THE COMMON SENSE 2ND
AMENDMENT
by STAN JORDAN
[email protected]
December 13, 2001
I have long wondered about the fights over the 2ND amendment to the
constitution. It always seemed ridiculous to me that anyone would interpret the
amendment to mean anything other than an individual right.
I put the amendment to a simple test to see if it really was an individual or
a collective right as some would have us believe.
The test is simple; I just took the amendment and substituted different words
to see how the meaning would sound. The first new amendment I considered was the
following,
"A well regulated transportation system, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and maintain autos
shall not be infringed."
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? However, we can see the relationship between
the first part of the sentence, "A well regulated transportation
system" and the right of persons to keep and maintain autos. The first part
of the sentence only explains the reasoning for protecting the right; it doesn't
limit that right, even if a well regulated transportation system doesn't exist.
The thing it doesn't say is what kind of autos we may own. Well, doesn't it make
sense that we may own any auto that exists, to suit the uses you need it for?
Now what if the government said "You may only own the type of autos we say
you may own, and only under the circumstances that we prescribe and where we say
you may use them". Would this be an infringement of your right? You better
believe it would be an infringement on my right, because I may not want or maybe
cannot afford the auto the government wants me to own. If the government said no
one could own SUV's, only economy cars because SUV's cause too many deaths on
the highway, would they be infringing on my right. You bet they would, because
an SUV is an auto and the amendment says I have a right to own it.
I know this may be a ridiculous example, because we have no god given right
to autos for transportation, but that's not the point here. The point I am
making is that the 2nd amendment was meant to protect a right that exists, and
no law that infringes on that right is constitutional.
OK, let's try one more example that may provide a little more clarity on this
subject. Do you have the God given right to breathe? If so, then the following
may make sense to you. "A well regulated life, being necessary to a free
and living society, the right of the people to breathe air shall not be
infringed."
Another ridiculous example huh? Well, maybe, but you cannot argue the fact
that if this were a right protected by the constitution, you would damn well say
that the government could not regulate breathing. If you quit breathing, you
will die and the government cannot say in what manner, or what air or under what
circumstances you may breathe. Nor could they license breathing. Now, is this a
collective or individual right? It's both, I have an individual right, and
society has a collective right to breathe.
But, you may say that the comparison is ridiculous since we have to breathe
air to live. Well, you may also need a gun some day to live, as well. You might also
say that breathing doesn't kill people and guns do. Well, not breathing kills
people, and not owning a gun to protect your rights to live is tantamount to not
breathing if your life is in danger. History has told us in no uncertain terms
that a disarmed society risks death and at the very least subjugation by
government. Government is not reason, government is selfish interests and
partisan politics.
It doesn't take a great legal mind nor a genius to understand the meaning of
the 2nd amendment. It only takes the ability to read what our forefathers said
the meaning is by reading their words in the Federalist papers and other
documents, and a modicum of common sense. If you believe what the people who
would take your rights from you say, then you are no better than a sheep who
needs a shepherd to lead you around and tell you what you need and what's best
for you. If you are one of these folks, don't bother trying to understand the
obvious, because it will only confuse you.
Once you understand the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, you won't be taken
in by organizations such as the Violence Policy Center, the
Brady Campaign, or
Senators like Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein and the like who's agenda is perfectly
clear, even if they don't publicly state what that agenda is. If you are taken
in by their lies and half truths, what shall you do when they say you don't have
the right to breathe, or that you may breathe only when allowed by law and in
the manner prescribed by law?
I'm sure I don't know.
Maybe you should ask the government.
