Review: In defense of the Second Amendment

Good day all. It’s been a while since I did a “Book Report.” I just finished reading Larry Corriea’s In Defense of the Second Amendment. There have been a number of books about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as covered by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. You might be asking, “What makes this one different?”

To begin with, this isn’t a book that is full of technical jargon and loaded down with statistics. Yes, there is some of each, but this is needed. Instead, we have Mr. Corriea basically providing information that anyone can use when speaking with the ill-informed with many footnotes to the sources he used.

For those of you who may not know, Larry Corriea is a very successful author and most noted for his Monster Hunters International series. I will be honest and state that I have only read one of his novels. Sadly, they aren’t my cup of tea. What is my cup of tea is his disassembling of moonbats, Karens and the Woke of all types. I have been following Mr. Corriea’s literary smackdowns of these types and other assorted internet trolls for years.

The book opens with the subject of the book, the Second Amendment. It reads:

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.

Never have so few words engendered so much discussion. People such as Mr. Corriea and myself see this and understand what it means. The Progressives and other tyrant wannabe’s see this and hate it. They have, over the decades, ignored it or twisted the meaning. To begin with, the words “Well regulated.” It has evolved over the centuries. When the 2^nd Amendment was written, it meant “Well Trained.” Today it means government controlled. The key phrase is, of course, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be infringed.

Mr. Corriea doesn’t go into this in detail, the definitions of words used in the 18th century, it’s not the purpose of his book. He talked about how criminals love gun control because it lessens their chances of getting their crooked heads blown off. Mr. Corriea talks about in great detail, criminals also don’t have any problem getting guns even if they do so unlawfully. Why? They are criminals and don’t care. Only the law abiding care and they are the ones being victimized by the criminals.

Mr. Corriea also talks about “Vultures.” These are the people who hate guns, and whenever something happens, such as a mass shooting, they are out there before the smoke has cleared demanding that we “Do Something.” In fact, there is an entire section dedicated to talking about, and disassembling the people he refers to as the “Do Somethings” (aka Vultures). He discusses what they mean by “Doing something.” Basically the vultures idea of doing something is stripping people of the means to defend themselves.

Mr. Corriea, besides providing facts that you can use, is also funny. This is how his book, In Defense of the Second Amendment, avoids the issue of so many books on this subject. They tend to be dry, factual, filled with statistics and, worst of all, BORING! When you read remarks such as this:

“our Congress—which has an approval rating somewhere south of prostate cancer”

You can’t help but giggle like a little school girl because you know he’s right. With few exceptions, most of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives would be best served conducting business on an ice flow…near the Equator…In summer…with a large school of hungry sharks nearby.

Another section deals with what happens when you have to shoot a criminal. Right off the bat, Mr. Correia tells you he is not a lawyer, does not play one on TV, but I believe he has slept in a Holiday Inn. However, he does go over what you can expect and what the general definition of a self defense shooting is. Here is a hint. Alec Baldwin did not shoot Halyna Hutchins in self defense. (when I get a safety brief at my range, at the conclusion I say, “So basically, don’t be a Baldwin) What he does do, and this varies from state to state, is lay down the basics.

To be legally justified in using lethal force against fellow human beings, you need to meet the following criteria. They have the “ability” to cause you serious bodily harm. They have the “opportunity” to cause you serious bodily harm. They are acting in a manner that suggests they are an “immediate threat” of serious bodily harm. If your encounter fits these three criteria, then you are usually legally justified in using lethal force.

Mr. Correia continues that you will still be spending some serious quality time with the police, and if you run afoul of a politically motivated prosecutor, you will probably end up in court. He discuses this with regards to the Kyle Rittenhouse matter. There is no way that Kyle Rittenhouse should have been charged. That shooting has to be one of the best documented cases on record, which is why the jury acquitted him.

Not all self defense shootings end up with the person who defended himself, or herself as the case may be, dealing with a District Attorney trying to make a name for himself and do as much damage as possible to the right to defend yourself. Many will do a review and quickly conclude that the shooter did what he or she had to do.

There are a ton of anecdotes regarding actual cases including the young man who took on a nutjob with a rifle at 40 yards in a mall with a handgun. He stopped the criminal’s attack before he could massacre dozens of innocent people. Mr. Corriea also explains why these type of shootings happen where they do. They are gun free zones, aka target rich environments.

With regards to the mall incident, the management of that place had declared it a “Gun free zone. Criminals and psychos welcome. The young man who was lawfully carrying his pistol either didn’t know, or did know that the gun free zone signs had no legal validity. This didn’t stop the “Usual suspects” from demanding that the hero be arrested drawn, quartered and set on fire for daring to ignore the ever so protective no guns allowed signs. Mr. Corriea indicates that the gun free zones are where criminals and kooks go because they know that they won’t get shot.

There are many many other great items and details in this will sourced book. I think it was a bit to short and that Mr. Correia should have also looked at some of the state constitutions. Many of them have their own version of the 2^nd Amendment and they leave no wiggle room for the progressive wigglers. Take my state of New Hampshire and our Article 2a.

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

December 1, 1982

New Hampshire also has a Stand your Ground law as well as self defense and castle doctrines and constitutional carry, either concealed or openly displayed. We have a very low crime rate in general, certainly nothing like you see in places like New York and California. I once asked a police officer about this a good 30 years ago. His answer is still valid today. The reason New Hampshire and other Constitutional Carry states have generally low crime rates is simple. Criminals know they will get shot and they really don’t want to.

In conclusion, all I can say is buy this book. Buy copies for your friends. Buy copies for your local library, Buy copies and give them to progressives, liberals and other assorted sheep and challenge them to read it instead of burning it. (Progressives, Communists, Nazis and Liberals seem to like burning books they don’t want people to read) I heartily recommend it. Besides, Larry Corriea needs the paycheck. Ammo isn’t cheap and he has a family to feed…cases of ammo to.

Thatisall

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading...

~The Angry Webmaster~