2nd Amendment – a different way of looking (for me)

Posted on January 10, 2013

1


“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

George Washington

On the Constitution – the meaning of the second amendment is often argued but the Supreme Court has said that the meaning they take of the amendment is that ‘the People’ here means the populace at large.

Militias as they existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution do not exist anymore (but they could and our standing military might be a good source of a militia.) To bear arms, bear is to carry “men bearing gifts” – someone carrying or bringing. The argument that “Muskets aren’t modern weapons” is literally true but not figuratively true. They were the highest tech the average male householder could afford and use. If you put that context on today’s weapons, a small automatic weapon is just an extension of that musket. Cannons were too costly for the average male householder to equip and support with ammunition. Today’s rockets/missiles are the present day analog of cannons. Since we see that the average person didn’t have a cannon in those days, but did have a musket, should we arm our people with muskets? Fine. I’ll buy 20 muskets and join them into one row and fire them in sequence. “Semi-automatic.”

I’ve heard the complaint “Look they just didn’t have the technology then, they wouldn’t have written that if they had machine guns and ….” You are right, they didn’t exist then. But don’t you think they realized that tech would change? Notice we have never amended the Constitution to legislate the caliber of weapons. Nor the size of the magazines. Nor how many we can have. You know today that our present weapons are nothing compared to the weapons in a hundred years, are you going to put a part of the law as “All energy beam, plasma based weapons are illegal for the average person to carry”?

Our revolutionary soldiers used muskets and swords and cannons to fight the British.  Were the framers so dumb as to think we would be using the same thing 200 years later? They didn’t note “the right of every man to carry a musket and 10 shots worth of equipment”. That isn’t what’s written. If you look at the sum of writings that the constructors of the Constitution have written, it’s all material pointing out that the right of all mankind to defend against unlawful oppression by foreign and domestic forces. It is the only thing that holds back the tide of monarchies (fascism.) So taking the Constitution taken literally never says anything about what is and isn’t included in ‘bear arms.’ It couldn’t. But the intent appears to be the least weapon needed, by a militia or non-standing army, to stop the oppression. That is, what each person is supposed to be able to carry must be able to be used to stop oppression.

Should everyone have 50,000 rounds and a 20 mm Vulcan mini-gun? No, just costs too much. Again, the Constitution says nothing about those who are rich enough using bigger weapons. There’s no “reasonable weapon” listed. No “If it can kill X number of people (oppressors) in Y amount of time, it’s illegal.” It’s not there. No “cannons in the hands of the rich cannot be used.” In fact, they would recommend that you use as much force as you can to reduce the chance of loss AND the loss of life: the Nagasaki/Hiroshima theory – we can kill 75,000 in one swipe ( a horrific number) OR we can not use the nuke and watch 200,000 to 1,000,000 people die because we wouldn’t use it. If you think about it, where did the cannons for the fights come from? There was no Federal Government. The weapons were often owned by local militias, but not all.

You are accepting the rest of the Constitution at face value, now you balk at this? In preparing a new form of government you can’t prepare for everything, so you lay down general principals and trust the posterity to accept them; if they don’t accept them or they don’t amend the Constitution, they are violating the Constitution. You can’t just decided what parts of the Constitution you want to enforce as Law and ignore others. It’s a whole, the parts of it are a balancing act. Take away one pillar, the house falls. You can’t claim the freedom of the first amendment and ignore the rest; that is counter to the whole idea of our Republic.

The government certainly thinks that it’s extensions to the listed rights and laws in the Constitution are fine, but they aren’t literally included in the writings there. Are they to be abolished? There’s no “There will be an FAA”. No Coast Guard. No NASA. No Air Force. No Homeland Security. No CIA. No FBI. No FEMA.  No Human Services (DHS v1). No Social Security. These things have zero listings in there, yet they are regulated/promulgated by the government and commonly accepted by “all” as “other duties as assigned.” So how much more should something so literal be left as codified law?

If you are being literal, shouldn’t you have to have amendments to deal with these things? Or do you take faith that the form that our forefathers realized that the form didn’t matter, it was the substance? The Constitution clearly states that these explicit Laws are not up for the government to ignore. It’s explicit in that, UNLESS it be amended, the Constitution as written is the Law of the Land. Threatening our second amendment rights threatens our government’s assumed legality. The whole basis of the Federal Government’s power lies in that document; if violate that explicitly, they deny their own legitimacy.

This is just a sad @#$%^& time where people just don’t realize that they have no real understanding of what they live by; that all of what the government does is supposed to be subject to the Constitution. If it isn’t there’s no justification for that government. E.g. God must play by his own rules. He can’t just reach down and fix everything and yet have freewill and an ‘equal’ in mankind. God may not make sense, but he doesn’t just kill a hundred people here and a billion here on a whim. If he did, we’d be dead in no time. Although the government is far from God, they also are created by certain rules. And by those same rules can be removed.

Advertisements