We are about to start discussing a lot about “GUN CONTROL”
regulations that may be imposed by Congress and/or by presidential fiat.
BUT before the wrangling starts I just want to make
perfectly clear that the 2ND AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
MAKE GUN OWNERSHIP A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
I realize that many, many people including Supreme Court
judges think that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect gun ownership in
the United States, but I am afraid they either are blind to the reality of the
Amendment because they so want it to say what they want it to say or they feel
they have to interpret the Amendment erroneously so as to keep gun ownership
protected by our Constitution…so they just lie?
I am a little surprised by the conservatives on the Supreme
Court who call themselves “strict constructionists” when it comes to our
Constitution meaning that they interpret our Constitution AS WRITTEN THEN with
the BILL OF RIGHTS finally ratified in 1791.
As we all know, the BILL OF RIGHTS amendments were added to
the Constitution based on the experiences Americans had under the despotic rule
of an English monarch; they wanted to make sure Americans would never suffer
the same injustices as they did under the rule of England.
The BILL OF RIGHTS reflected the people’s experiences and
related views that were held in the late 1700s and applied specifically to
their welfare at that time.
The fear of a foreign invasion was still on people’s minds.
The new country did not have a standing army that could protect individual
states in case, say the Canadians/British attacked or even some pissed off
tribe of Indians; the states needed to protect themselves and their residents.
In colonial times, all able-bodied men were part of a state “militia”
and when “mustered” must come armed and ready to fight “by law”.
The word and concept of a “militia” is critical to this 2nd
Amendment argument in that all males (16-40) were automatically enrolled in an “organized
and regulated” militia or civilian military force that could be “called-up” for
duty in emergencies.
For this reason, the 2nd Amendment starts with
the words “A well-regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free
state” and continues “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed.” In essence, this amendment is saying that since “well regulated”
militias are an absolute necessity in guaranteeing the security of a free state,
no laws shall be enacted that interfere with the members of that militia, from
having and using arms/guns/rifles…
As time went on, citizen militias evolved into state
national guards (1903) and now each state has a national guard that can be
called up by the governor of that state for emergency duty or can be “federalized”
by the federal government for national duty.
Since the “well-regulated militia” is now a “well-regulated
state national guard” where does it leave the individual civilian that is not
part of the militia or National Guard? Well, the 2nd Amendment no
longer applies to the average Joe Blow but only to the people that are part of
the National Guard…comprende?
There is no way that the 2nd Amendment can be
interpreted today as applying to someone NOT IN THE NATIONAL GUARD.
Some people that believe movies like RED DAWN, etc. are for
real and that we as a nation could be attacked and our armed forces defeated
and then individual citizens would have to rise up against the invaders and
save the country and therefore have to be armed at all times…well really?
If you want the right to bear arms to be a federal law then
pass a law stating just that but don’t try to hide behind the 2nd
Amendment; it does not give you the right to bear arms…period.
No comments:
Post a Comment