Most will say that is an extreme example. I agree, it is extreme. I'll take a few rocket launchers and some semi-automatics instead.
The Second Amendment states:
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.
Some people try to interpret that to mean that the people can ONLY keep arms if part of a well regulated militia. Some make up their own definition completely, and believe that the right to bear arms only applies to hunters (do you see anything about deer season in the Constitution?). As you can probably guess, I disagree.
A well regulated militia is not possible without the people bearing arms. It is clear to me, the NRA, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Ted Nugent and scores of other people that the intent of the Second Amendment was prohibit the United States government from taking away a citizen's right or ability to defend itself. And the threat is not just from wild animals or unfriendly redcoats... the threat citizens have the right to protect against is clearly the government itself.
And since the government can obtain any form of munition or weapon it sees fit, in order to protect from that very same government, any law-abiding citizen without a criminal record should be able to own and maintain any form of munition or weapon he or she can maintain. You can't limit me to a rifle or 12-gage when the government could show up at my door with Tomahawk Missiles.
The founders did everything in the power to limit the powers of the federal government. And while the individual state was supposed to be the standard bearer, the founders made every effort to give the most power and authority to the people themselves. After just breaking free of an overbearing government, the founders sought to protect future generations of Americans from having to do the same thing. In order to guarantee that, citizens were guaranteed the ability to speak freely, worship independently, and (among other things) to bear arms.
Look at what is happening around the world and its not hard to imagine why it is imperative that a citizen's right to protect itself is not denied. Whether through invasion or some political faction gaining traction, it is possible (no matter how improbable) that one day we could be faced with a systematic destruction of our rights in an America very different from our own. And if that day comes, I not only have the right but the duty to protect and defend my family and my community. The founders guaranteed it.
The problem with the militia argument is human nature. The farther you are from a threat the less amount of time it occupies your thoughts. With that in mind, prolonged peace time almost ensures a weak militia and a people who are ill-equipped to protect themselves. I think the founders had more foresight than that.
The other problem with the militia argument is it doesn't seem to correspond with the rest of the document. Where else in the Bill of Rights is a right enumerated only for a regulated subset of the population? Freedom of speech isn't protected only for the educated and the right to a speedy and public trial isn't only guaranteed to attorneys. So why would the right to bear arms only be guaranteed for a militia?
The Second Amendment protects the right to have a well regulated militia, the rights of citizens to participate in the militia, and the right of citizens to keep and maintain their own arms. I am baffled that there is any debate.
With the Supreme Court taking a case that might very well force a ruling on the Second Amendment, the debate on this very important right might finally be put to rest. I hope so.
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to take some hand gun lessons.
Shameless Plug: Second Amendment T-Shirts & Gifts.
No comments:
Post a Comment