The Second Amendment: It Is What It Is.
The founding Fathers did something unprecedented in human history:
They wrote a document not for the aristocrats but for the common people.
Even more important, the document was one designed to take into account changing times and technology.
The Constitution guarantees a Freedom of Speech and a Freedom of the Press.
There was no possibility the Founders could have guessed there would be inventions like high speed off-set printing, computers and laser printers, radio, television, telephones, and satellite communications.
The document they designed is flexible enough that these inventions were not needed to be considered or envisioned.
Instead of guaranteeing Ben Franklin's Right to hand out his broadsheets on the streets of Boston, or the Right for a citizen to stand on a soap box in the Boston Common and give a speech, they guaranteed a Right to Free Speech and Free Press.....By any means of doing so.
Whether you stand on a soapbox or Tweet, Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech, by any means necessary.
The Founders gave us a document for the Ages that can cover anything that comes along.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms makes no mention at all of what KIND of arms, only that a Citizen has a Right to own and carry them.
This totally shoots down the idea that the Founders intended only that a Citizen could own a flintlock musket circa 1770's.
No, the Founders couldn't guess that there would be an AR-15 or AK-47 rifle, high capacity magazines, or automatic pistols.
They didn't need to.
Instead of guaranteeing a DEVICE they guaranteed a RIGHT.
Guaranteeing a device is no real guarantee at all.
Guaranteeing a Right insures that whatever changes in society or technology, the Right will cover it too, seamlessly.
The Leftists claim that the Founders never intended that the citizen could possess modern firearms breaks down when the same standard that applies to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press is applied to any other Right, including arms.
They can't have it both ways, although they certainly try.
Either Freedom of Speech and Press covers today's technology or by today's standards there are no such Freedoms.
So too, either the Second Amendment covers an AR-15 or it is no guarantee at all.
As much as the Left would like for the Second Amendment not to have any meaning today, the problem for them is that the Constitution is not an ala cart menu.
You can't ask for a big helping of Number One and a helping of Number Four, but hold the Number Two.
If you allow that, don't be surprised if tomorrow's menu doesn't include one of your favorites.
The Left fully understands that their argument that the Second Amendment doesn't cover modern arms is completely fallacious, but they think it makes a good argument for those who are products of our education system and are therefore ignorant of what the Constitution really means.
This is why the Left push the idea of a "living Constitution" so hard.
While the Founders designed into the Constitution specific processes to change the Constitution as time and needs change, this is insufficient for the Left.
The processes built in requires convincing legislators and voters to agree with their plans to "Fundamentally change our country".
The citizens continue to fail to do as our Betters order us to do, therefore, a better system for them is for an un-elected, unaccountable judge to simply order the changes.
That would mean that the Founders intent that the Constitution would be an anchor for the country to hold to, would under their Living Constitution become nothing more that a meaningless paper that meant that any judge on any day could change anything and everything on his whim.
As Sir Thomas Moore said in "A Man For All Seasons"..."Oh, And when the last law was down and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide Roper, the laws all being flat"?
A common belief among Leftist judges is that they are much more intelligent then the Founders, and that they could write a much better constitution.
Since they're not allowed to do so, they simply rule changes from the bench.
This is why the Left seldom attempts to convince a legislature or ask a vote by the people on an issue.
People tend to see the con and turn their attempts down.
So, they shop for a like-minded judge and have him give them what they want by fiat.
If they succeed in getting their living constitution we can just eliminate such outdated ideas as a Congress, a President, or voting at all.
We will then be ruled by a black robed priesthood of elite Masters.
You know we're in trouble when a Supreme Court of nine people decide for 330 million people that the Constitution contains "Rights" that are no where even mentioned and a "Penumbra of an emanation" (A shadow of a ghost!!!) finds some Right that lay hidden in the Constitution for 237 years waiting for some super intelligent judge to discover.
We have a situation where four out of the nine justices cannot understand that "Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" does not mean the government has a Right to arm the National Guard, which did not exist until the 20th Century, nor that in this ONE place in the Constitution that "Right of the People" does not mean "Right of the People".
