Posted by
Dave in Nevada on Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:38:32 AM
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.
I recently had an epiphany of sorts, thanks to a video I watched
by Penn & Teller called Bull$#it! 309 Gun Control.
I have read the Second Amendment and I thought I
understood the meaning of the Second Amendment. I have listened to people,
so-called experts on both sides of the gun control argument, express their
ideas as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Now, I’ve always understood that the need for and the
purpose of the Second Amendment was for the PEOPLE to be able to rise up and
defend themselves from a federal government becoming tyrannical and turning
against the people.
Anti-gun people contend that the MILITIA referred to in
the Second Amendment is a standing federal army or the National Guard and that
the Second Amendment provides for same.
The MILITIA, in this case, is viewed by gun proponents the
same as an armed populace that can be deployed along with a standing army (just
as occurred during the recent Revolutionary War) in the event of attack from
without.
However, I would suggest that the MILITIA refers to a
standing army that the PEOPLE would have to defend against.
It is the comma after the phrase “A well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State,” that is at the center of the
dispute.
That comma has caused a lot of misunderstanding, in
addition to the brief wording of the Second Amendment. Two hundred years later,
we don’t understand the Second Amendment, in part because we have not recently
fought a war of independence from an oppressive government.
Additionally, there is the fact that our use and
understanding of certain words has changed during the last 200 years.
For example, consider the phrase, “well regulated.” We may
think regulated means “controlled.” At the time the Second Amendment was
written, regulated meant organized and/or properly trained.
Further, since that time, a well regulated militia of the
people, organized and properly trained has not been maintained. On the other
hand, the federal government has maintained a well regulated military.
Therefore, consider this interpretation of the Second
Amendment:
In order for the
Unites States to be able to defend itself against foreign attack, a standing army
is necessary that the people of the United States may remain a free people, a free state. However, because
we are fearful that a central, Federal government, with command and control of
said standing army, may, at some point in time become an oppressive government
just as the one that we recently threw off, and may deploy said standing army
against the civilian population, said civilian population, the PEOPLE, shall have
the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed by the
Federal government.
I cannot ascertain the reason the founders chose to write
the Second Amendment the way they did, however, I believe I now know exactly
what they meant.
I suggest that you view Penn & Teller’s video and you
will too.
Please be aware that Penn Jillette tends to use colorful,
vulgar, obscene language, but he makes the point quite well what the Second
Amendment is for.
While some people may say that it would be fruitless to go
up against our modern military with the small arms available to us, an idea
that I may address at a later date, the fact is, the Second Amendment was
written for such a purpose at that time and is still in place today. I will say
that I find it hard to believe that the founders would have imagined that our
military would possess weapons that the people would not have access to, either
by denial or impractical to possess.
The fact remains that the government, by law, cannot
infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.
But that is exactly what Congress and local governments
has done and is attempting to continue to do with the willing participation and
complicity of the mainstream media and useful idiots such as Sarah Brady.
The need for the people to be armed is even more necessary
today, to throw off an oppressive government, no matter how futile such an
attempt may be.
Further, with the threat of terrorism in our country,
local governments may fail. During times of natural disasters, to defend
against gangs of looters, it is vital that the people be armed in order to
defend home and community.
But, we must be willing to resist government efforts to
disarm us. Terrorist attacks and natural disasters tend to bring out the best
in some, the worst in others. Local authorities fear an armed populace, as
witnessed by police efforts to disarm civilians in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. We must
be willing to resist such disarmament.
However, even if the Second Amendment wasn’t written for
the specific purpose of armed defense against criminals, that the Second
Amendment exists allows us to present an armed defense against criminals who
would do us harm.
I would also like to point out that the Second Amendment
does not GRANT us the right to keep and bear arms. This is an inherent right.
The Second Amendment PROTECTS our right to keep and bear arms. It protects us
from an oppressive government. The Second Amendment guarantees that the government
cannot and will not disarm us, the People.
Our freedom and liberty is dependent upon that right.
I would also like to include here a quote attributed to
Ronald Reagan about freedom: “Freedom is indivisible – there is no ‘s’ on the
end of it. You can erode freedom, diminish it, but you cannot divide it and
chose to keep ‘some freedoms’ while giving up others.”
We are either a free people or we are not. We have certain
liberties but when those liberties are curtailed we cease to be a free people.
That being said, any law that curtails our ability to arm
ourselves as envisioned by the founders is inconsistent with the Second
Amendment and therefore illegal.
That being the case the Second Amendment and gun control
are by their very nature at odds with each other.
Some twenty weeks ago the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms and yet, now, we are faced with what may be the most oppressive federal government in the history of the United States.