merlinfire
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 793
I composed this to educate my friends and family on facebook. I wanted to repost here, hopefully this will present some points that will help you in your conversations.
The Second amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been the object of much debate, and even controversy, over the years. It is part of the Bill Of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments.
The debate is centered upon basically two questions. Does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms, or of of the government to raise an army?
First of all, let us look at the specific text of the 2nd amendment.:
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.
Pretty short and to the point. The question however becomes, "who exactly are 'the people' "?
In the other amendments, 'the people' are widely held to be individuals. Examples:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 'people' here is clearly not the government, or a government agency/body. If it were, would it need to give itself the right to petition itself?
What about the 4th amendment, preventing search and seizure illegally.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Clearly, this is an individual being protected here. A government body is not a person. In law, this has consistently been held as an individual right, requiring warrants to search a person's residence or to seize property.
To further show that 'the people' is neither federal or state governments in wording: the 10th amendment:
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.
This shows us clearly, that by the wording of the founding fathers who authored the Constitution, 'the people' were not simply State or Federal governments by the vested power of the people, but rather actual individuals. That is, this wording does not mean "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the states". Nor does it mean to the federal government, the "United States", because it has already stated that these powers are not delegated to them.
Take a good look at the bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Amendments
You'll notice something is very clear. The Bill of Rights, as a whole, was meant to protect individual rights. They do not exist to protect the rights of the government from the people, quite the opposite. They exist to protect the rights of the people from government.
In this light, it would seem inappropriate for the 2nd amendment exist merely to protect the ability of government to create, for instance, the National Guard - especially since the National Guard has been activated to be used in offensive action on foreign soil in several conflicts, hardly being solely used for the security of a free state. Furthermore, the Militia Act of 1903 "created" two militias: an organized militia to be called the Guard, and all other able-bodied men within draft age as "reserve" militia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29 Thus, even if one could make the argument that only militia members should keep and bear arms, we're all pretty much members of the reserve militia, even if we're conscientious objectors (women too, since they are allowed into service).
In conclusion, a well-regulated militia is certainly necessary to the security of a free state. The way in which this capacity is preserved is by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is a right that is declared among other rights we hold dearly as rights of every American - Freedom of Speech, Right to trial by jury, protection of illegal search and seizure. Governments have no need for an amendment that allows the standing armies they raise to possess firearms. That would be absurd. However, as is evidenced by many nations of the world, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not protected by law, and vigorously defended, it is taken away.