Saturday, January 26, 2013

The Second Amendment for Dummies





With all the hullabaloo lately about guns, and the Second Amendment being argued back and forth, I find myself wondering what part of “shall not be infringed” is so difficult to understand. With that in mind, I decided to break it down piece by piece so that we might, some day, all be on the same page.

Ignoring, for the moment, the whole argument about the grammatical usage of the word “shall” (about which even English professors can’t come to consensus), we are still left with the understanding that this right is not to be infringed.
Infringe means encroach or limit or undermine. This right is not to be limited in any way.

Who may not infringe upon this right? The Second Amendment does not say “Congress shall make no law...”, or in any way imply that the states have authority to make laws regarding gun ownership. It is quite clearly a blanket statement: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. By anyone.

It does say “a well regulated militia”, but that in no way authorizes the states to regulate gun ownership. It says as plain as day that it’s the militia that are to be regulated, not guns.

This right is extended to whom? The people. In every other instance of the word “people” being used (It’s also used in Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10), it is fervently argued as meaning the people. Kind of quaint, I know. But still...

For the Second Amendment, however, some would inconsistently maintain that “people” actually means militia. In a way, they’re accidentally correct, being as the militia are the people. But they would have us believe that militia means army, or soldiers, or the police - despite the fact that elsewhere in the Bill of Rights it specifically mentions soldiers and land and sea forces, and goes on to distinguish them from the militia.

This right is constitutionally guaranteed for what purpose? The security of a free state. The alternative to a free state is a state where the people are subject to a tyrant. So, the writers wanted to be sure that “the people” had a means to defend themselves, their neighbors, and their state from tyranny. It has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense. 

This right includes which arms? Ah! Here the writers were very specific. It includes “arms”. All of them. We already know that the reason for the Second Amendment is to defend against a tyrant (who always has the military at his command). So, with what are we to be “allowed” to battle the military? A six shot revolver? That doesn’t seem very realistic. 

4 comments:

  1. No, you are missing the whole point:

    The second amendment says we have the right to keep our *arms*, and by implication, our fingers and toes as well.

    No tyrant should be able to pull off our arms as he pleases.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, he hit the nail on the head... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"....

      Delete
  2. Perhaps instead of "...and by implication...", you should have said "...and by extension, our fingers and toes as well." LOL

    I agree - nothing beats a good finger poke to the eye...

    Thanks for reading, Jon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reality Check - Gun Control the Myth

    By Allen J Duffis
    Published: February 10, 2013
    www.conserveind.com

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither"

    Benjamin Franklin (1706- 1790)

    Editor: Allen J. Duffis

    ReplyDelete