The Second Amendment Isn’t the Problem in America, Our Lack of Reverence for it is.
The Second Amendment isn’t complicated. It grants American citizens the Right to own firearms. Period.
The Second Amendment isn’t complicated. It grants American citizens the Right to own firearms. Period. Like all the other Rights in the Constitution, this Right is also unalienable, which means it isn’t temporarily loaned to us by any Government, politician or any other mortal Democrat pronoun. Because it is a Natural Right — ie universal and deemed fundamental and necessary to our free state of existence — the Government has no authority to limit it.
The fact that a small fraction of deranged citizens use guns to commit murder — even mass shootings — does not change the Second Amendment. A criminal’s abuse of the Right does not suddenly grant the Government permission to infringe upon this Right by passing laws that prevent other Americans from attaining firearms, etc. The Right isn’t given to us by the Government and therefore the Government doesn’t have any right to take it away.
Despite this, the Government has increasingly infringed upon this Right; limiting magazine capacity, restricting gun ownership, and even outright banning certain gun models in many Democrat run states. Every single argument (and there are many) made by the Democratic Party and other anti-gun Rights activists to this end is superfluous and erroneous. Their use of inflated statistics surrounding mass shootings and other gun-related homicides in America is entirely irrelevant to any discussion regarding passing legislation to limit our Second Amendment Right.
The only lawful, Constitutional means by which the Government has the authority to limit or even abolish the Second Amendment is through the Constitutional Amendment process. There are two reasons Democrats choose not to pursue this legal, Constitutional means.
The first reason is that it would undermine their repeated and strategic efforts to ban guns because they would be acknowledging that they, in fact, do not have the authority to legislate the Second Amendment out of existence.
The second reason is twofold: the Constitutional Amendment process by design makes it very difficult to achieve such a monumental alteration and the ensuing debate would expose their decades-long arguments as fraudulent. In other words, many Americans unfamiliar with American history would suddenly learn about it.
For many anti-Second Amendment activists, their personal fear or dislike of guns is justification enough in their minds to ban guns. But the Constitution and the Amendments aren’t a list of suggestions or recommendations to be altered or ignored based on one’s individual or even collective opinion. The Constitution is a legal document and both the Government and citizenry are obligated to abide by the principals, rules, and stipulations contained within. As a matter of fact, the legal contract called the U.S. Constitution actually exists to limit the power of the Government, not the citizen.
One means by which Anti-gun despots and morons seek to circumvent the Constitutional Right of citizens to bear arms is to wildly and embarrassingly mischaracterize the text, which really is just an effort to lie about the text itself to further their political agenda. The laziest and most ignorant proponents of so-called ‘gun control’ claim the Second Amendment is nothing more than the Right to hunt deer. Obviously, Joe Biden, the dumbest man ever to disgrace the White House, loves to make this argument. “Talk to most responsible gun owners and hunters,” Biden has said. “They’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having a hundred rounds in a weapon. What, do you think deer are wearing Kevlar vests?”
First, Joe Biden’s or any other gun owner’s personal feeling or opinion that no-one needs one hundred rounds to hunt these kevlar wearing deer is as irrelevant as whether or not some indoctrinated pansy feels like we don’t need private gun ownership at all. Second, the Second Amendment wasn’t included to ensure that we had the Right to hunt, it was included to ensure we had the Right to defend ourselves, our property, our lives, and our Country from a tyrannical Government.
Here is what the Second Amendment states: “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.” Biden is right in one respect: we don’t need a hundred rounds to specifically hunt Kevlar wearing deer because the Second Amendment very clearly does not mention kevlar wearing deer or hunting.
Many anti-Second Amendment activists focus on the prefatory ‘well regulated militia’ clause to expose themselves as morons when they argue, for example, that the Amendment doesn’t grant individuals the Right to bear arms; only those associated with militia service. These dummies don’t even realize that they’re actually making an argument for individual gun rights.
What was a militia in the 18th century when the Constitution was written and ratified? It was nothing more or less than gun toting able-bodied men in a community. Able bodied men were not only permitted but expected to be armed and simultaneously be ready and willing to defend themselves and their communities from harm — especially from the threat of a standing army controlled by the federal government. Any moderately intelligent or curious American with the ability to read can ascertain this.
Richard Lee, one of the Founding Fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote that “a militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms.” Well, there’s Richard Lee defining the militia for his posterity of brain-dead Democrats — as the people themselves and all men capable of bearing arms.
