The Second Amendment

The following is taken directly off of Wikipedia. While a decent resource, I would caution that any source used from the internet bares with it a certain amount of risk. We must all try to remember that internet resources are entered by hand, human hands.....fallible human hands. Besides the misspellings and grammatical errors (I know about those) there are also inevitably content errors. Even when entered in fairly accurately, there are certain issues with grammar and punctuation which can make the difference between small bits that suddenly become hugely important if they are taken out of context. This is a perfect example of why...

 

 

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:

 

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:

 

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives. "

 

As you can see above, the difference in HOW a document is written can be more important than why it was written and particularly what it means. Capitalization in this instance is what is being debated. Capitalization is used for far more than just indicating the beginning of a sentence. My wife would probably be a much better resource than I for this topic. She's a certified teacher and has a degree in English. But, since she's not sitting here with me for the moment then I will have to suffer along without her.

 

As far as legal arguments go there are three primary camps who debate the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment. There are the "plain as the nose on your face crowd", me being one of them, who believe that the Second Amendment says pretty plainly what it means: the people have the right to keep and bear arms, it's an individual right. There are those that believe that the use of "people" identifies it as a collective right due to the mention of "militia". "Militia" being defined by them as only those who have been established by a governing body the duties of being an armed combatant for the sake of the remaining populace. Lastly, there are those that believe the Second Amendment only "grants" the populace permission to keep weapons until the government decides to regulate them out of existence.

 

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was included in the Bill of Rights due to its importance alongside the other amendments. The others are in peril without the will of the people being enforceable by force if need be. The Founding Fathers were hopeful that the threat of that potential armed revolt would be a deterrent to future tyranny. A potential dictator or dictatorial minded governing body would see the resolve in the people to remain free in the hands of the possessors and users of those weapons.

 

You might notice that I was a little smarmy on the third group of Second Amendment nay-sayers. It's primarily because I think very little of the third group. Reason being, they are obviously mentally deficient. Considering the Bill of Rights of the Constitution is rife with individual rights as well as rights to the States' it baffles me that anyone could interpret ANY of the first Ten Amendments as being anything that the Federal Government can screw with at ALL. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee to the population, a population at the time recently unencumbered by the grip of a monarchy, that their civil liberties and "inalienable rights" would not be suddenly and conveniently misplaced by a careless or malicious ruling class. After all, there are copious examples through history of revolutions "for the people" turning into a new form of tyranny.

 

Julius Cesar was "a man of the people" when he marched into Rome. He was also the first of many Emperors who subjugated the Roman Senate and reduced them to no more than a batch of lackeys and advisors.

 

No, the only reasonable debate continues between the first two groups. The reason in my slightly less than humble opinion: one group is afraid of the other. That's an oversimplification but there it is. The only logical reason to argue against a free individual from owning any property is your fear of what they may do with it. And, as we all should be aware, fear is one hell of a good motivator.

 

Fear is a primary ingredient in any propaganda. If you want someone to bite into the rhetoric, bate it with something that speaks to them. Love, fear, pride, or anything that may emotionally sway a person into believing in your idea or goal can be used. Watch any commercial and you can see prime examples.

 

So, why would you fear your neighbor’s ownership of a weapon, particularly a firearm? Well, the biggest one openly shared is the fear of what that neighbor may do with it, either by accident or on purpose.

 

This is the only mention about hunting I'll make in the whole entry. The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. Using it as a reason to be able to procure and possess a firearm or other such implement is folly and will DOOM you. After all, is hunting an absolute necessity? No, it isn't. Some may argue that poor people maintain their existence through hunting. Fine, that may be. But, it is still a piss-poor-inadequate defense to protect an "inalienable right" to something. Nuff said.

 

So, fear...

 

The fear of a weapon of any sort to me is kind of misguided. While I understand the primal apprehension towards ANYTHING that could cause you harm, to have fear of an inanimate object is a little silly to me. It takes an action by something else to make the object in use a threat. A person throwing the spear, driving the car, pulling the trigger is what actually causes the harm. The implement in use is merely a prop. Maybe one prop is more efficient at it than another, but a prop it remains to be.

