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.
Everyone is familiar with the wording of the Second Amendment. The wording is clear, at least to someone who's reading it for the first time; however, in our current society, with all of the rulings on this amendment, and each having a different interpretation, the meaning is anything but clear. So what, precisely, does this amendment mean? What part of it carries the meaning?
Many have argued, successfully, that the word "militia" is key to understanding the second amendment. Maybe it is, but not in the way it's been read. When the amendment was added to the constitution, the word "militia" had a different meaning than what current lawmakers think it has. Current thought is that the National Guard, or maybe the Reserves, are a militia: an organized body of volunteers that is sponsored by the government. The Founding Fathers did not think so. When they wrote and ratified the amendment, "militia" meant armed civilians protecting themselves, their land, and their government (if it deserved protection) without organization from or sponsorship by said government.
Others argue that "well-regulated" is what carries the meaning. They've argued, sometimes successfully, that "well-regulated" means "government sponsored and organized." Not so, according to the Founding Fathers: "well-regulated" meant practiced to the point that they hit what they aimed at a majority of the time.
No, the part of the amendment that carries the meaning that the Founding Fathers intended is the last part: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"...shall not be infringed." Such a final, inarguable phrase. The Founding Fathers wanted no federal laws to be passed that would curtail the rights of the people to own, practice with, and keep any firearm whatsoever. Because of their experience with the oppressive policies of King George III, they feared any government with too much power. They wanted the people to have the right--and more importantly, the ability--to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.
And rightly so. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Tyrants instinctively know this. The first act of tyrants in all places and all times is to disarm the average citizen. Modern examples include Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Mugabe's Congo . All of these tyrants' first act was to disarm their citizenry. After all, can't have the people armed and able to object to the murder of their neighbors, friends, and relatives.
Some of our first gun control laws were written and imposed in the Jim Crowe era in the South. They were intended to disarm blacks. After all, the Klansmen who ran the political system can't have their victims armed and able to shoot back.
If you read that as "I think gun control laws are racist," you'd be right. I do think they're racist. But that's not the only reason I don't believe government has the right to enact legislation intended to take away our rights to defend ourselves.
I believe that gun control laws are racist. I believe that the racist part comes in when the government takes away a group of people's rights to defend themselves, tells them that they're helpless against the criminal element in the population that will have the guns the law-abiding citizens are forbidden to own, and tell them that the only defense they have is to elect the scum that disarmed them in the first place.
I believe that gun control laws are sexist. I believe that the sexist part comes in when the government takes away women's rights to the only instrument ever created that makes a 120 pound woman physical equals with a 220 pound man. I believe that it's sexist when the government tells them that they're helpless against rapists, muggers, and males in general, and that their only defense is to elect the scum that disarmed them in the first place.
I believe that gun control laws discriminate against the old. Against the crippled. Against homosexuals. Against heterosexuals. Against the law-abiding majority. I believe that the only reason politicians enact such legislation is to leave us helpless, and leave us with the impression that our only option is to depend upon the government that so disarmed us and left us to be victimized by those who refuse to obey the laws, those who the government that enacted the legislation claimed to have been targeting.
An armed individual may make decisions about their lives that an unarmed individual can't. Decisions like "Who do I want to be? What do I believe? Where do I stand on this or that issue?" An armed individual can depend on themselves when faced with violent criminals or with a government that wants to imprison and/or kill them for who they are, as Nazi Germany did with homosexuals, Jews, and other "undesirables," or for what they believe as Russia, China, Cuba, or Cambodia did with anyone who did not like where their communist dictator was taking their country's government, or on a whim like many dead in the Congo.
Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. These inalienable rights are nothing but words without the rights guaranteed by the second amendment to back them up.
OUTSTANDING, HH!
ReplyDeleteThanks. I try.
ReplyDelete