Upright
|
I don't buy the idea that the 2nd amendment is ambiguous. It is a 2 part sentence. Part one is the reason for the amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," <--- that's -why-. Part 2 says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's not ambiguous at all. It doesn't say the right of the militia or the right of the state, or the right of the managment of the local Dairy Queen, it says the right of the PEOPLE, as in We, the People. The populace, the average guy on the street.
The founders, being revolutionaries themselves, realized that a people could only be oppressed by their government if they did not have the means to defend themselves. These people led an armed revolt against English rule. They were determined that ultimate authority in the representative republic that they created should rest with the people, not government.
The US Constitution, particularly in this instance the Bill of Rights, does not protect the rights of the government. It protects individual rights -against- government intrusion. The government does not have the right to free speech and press and practice of religion, you do. The government does not have the right to vote, you do.
"The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," (Am IV) does not apply to a government organized special group of people, it applies to all.
Amendment V: "No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against HIMSELF, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken for public use, without just compensation.
IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
and X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
The Bill of Rights protects -individual- rights. When it says "The People", it -means- "The People". Websters, entry 5, the most applicable definition in my opinion: "The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: “those who fear and distrust the PEOPLE, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes” (Thomas Jefferson)."
Note the use of a quote of one of the founders as an example of the definition.
The second amendment could not be more clear. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only argument is between those who believe in individual rights, and those who would see them subordinated to the whims of the Nanny State, who should care for us mindless peasants who obviously are not capable of thinking for ourselves, from cradle to grave.
The kind of thinking that places a government in complete control of your security and well-being is an invitation to be enslaved. The founders meant us to take care of ourselves, and be wary of a government that would take care of us, for "our own good". The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. The abuse of that right (to commit robberies, assaults, and murders) should be met with swift, sure, and severe consequences. -That- would be the proper "gun control". A gun is a -tool-. The problem is the one wielding it. Prosecute and punish those who commit crimes using weapons, instead of persecuting law-abiding citizens who chose to excercise their rights under the Second Amendment.
|