The 2nd Amendment is under assault by the anti-Constitution firearm banning extremists. These people are trying to bastardize the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to achieve their anti-firearm goals. These people are further dividing the United States and deepening societal division.
Constitutional Amendments all proposed September 25, 1789 and all ratified December 15, 1791…
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.
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.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
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.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
I just read through all the first group of Constitutional Amendments that were all ratified December 15, 1791 (listed above) and in my reading I noticed that all these amendments are specifically enumerating some of the rights of individuals, as in “the people”, and limiting the power of the government to infringe on those rights.
Why do some people think that the 2nd amendment was drastically different in its intent and instead think it was giving the right to government controlled militias and not enumerating the individuals right to keep and bear arms? It seems to me that the whole goal of the framers was for “the people” to retain power and limit the government and in my view the first ten amendments validate that opinion.
Furthermore; If the anti-gunners’ interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is true and the 2nd Amendment was ONLY giving a right for government controlled armed militias and not giving individuals the right to keep and bear arms then why would they bother to mention it at all? Not mentioning it wouldn’t have stopped the government from creating government controlled militias or a government controlled standing army.
In my opinion; logic dictates that the intent was to maintain the individuals right to keep and bear arms and limit the governments’ ability to infringe upon that right; PLUS, as a part of that right it includes the civic and patriotic duty and/or responsibility of being part of a civilian militia IF or when they were called to defend the free state.
I don’t believe for a moment that the 2nd Amendment only allows individuals to possess arms while they are part of a government controlled militia, to think that that limitation on individuals was put in the Constitution’s amendments is an irrational assumption that is not supported by the overall intent of the Constitution and the Amendments in the late 1700’s.
So based on my reading of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” I think we have already have enough infringement of the 2nd Amendment as it is now and no new laws should be created to further infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights. The decision of the Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF) supports my opinion.
Here are two good related reads; Putting Gun Control In Perspective: The Second Amendment’s Purpose, And How To Protect It and LOGIC VS EMOTION
3 thoughts on “When Are People Going To Fully Understand The Constitution and its Amendments?”
Thank you for this. I agree with to the extent that this reads as if I had written it myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s hard to come by well-informed people in this particular topic, however, you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spot on with this write-up, I actually believe this web site needs a great deal more attention. I’ll probably be returning to read more, thanks for the advice!
LikeLiked by 1 person