![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/match-pair-pistols-300x204.jpg\")
<\/h3>\n<\/h3>\nVeritas Omnia Vincit<\/strong> “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.”<\/p>\n Well here it is a short essay on the second amendment. Some have called it the means to protect all the rest of the amendments, others have called it a scourge that allows scoundrels to maintain an arsenal to murder their neighbors with on a whim.<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t necessarily save this as the \u201cbest for last\u201d it was more of a problem with my thoughts on which approach I wanted to discuss with you and which lines of attack those who would infringe upon it would use and why those were wrong. <\/p>\n There\u2019s the entire discussion around the collective rights approach of US v Miller in 1939 and the more accurate personal rights approach of DC v Heller in 2008. Which interpretation is more to one\u2019s perception of what a government is, and where the power of such a government should lie were all considerations. There are endless dissertations on both sides of this conceptual duel of personal versus collective rights, all of them written by far more scholarly and intellectual writers than myself. In reviewing much of that material I was fascinated with both sets of reasoning and how passionate each side of that issue is with their respective interpretations. <\/p>\n Another approach I considered was the defense against the old canard about how the second was written in the times of muskets and consequently should only apply to muskets and not modern firearms. A cute, albeit idiotic, simplification of a very complex issue. Along with this approach is the term \u201cwell regulated\u201d which our gun grabbing fellow citizens always take out of definition as well as context. I thought quoting several text references from those days where \u201cwell regulated\u201d simply means nothing more than well calibrated, or even more simply, in good working order might be an effective approach to dismiss that line of reasoning from the grabbers. That approach would parse every line and every word of the second amendment as it was understood and used in those days as opposed to the meaning of those words in today\u2019s far different society.<\/p>\n To be honest I was not at all certain what approach would best convey the strength of my desire to protect the second from all infringement (as I desire to protect all the Bill of Rights protections) without resorting to the standard lines of defense against an ever more idiotic series of sound bite level attacks. Which approach made the most sense to articulate my thoughts and no doubt similar thoughts from many of you as well.<\/p>\n While writing the essays for the ninth and tenth amendments I had done a great bit of reading (again) on the principles behind the Constitution itself and the amendments and their addition to the final document. Several of the quotes from those who felt the amendments were unnecessary struck me as indicative of the actual mindset of the men who wrote these documents. In that reading it struck me that what I really needed to write about was the intent and purpose of the amendments themselves, and the intent of those writing it and what they wished to achieve with the Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Much was made of the fact that the Constitution so limited the powers of Government that many of those involved in writing it felt it needed no Bill of Rights as the Government they formed had no power regarding those rights, that in their writing they had given that Government no ability to address things like religion, or possession of firearms, or the necessity for speedy trials or due process to take property. A few wiser men pointed out that every Government exceeds its charter and subverts the intent of those forming it, usually within a generation or two. Their arguments for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be a further reminder that Government could not tread in certain areas under any circumstance.<\/p>\n That\u2019s really the bulk of it for me. The second amendment was not written to let you have a rifle for hunting, or a pistol for plinking, nor was it written as a permission slip to keep a loaded shotgun in your closet. The Second Amendment, and all of the amendments really, was written as a restriction against the Government. It was written to prevent the Government from ever writing any laws about Americans keeping whatever weapons and however many weapons they wished among their personal possessions. It was written by men who had seen entire populations subjected to gross injustices and brutally beaten down by overbearing governments that disarmed the populace and left them nothing more than slaves to whatever government was in power at the moment. The second amendment is not about the collective rights of states to possess a militia within their borders or the personal rights of each of us to keep our weapons on our persons and in our homes. The second amendment is about the Government having no power to address either the collective rights of the states or the personal rights of the people PERIOD. <\/p>\n In reading the US v Miller decision and the ideas behind collective rights it occurs to me that even the SCOTUS can be turned into nothing more than the legal arm of government intrusion into areas where the government was never intended to have any authority or power. It\u2019s another example of SCOTUS getting it wrong and getting it completely wrong and enabling a government to infringe in a protected area of our personal liberties and freedoms.<\/p>\n In reading the quotes from the men who wrote this, or had a large part in the debates about the document and its approval it\u2019s really quite clear the second isn\u2019t at all a set of permissions for the people but a powerful restriction against the government\u2019s natural tendency to encroach and restrict the rights of the governed. Consequently in that reading I realized that this approach was really the only approach that matters, what did those men desire for the people when they wrote this, I think we all know the answer to that. However instead of my thoughts on their words I will let their words speak for themselves\u2026.<\/p>\n “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” Some of you may take exception with my comments about the SCOTUS getting it wrong in their 1939 Miller decision and the \u201ccollective rights\u201d theory. I understand that, and once again I would point you to one of our most important founders (in my opinion) and the most libertarian perhaps of all the founders, Thomas Jefferson. His concern for personal liberty and protecting that liberty was unsurpassed and all of his work and writings reinforce that notion for me. Here\u2019s his advice for anyone hoping to \u201cre-interpret\u201d the text of the Amendments and the Constitution.<\/p>\n On every question of construction, (let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying (to interpret) what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past(passed). Here\u2019s hoping the SCOTUS may ever remember these words and whenever asked to do so rule in favor of the people\u2019s rights against the Government as the last line of defense against an ever more over arching and freedom restricting government. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n As this concludes the series on the first ten amendments I hope you found them at least worth a read and of some value in your understanding of the reasons behind these amendments and the mindset of the men who created this great nation. May we always remember their intent and their wishes for a government that was truly only possible with the consent of those being governed.<\/p>\n Thank you as always for your time and I welcome your thoughts. All good things, V. Its been quite an experience; I appreciate your works, as I’m sure most of our fellow Delta Whiskies and Whiskettes do. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nThe Second Amendment or, Why Were These Amendments Written In The First Place?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788<\/p>\n
\n– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790<\/p>\n
\n– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787<\/p>\n
\n– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776<\/p>\n
\n– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788<\/p>\n
\n– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787<\/p>\n
\n– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823<\/p>\n
\nVoV<\/p>\n