy Hook, Newtown, and Fort Hood, took place in “gun free” zones.

One has to wonder how things would have been different had someone on scene been armed and properly trained in defensively handling a firearm.

As we’ve moved away from predominantly rural society to more urban society, it seems that gun ownership is frowned upon.

Somehow we’ve turned into a society where average people with guns are a problem. But the Founders never intended for law enforcement to be the only people with guns.

That was not a coincidence. It was by design.

If you’ve ever been in an emergent situation where your safety is being threatened, who’s the first person you look for?

A police officer. Why? Because you think a law enforcement officer can protect you and stop the “bad guy.”

Why? Because that officer has a gun. Believe me, if all they were allowed to do is yell “halt” at the criminal, do you really think it would have the same effect just because they’re the law?

No, you know it wouldn’t. We look for them because we’ve been disarmed and can no longer protect ourselves.
Average, law-abiding citizens with firearms who’ve been properly trained in the use of those firearms are not the problem. Criminals are the problem.

They have been the problem long before gun control became an issue to talk about. And they don’t need a gun to wreak havoc on society.

If every gun was destroyed tomorrow, those bent on doing others harm would find another way to do it. The Internet is full of how-to videos made just for that reason.

Shootings make headlines. They’re tragic every time because they are either life-altering or life-taking.

What doesn’t make headlines are non-shootings — those instances in which a would-be criminal thought twice about robbing a restaurant that allows open or concealed carry, simply walking away instead.

Or the school district that is secure and without incident simply because it’s hired armed security on campus. Criminals rarely seek out a place where they expect to encounter life-threatening opposition.

The police and other law enforcement agencies do a good job, but they can’t be everywhere and they can’t protect everyone all the time. It isn’t realistic and it isn’t what our founders intended.

Every year the California Legislature puts up a series of gun control bills intent on little-by-little stripping citizens of their rights to keep and bear arms under the guise of making our state a little bit safer.

In actuality, they need to refer back to our U.S. Constitution (which they swore to uphold) and protect citizens’ Second Amendment rights to defend themselves should the need arise.

Even our state Constitution grants us that right in Article 1, Section 1. Notice the words “defending life”:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty.

So the question is: What’s more important to you, being able to defend your own life and your family against a criminal, or attempting to keep guns out of the hands of a criminal?

Tammy Messina is a resident of Santa Clarita, a local business owner and a producer for “The Real Side Radio Show.” She can be reached at



Most Popular Articles

There are no articles at this time.
Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...