To understand the Second Amendment you have to understand the time in which it was written and you have to parse the passage to fully understand what the founders really meant and intended for the Article to do.
You'll hear a lot of misinformation, disinformation, and deliberately misleading statements made about the Second Amendment and what it means and doesn't mean. The anti-gun Left make statements they know, (or should know if they had a proper education) that are completely the opposite of what the Founders intended.
Among the incorrect interpretations the Left make about the Second Amendment are:
It was to allow the government to arm the military or National Guard.
It was to be applied to The People, as a whole. In other words it wasn't an individual Right, it was a group Right of the government.
It was never intended to allow such weapons as semi-auto "assault rifles", or high capacity magazines.
It was written only to apply to the individual states, not to the Nation as a whole, so a state could ban guns if they wanted.
It was for militias that were operating under control of the national government and were bound by laws.
It meant that only the militias were to be allowed to have weapons in their group control and stored in armories, not individual citizens.
It was never intended that a common private citizen would be allowed to own or carry a gun.
Words have meanings.
This is an often stated fact, but to the Founders it meant far more.
At the time of the Revolution and writing of the Constitution the Founders were among the most highly educated men on earth.
This was a time when the English language was a manner of communication, an artistic tool, and an actual scientific instrument.
Words had explicit meanings and were to be used in very specific situations, and no other.
As example, the Founders would state that the sky was blue. They would never state that the sky was purple.
There's not really that much difference between blue and purple, but to the Founders there was a definite difference and they would never use the word purple for describing a normal sky.
Words do slowly change their meanings over many years and often have somewhat different meanings in later years.
However, to the Founders words had specific meanings and they used the correct words in the appropriate ways.
This is difficult to fully comprehend if you attended modern schools or universities where words really have no set meaning and are changed at will, often weekly.
In an Orwellington fashion words that did mean something today, are tomorrow used in a totally opposite way, and can change again day after tomorrow.
As masters of the English language the Founders were extremely careful to use the correct words in the correct context.
When used in the Constitution the document was intended to be extremely precise so Jefferson used very careful choices in the words used.
In the Constitution the Founders used the words "Power" and "Right", and were careful to use them only in the correct context.
The term "Power" refers to the authority of the government.
The term "Right" refers to the freedoms of the individual citizen, often referred to as "The People" in this context.
In the Constitution the Government has the Power to levy taxes, but it doesn't have a "Right" to declare war.
The People have a Right to freedom of speech, but not a "Power" of freedom of the Press.
The Bill of Rights contains no Powers of the Government, but is a listing of Rights held by the People. In this case "The People" refers to individual Citizens, not the combined "The People" as in the Government.
The Bill of Rights was to list and guarantee the Rights of the individual Citizen, and so it contained only Rights, not Powers.
In order to really understand what the Second Amendment actually means, it can be better understood if the passage is parsed.
"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".
"Well Regulated".
Today, "regulated" means to be subjected to laws and rules governing something.
As example, to regulate the sales and purity of drugs or to regulate interstate trucking companies.
In the time of the Founding, the term the term "regulated" had a different meaning and the Founders used it in the correct meaning of the time.
At that time "Regulated" meant to adjust, train, or maintain something. As example, even today watch and clock makers "regulate" or adjust a watch or clock so it's more accurate and keeps better time.
A well regulated militia meant a militia that was well trained, disciplined, was able to shoot accurately, and could serve as an effective fighting force.
"Militia"
From the landing of the Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock until near the 20th Century most areas had no military to defend them.
To defend against marauding Indians it was necessary for villages to serve as their own military.
In the earliest days these were usually informal or Unorganized Militias. In this case there was no formal structure so when the cry "Indians" went up all men of the village grabbed their rifles and turned out to fight off the attack.
More formal or "Organized Militias" were para-military forces that were formally enlisted and elected their own commanders.
Some of the larger militias bought their own cannons.
Most villages and towns had a militia that trained on Sunday afternoon and practiced drill and shooting. These were ordinary citizens and were expected to provide their own arms and ammunition.
