Opinion - Truth About the 2nd Amendment

RANDOM RANTS ~ by Richard Aberdeen

International Murder Rates Per 100,000 CapitaRichard Aberdeen / www.FreedomTracks.com

According to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The word "Arms" is deliberately capitalized, a common practice at the time used for emphasis. Since Thomas Jefferson and many others owned private cannons, the largest weapon available to them, "Arms" to the framers clearly meant more than just small arms one can easily "bear", thus the right to “keep” and bear arms.

The word "gun" is found nowhere in the Constitution, which is a carefully crafted document. According to the preamble, one of the main purposes of government is to "ensure domestic Tranquility" (also capitalized). To correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything following the preamble, including the ten original amendments, must be weighed in light of the Constitution's stated purpose.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted, there was no federal army, no national guard and no organized police force, a fact of history ignored by the modern National Rifle Association's absurd position, which used to be far less radical than today. There were also no large urban populations or police supposedly protecting folks who are gravely endangered by modern assault weapons. And, who knows what horrific “Arms” may be contained in a future brief case or even smaller space?

For many years, the NRA and mainstream media have been guilty of drawing a non-existent, artificial line down the center of the 2nd Amendment, limiting the debate to gun ownership. To insist this Amendment permits unlimited ownership of modern assault weapons, is no more Constitutionally rational than to claim it allows for unlimited private ownership of bombs, chemical weapons and space-ray machines; all modern "Arms" unknown to the American founders.

Based on the NRA's narrow-minded interpretation, we have just as much right to own private nuclear bombs and bio-weapons as we do to own a multi-round handgun, none of which existed in the 18th Century. If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st Century question is not “if” we are going to restrict private “Arms” ownership but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict Arms.

For the record, if anyone has the right to argue in favor of regulating gun ownership, it's survivors of far too many mass shootings. As America's founders wisely allowed for, we can always amend what the Constitution says. A perhaps better and much saner idea would be to amend the NRA out of existence, by convincing a reluctant media to point out it's highly deceptive and historically irrational position.

Neither the media or the NRA has any Constitutional or other right to limit the 2nd Amendment to a debate over guns, nor to otherwise ignore the intentions of America's founders clearly stated in the preamble: To “insure domestic Tranquility”. For a Constitutional interpretation to be correct, it must fall within this clearly stated purpose.

Are politicians, the courts and the American media really being honest and fair regarding what the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Constitution actually says? Is it being honest to pretend that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the American founders really intended for AR-15 military-style weapons to be carried into mass demonstrations, schoolrooms and public parks? What does the 2nd Amendment really say?

Comments / 78

Published by

articles about current issues and other stuff


Comments / 0