 

No, the fear being felt is misplaced. But, in our utopian dreams we envision a world of absolute peace in which all people can live side by side in harmony. If you ask me, hippies smoke way too much grass and they watch far too much Oprah. The idea that mankind is selfless enough at its core to not exist in a competitive environment goes against everything that both sides of the evolutionary debate so aggressively.

 

I'm afraid the only real fear is fear of nature and particularly being afraid of people themselves. Animals may kill out of instinct but people kill on purpose and frequently with malicious intent. We live in a world full of people by the way. Just in case you missed it, there are billions of the things roaming the landscape making their own decisions. And some of them, unbridled by anything close to reason or morality.

 

It's "those" people that the teaming masses are afraid of. It's "those" people that the anti-second amendment crowd so loudly proclaim as their target for firearms restrictions. However, it's "those" people who ignore restrictions on a regular basis anyway, what's one more prohibition going to matter?

 

Point of fact it is precisely “those” people who are the best reason for the unrestricted ownership of personal weapons. If the more violent among us will always seek to arm themselves with something in order to victimize others, then it behooves the rest of us to do so for protection.

 

Two things I would like to repeat from earlier blogs: There is nobody on this planet who can guarantee YOUR protection. Even the most well intended cannot be 24-7 aware of your own personal whereabouts. Parents love their children. If anybody should be able to guarantee someone’s safety it’s the parent of a small child. But, even the finest example of parenthood can lose one from time to time.

 

Nope, YOU my fellow citizen are all that stands between a healthy you and a hurt or dead you. So, if someone tries to hurt you, you have two choices. You can try to protect yourself, try to run or be a victim.

 

The second thing I would like to point out is that those we place into authority over us are not always the stalwart examples of honor and integrity that they hold themselves up as during their campaigns. I don’t even have to cite examples to prove what I just said are true. In fact, I would venture a guess that it is a RARITY to have someone to enter and to remain in political service with only selfless motivations.

 

So, logically, if the people we elect to public office can be just as rotten as the person who may try to mug you later then you should probably keep an eye on them.

 

Just as weapons ownership and concealed carry tends to deter a would be mugger, rapist, home-invader from performing their ritual for fear of the consequences so too does it deter the would be monarch / dictator / tyrant from committing oppressive acts against a populace who may come together, rise up, arm themselves and depose those intending us harm.

 

THAT is what the Second Amendment is for. It is to empower the population. It is to give US the tools to protect the radical idealism of the United States Constitution. Our country is not a geographical location, it isn’t identified by its population, and it isn’t a flag or a holiday. Our country, unlike most others, is defined by its idealism. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are proclamations of intent to the world of what we are. What we are supposed to be are individuals expressing ourselves in peace and dignity with other individuals, unencumbered by anything other than protection meant to safeguard an individual. My rights only end where they start to infringe on yours.

 

If I own a gun, as long as I don’t attempt to cause harm with it, why does it matter? If somebody wants to smoke a shitload of pot in their living room, why does it matter so long as they don’t harm anyone during the commission of it or procurement of it? Why is a person’s preference for companionship even draw a notice so long as the companion is there of their own free will and capable of making that decision?

 

We were charged by the Founding Fathers to be jealous of our freedoms and liberties and to guard them diligently. While the election process is supposed to be a safeguard against a threat remaining in political office for very long it is obvious that we have lost our way as far as being political watchdogs.

 

Do you know how many times your Congressmen has attended a congressional session? Do you know what has been held to a vote and how they have voted on that issue? Do you know what was IN that legislation? Do you know what your candidate even stands for or did you just vote as a political party stooge?

 

Face it: WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OURSELVES AND EACH OTHER!!!!

 

If we continue to allow other people to do things for us then we are a kept society. Kept societies get regulated, maintained and eventually controlled.

Guard you freedoms and liberties but for God’s sake have something to guard them with.