In a time of danger the militia would be called out and every man would bring his own arms, ready to fight.
This was the famous "Minute man".
So, a "Well Regulated Militia" was a group of ordinary private citizens of the town who had drilled and practiced maneuvers and shooting to the point they were a effective fighting force, owning their own firearms and being ready to quickly form up and fight.
"Being Necessary To A Security Of A Free State,"
Security, to the Founders meant the ability to resist any force that would attempt to enslave the people, whether that was an invading army, a domestic would-be tyrant, or a government that essentially went into business for itself and tried to force the people to it's will.
The only other challenge to this part by the anti-gun Left is the meaning of the term "State".
Sometimes the attempt is made to claim that "The State" refers to the individual states in the Union.
The attempt is to claim that "State" meaning the individual states, would mean that New York or Virginia as a state could ban guns.
The Founders used this term to mean the State as in the total government.
If you read or watch movies about the British royalty you'll often hear references to "matters of State".
The king or queen was not talking about Cornwall or other regions, they were talking about the official affairs of the kingdom itself.
"The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms,"
Here's where the Left gets creative.
Again, in the Bill of Rights, the word "Right" means the personal freedoms of the Citizen and in this context "The People" means the individual Citizen.
If the Founders had intended this to mean "The People" as in The Government, they would have used the word "Power" and put the entire thing in another part of the Constitution that deals with the militia.
To Keep and Bear Arms is said by the left to mean that the government was to be permitted to allow a National Guard-like organization to arm itself and store the arms, and the militia to bear those arms only during an official emergency, just like today's National Guard is.
The fact that the National Guard was not officially formed until 1903 and could not be what the Founders were referring to is simply dismissed.
In fact, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, every farmer, settler, or tradesman owned a flintlock rifle or musket, and every gentleman carried a pistol in his cloak. When moving around a city or traveling through the countryside, everyone carried a firearm or other weapon. The idea that a citizen could not keep a firearm in his home, or carry one when out moving about would have been met with amazement and laughter by the Founders.
That the Left says otherwise today doesn't pass the laugh test.
"Shall Not Be Infringed".
This part causes some stuttering and discomfort among the anti-gunners because the words used are unambiguous and clear even today.
Today the anti-gun Left claims that the Second Amendment is a relic of a long gone time that's no longer applicable to today's needs.
Therefore, Shall Not Be Infringed is no longer valid as is the entire Second Amendment.
Again, they claim that the Founders never foresaw things like semi-auto rifles so the Amendment has no modern meaning or use and can be simply ignored.
To the anti-gun Left words have no meaning other than that which can be used as a tool to get what they want.
The Second Amendment is an impediment to the "Fundamental Change" the country needs and will be neutered or eliminated as soon as they can, and by whatever means needed.
Arguments against "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't pass the smell test.
It's unfortunate that the Founders didn't decide to include the Federalist Papers as an official addition to our Constitution.
The Founders wrote a series of articles to explain to the people exactly what the new Constitution meant and was intended to do.
These articles were published with the intent to give a longer, better explanation of the new Constitution that could be more clearly understood by the people.
That the Federalist Papers and the unambiguous explanations are not an official part of the Constitution is something the Left thanks their lucky (Red) stars for.
Had the Federalist Papers been part of the Constitution the Left's arguments on all fronts would have been totally useless in the face of the very clear intent the Founders wrote of in the series of articles.
No Right was made more clear then the Right To Keep And Bear Arms.
Today's favorite way to eliminate the Second Amendment is to find a like-minded judge and have him simply interpret the law however he wants with no attempt to adhere to the original meaning or even the actual letter of the law.
We're only safe as long as we can insure that the Left (Democrats) can't appoint justices to the Supreme Court.
With several of the justices getting very old, they will be replaced soon. Whether we get out and vote this fall and insure that Trump has a Republican Senate will determine whether the Second Amendment stands or whether Schumer, Pelosi, Finestein, and all the other viciously anti-gun politicians get what they want, which is a disarmed and defenseless country of serfs obeying whatever orders our Betters command us to do.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Gunreference1
Bookmarks