In the same document, Lee differentiates between a general militia, which includes “the whole body of the people,” and a select militia, who are “particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field.” The reality back in 1788 when Lee addressed the issue (as it is today) was that many in the general militia (ie all able-bodied men) would likely be too preoccupied with jobs or careers, families, and other private concerns that would prevent them from being called or depended upon for service. This reality dictated that within the general militia, a select militia of men “with little to do at home,” should also be organized to meet this need. But this select militia or ‘corp’ didn’t negate the need for others to possess arms. In fact, it made it more important.
Lee expressed concern that one consequence of the existence of a select militia, much like regular troops (a national standing army), would be that “the substantial men” with “families and property” would not be inclined to possess arms, know how to use them, and thus be defenseless. Consequently, Lee insisted that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” In other words, regardless of one’s association with any select militia, it was imperative that every citizen owned guns and knew how to use them — especially the young. Lee also made it clear that this did not mean that everyone had to go into actual service simply because they were armed.
The existence of the prefatory ‘well regulated militia’ clause of the Second Amendment in no way negates the existence of the operative “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” clause of the same amendment. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or ignorant or both. It certainly doesn’t mean that the possession of guns is dependent upon any association with some organized, government sanctioned militia organization or service. Both when the Constitution was written and in the decades prior a militia was very clearly understood to be ordinary citizens within the colonies and then within the states, who had an obligation to own a gun and to know how to use it. That anti-gun activists don’t understand the meaning of the Second Amendment isn’t because it’s confusing or unclear, it’s simply because they wish it was and that the rest of us were just as stupid as they are.
The Democratic Party and anti-gun activists are dead wrong in their bastardization of the Second Amendment. While they claim the amendment gives them some non existent right to regulate guns and discourage Americans from owning guns, the amendment itself actually proposes that the Government actively encourage gun ownership as a very serious obligation of every American citizen.
Despite the lies from Anti-Second Amendment activists, the purpose of the amendment is very clear and straightforward. It is the nuclear option intentionally included as the Second Right in the Bill of Rights to ensure that liberty persists in America.
“Nothing will preserve [liberty] but downright force,” said Patrick Henry, another Founding Father. “Whenever you give up that force,” Henry said, “you are ruined….The great object is that every man be armed.”
Another Founding Father, Samuel Adams, said “the Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
And Thomas Jefferson, in a letter written to John Cartwright on June 5, 1824 wrote favorably that “the Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people, “that they may exercise it by themselves” and “that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Jefferson wrote this 37 years after the Constitution had been written.
As Jefferson wrote, the Right to bear arms is not merely a Right but also a duty. The importance of the Second Amendment should be taught and emphasized in our classrooms. Rather than filling our children’s minds with poisonous critical race and gender theory, schools should be required to teach American children of an appropriate age how to use firearms in accordance with the historical significance of the Right. Imagine if every child was instilled with a reverence not only for the Constitution but also a healthy and serious respect for gun ownership; in which they learned of the responsibility that came with such a unique Right.
Instead the Democratic Party busies itself waxing unintelligibly about how the Second Amendment was either intended exclusively for hunting deer or for those in the National Guard (which didn’t exist) or otherwise only secures the right to own a muzzle loading musket from the 18th century.
But if the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the individual states and citizens from a future American tyrant and centralized tyranny alla the monarch King George III and England (which was the purpose), the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment would have unequivocally included the same modern weaponry being used by the tyrants(s) to subjugate the free citizenry.
And if the Second Amendment wasn’t intended to protect the citizenry from tyranny and slavery, why did racist 19th century Americans prohibit black slaves from owning firearms? Even after the Civil War, states went to extraordinary lengths to prohibit free Blacks from possessing firearms. Gee, why would a bunch of racists, who wanted to control blacks, prohibit them from owning the very guns their oppressors were permitted to wield?
The intentions is the same today with the power hungry and tyrannical Democrats in government. Like their racist Democrat predecessors, they understand that “to disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” That’s what George Mason conveyed to a Convention in Virginia in 1788 regarding the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Mason was recalling how forty years prior an “artful man” advised the British Parliament to do just that to enslave the colonists yearning for freedom.
While I’ll address and annihilate other anti-Second Amendment arguments in subsequent and forthcoming articles on this subject, it is imperative that we do not entertain the emotional arguments from the left regarding 'common sense gun control.’ While we must be prepared to combat those narratives, they are extraneous.
The Second Amendment exists to protect us from tyrants like Democrat politicians, who use and abuse the power of an unconstitutional centralized Government to render us slaves. Any proposed limits on law-abiding citizens’ Right to possess firearms (especially the non-existent so-called ‘assault weapons’) is unconstitutional. Full stop.
The primary problem in America is that most Americans are little more than passive residents of a place called the United States, rather than active, impassioned, and proud citizens, who should view themselves as stewards and trustees tasked with preserving and defending America for our posterity.
The Second Amendment isn’t the problem in America, our lack of reverence for it is.