Monday, January 4, 2010

Amendments: By The Numbers (pt. 2)

As I begin to gather my thoughts for this post, I suddenly realize that I could probably be arrested by our own Gestapo for my opinions on the Second Amendment. Maybe they'll classify me as being dangerous.

Amendment The Second:

"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."

The first part of this statement is the reason for the right given in the second sentence. People should have access to arms for the purpose of keeping their state free. This is not to be construed with the intent to create a military. The provisions for raising and maintaining a national military was given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  The Second Amendment was the result of our fight as colonists against British rule. It is obvious that Britain had no intent to let us use the British military to fight for our freedom. We had to raise our own militia to fight for freedom. There was no central budget to do this, just freedom-loving people who had their own weapons. Our founding fathers realized that we would never have our freedom if not for ordinary citizens adequately armed to fight against tyrannical governments. So we should never misinterpret this Amendment to be a method of preserving any federal or state-run military. The capitalization of the word People is intentional here. Furthermore, since a national military is created in Article 1 for the purpose of repelling invasions AND suppressing insurrections, it is clear that our nation's military is also intended for fighting American citizens who decide to revolt. Yep, according to our Constitution, Congress can use our military against us so they won't likely take the citizens' side if we revolted against the US government. Think about that.

Now, this is where I get myself in a bit of hot water here. Since the purpose of this amendment is to be able to fight off oppressive government including ours, it stands to reason we should be as well armed if not better armed than our government. This Amendment was created to enable the people to fight back. So if we are to be equally armed, it takes a bit more than handguns and rifles. How are we to fight back against fighter jets, precision munitions, nuclear weapons, etc.? We need to have the same firepower. If the government has it, so should citizens. I don't think many people can resolve the thought of their neighbor having a missile or a privately-owned fighter jet. Equally armed is the spirit of this Amendment. It would be a seriously difficult fight for citizens if all we had were 9 round magazines against the full force of the US military. The few times our citizens have put the government on notice were often done with "illegal" arms. It is also those acts against the government that tends to get those weapons on the "banned" list. Banning such weapons is directly against the Second Amendment.

1 comment:

  1. The Second Amendment doesn't use the term "firearm" It says "arms", which includes a rather broad array of weapons. There was a time prior to the Gun Control of 1968, where citizens were capable of purchasing artillery and other "destructive devices" through the U.S. Mail. Advertisements for howitzers actually appeared in publications such as "Guns & Ammo".

    Speaking of the Gestapo, the 1934 National Firearms Act (USC ch.53) almost mirrors laws enacted by the Third Reich to restrict firearms ownership by German citizens.