Is it gun control for public safety or confiscation from law
abiding citizens? Depending on whom you
ask you will get different responses.
The responses are thrown out like necklace beads from a Mardi Gras
float, free to all those who want something but are unwilling to go get the
real thing: the truth!
To even have this debate is confusing to me. Having a debate about gun control or
confiscation (whichever side you are on and want to call it) tells people there
is a grey area where there is no truth but whoever has the best talking points
will win. One side spewing out numbers
about dead children to scare people and the other side engaging in fear about
politicians wanting to take away everybody’s guns. Engaging in this debate is futile. Winning the hearts and minds of people isn’t
going to come from talking points, or in fear mongering from either side.
Truth be told, one side has already won they just refuse to
stand on the boulder which has given them the victory. Wait you say, there is no victor yet. I disagree.
Let me ask you a question. During
a real debate like those in a college debate class and one side is declared the
winner do the parties keep going?
No. If the losing side brings it
up the victors just hold up the results and move along. Will the losers keep bringing it up trying to
get the debate started again? In this
case yes, but why should the victors partake again if they have already been
declared Victorious? I have no idea;
they should just stand on the boulder of the results and yell, “Scoreboard!”
What is the boulder that has given one side the victory? Its right here:
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
am not a lawyer nor did I study law at an Ivy League school. The good news is that doesn’t prevent me
from understanding the Constitution of the United States and the Second
Amendment. The Second Amendment is only
27 words, not complicated at all. Let me
go through it with you and explain it the way the forefathers meant it.
Let’s
start by the first part which is only four words. A
well regulated Militia. In the
late 1700’s the Militia was neither the National Guard of today nor the
Reserves. The Militia were people,
ordinary people who owned guns (pre –Revolutionary War Georgia even required
citizens to own them). “The Militia” The
Supreme Court held in 1939 refers to all adult able-bodied males under the age
of 45. In 1956 the Federal Government in
the Militia Act stated, all male citizens ages 18 - 45 are part of the militia
(It is safe to say women are also included, given the Supreme Court's
sex-equality precedents.)
Ok
on to the second part of the Second Amendment which is ,being necessary
to the security of a free State, The founders are stating two principals here
one clear and another implied by what they said in the Declaration of
Independence. Let’s first go with the
clear principal. Having Militia (the
people) owning arms is necessary to the security of making sure the State stays
free. The founding fathers are stating it’s
necessary for people to be armed to make sure the State is free and
secure. The second principal is implied
and it’s backed up in the Declaration of Independence and in countless writings
of Thomas Jefferson. Let me give you the implied reference from the Declaration
of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, --That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Our
Rights are not given to us by the government they are given to us by our
Creator. According to Oxford Dictionary
“unalienable” means “Not-transferable”.
Therefore governments can’t take ownership of our rights they are not
transferable from the Creator to any government. Governments can try to take them, but the
Declaration of Independence says they are not the governments to give.
Now
to the second part of what I underlined above from the Declaration of
Independence and this is the second principal this one implied in the Second
Amendment of the Bill of Rights regarding those nine words we are studying. “That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
They
wrote the Declaration of Independence not only for the citizens of the Colonies
but as a document that would be sent and read to the King of England stating
why the Colonies are not going
to be under his rule and they will be establishing a new government. Did the King of England just say, “Ok, you
can have your independence?” No, the
people of the 13 Colonies had to fight for their freedom and fighting meant to
take up arms. They had to take up arms
because the Kings rule was destructive
and it is the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it and institute a new
government.
The
founding fathers knew the only way to over throw a current government is by
force and force lies in the hands of the people to have and bear arms. Thomas Jefferson said these things about the
rights of people to bear arms, “The strongest reason for the people to retain
the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.” He also
said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty.” My favorite is this one, “what
country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to
time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What
signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
I
am not asking nor stating for a revolt, just the opposite. I want the Constitution and the Second
Amendment to be followed by the government, the way the founding fathers
intended it to be! So the ,being necessary to the security of a free State, means
security from outside forces and those that could be inside as well.
Now
on to the third part of the Second Amendment.
“, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms,” This is
pretty simple and straight forward to me.
Law abiding citizens have the right not only to keep arms but bear them
too. It says so right there. Now what does “bear arms” mean? Oxford Dictionary says it means to “carry
arms.” I can go one step better and
give you the words from two of the founding fathers. James Wilson was one of the people on the “Committee
of Detail”, (those who wrote the original draft of the Constitution) he also
was a Supreme Court Justice appointed by George Washington, a signer of the
Declaration of Independence and he wrote the Constitution for the state of
Pennsylvania. James Wilson wrote this, “"The
right of the citizens to bear arms in the defence (it was spelled this way) of
themselves shall not be questioned."
Thomas Jefferson once quoted Cesare Beccaria regarding bearing arms, “Laws
that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined
nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted
and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent
homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an
armed man.” Pretty clear the founding fathers believed it was the right of the
people not only to keep arms but to carry them and it should not even be
questioned!
Now
for the last part of the Second Amendment, shall
not be infringed. Once
again let’s go to the Oxford Dictionary for the meaning of infringed. It states the meaning as “Act so as to limit
or undermine.” Government according to
the Second Amendment has no right to act, limit or undermine the people’s right
to keep and bear arms.
Let
me ask you a question. Is the Bill of
Rights the rights of the government or rights of the people? Why would the government need rights? These people writing this Constitution just
got rid of a government that overstepped its bounds, why would they make a Bill
of Rights to protect the government and not the rights of the people? I understand one can’t make assumptions when
dealing with the law so if its facts you want I can prove the Bill of Rights is
to protect the people. It says so in the
First Amendment (or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances), Second Amendment (the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms), Fourth Amendment (The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures). It
is right there in black and white. The Bill of Rights which is part of the
Constitution is about protecting the rights of the people not a government
which can, and eventually always does, infringe on the rights of its people.
The
next time someone tries to start a debate regarding gun control don’t debate
them. The Constitution is our victory,
it is our boulder, and it is the law of the land. Scoreboard!!
