For nearly a month now, partisans of both sides have been
scrambling to use the tragic shootings in Las Vegas to advance or defend their
preexisting opinions about the Second Amendment and gun control. As each side spins the tragic facts to support
their own agenda, a few reasonable people in the middle are trying to discuss
how we should respond to this obvious and ongoing threat.
What’s the best course of action?
To ban all guns, disarming the law-abiding along with the criminal? To double down on gun rights despite the
danger of easy access by criminally insane persons? Here I offer some opinions that are sure to
anger extremists on both sides of the debate.
For that reason alone, I believe it might contain the seeds of a
real solution.
The
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
"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."
Note the two parts:
(1) "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed.”
(2) "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State..."
Both parts of this amendment were included intentionally and both
parts are absolutely essential. The
political 'Left,' always eager for more gun control, forgets or ignores that
the right of the people to bear arms is a constitutional right. The political 'Right,' too often willing to
sacrifice public safety in defense of a political position, forgets or ignores
the fact that defending public safety is the true intent of the amendment.
The government cannot ban all firearms. The Constitution forbids it, and armed
citizens are indeed a protection against tyranny.
The intent of the Second Amendment is to protect the safety and
security of the people of the United States by ensuring the continuing
existence of militias.
Militias are for the protection of the people. Whether the enemy is a foreign power, or an
invasion, or terrorists, or an illegal uprising, then militias can support the
armed forces, much like the National Guard does now.
But if the U.S. government becomes the instrument of tyranny, the
militia can - when other remedies are exhausted - be turned against an illegal
and despotic regime.
The Second Amendment is designed to protect the right of small
groups of Americans, agreeing on the necessity and operating cooperatively as
well-trained, disciplined militias, to protect the people from danger or if
necessary to check the power of an out-of-control government.
But notice: The right to
keep and bear arms in opposition to the government is intended to be exercised
in communal response, by "well-regulated" militia, a group of citizens
operating together in united opposition to tyranny. Not by any individual angry at the
government. That way leads to anarchy.
The Second Amendment guarantees the people the right to keep and
bear arms. It suggests that this right shall
be exercised, at least in part, in and through local militias.
This does not mean citizens can only have firearms that are kept
by the militia in the armory. The people
have the right to “keep and bear” arms. The
people have a right to own firearms sufficient for their own protection.
This does not mean anyone can at any time for any reason, acquire
and own any type of firearm he or she chooses.
Whereas the right of self-defense is absolute, the right of armed
resistance resides with the militia, not the individual.
Can anyone on the political ‘Right’ reasonably argue that the Framers
of the Constitution intended criminal or insane people to retain the right to
firearms? No. Can anyone on the political ‘Left’ reasonably
argue that the Framers of the Constitution intended that the government should
be able to ban all guns from the populace? No.
The Second Amendment is a double-edged sword, cutting against political
extremists of both persuasions.
The government can never ban all firearms, leaving the people
helpless against enemies foreign or domestic.
Individual citizens who are neither criminal nor insane, who are trained
and "well-regulated," retain the right to keep and own firearms.
Other than when acting in self-defense against an immediate threat,
individual citizens do not have the right to act in armed rebellion against the
government.
Well-regulated militias, operating as a communal or political
entity in support of the greater good of the people, have the right to use
armed force to check the power of an out-of-control government that is exerting
power in unconstitutional ways. In concept, the well-regulated militia is much
like the jury. The jury exercises its legal
power to condemn a criminal based on well-considered facts, the law, and the
good sense of the jury members acting in unison. The militia may exercise its power to take
arms against a rogue government based on well-considered facts, the law, and
the good sense of the militia members acting in unison.
A good faith interpretation of the Second Amendment and common
sense dictate that:
·
Government should not attempt to prohibit law-abiding
citizens from owning firearms appropriate for their own defense.
·
Government has the right to reasonably
regulate firearms in support of public safety.
·
Only well-regulated militias should
keep firearms of sufficient power to repel invader, put down an insurrection,
or take down a rogue government.
In practical application this means that any citizen who is not a
felon or mentally unstable should be free to own and carry firearms for self-defense.
Any citizen should be able to own one or two or several non-automatic pistols
or rifles.
In practical application this means that ordinary citizens may be
prohibited from owning weapons so powerful that misuse by a criminal or insane
person might result in catastrophic loss of life, injury, or damage to
property.
A reasonable interpretation of the intent of the Second Amendment implies
that militias may hold powerful weapons (including automatic firearms) to be
used in training, well-regulated militia activities, and cooperative response
to any threat to the general welfare.
However, ordinary citizens, unless specifically authorized due to
position as military or law enforcement officer or unique self-defense needs, should
not own automatic weapons.
It is difficult to decide which of the two extremes usually
offered as our ‘alternatives’ is more dangerous. Far to the political ‘Left,’ extremists have
actually called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, a part of the original
Bill of Rights adopted in 1791. Once our
government starts repealing amendments from the original Bill of Rights, we are
doomed to absolute subjugation. Far to
the political ‘Right,’ extremists vilify anyone even suggesting discussion of this
continuing threat. Those people are
willing to let innocents to perish as long as they are not personally inconvenienced
or politically contradicted.
Bottom lines:
·
Law-abiding citizens have the right to
keep ordinary and reasonable firearms for any purpose.
·
Criminals or the insane may be denied
this right by due process in defense of public safety.
·
Only well-regulated militias have the
constitutional right to keep weapons of catastrophic potential, including
automatic firearms.
·
Individuals retain their inviolate
right to self-defense but an individual, acting alone, does not have the right
to instigate armed rebellion against the government.
·
Well-regulated militias, operating as
a communal and political unit, have the right to use armed force in an attempt
to check the power of a government that has illegally and unconstitutionally assumed
for itself tyrannical power.
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states the purposes for
which the Constitution was written. The
Second Amendment is masterfully designed.
In one sentence of 27 words it describes a right and affirms a principle
that provides legal basis for three distinct elements of the Preamble. The Second Amendment is designed concurrently
to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
and promote the general welfare.
Any questions?
- Gryphem
