The Second Amendment - A Closer Look

One of the things we as a people have the sometimes annoying tendency to do is over-examine things. We as a species have the unnerving habit of over-complicating things, and the Second Amendment sticks out in my mind as the #1 thing we have over-complicated by way of over-examining it. We have taken something so simple in its wording and meaning and have examined the crap out of it to the point where we have, in some circles of belief, changed the definition of it to the point where in those circles it no longer means what the Founding Fathers intended it to mean.

To reverse this and see for ourselves just what the Second Amendment really means, you have to use and understand the language of the time in which it was written. This is where we of the 21st century go wrong, just as we did in the 20th century.

So let's take a step back in time, put on our tri-corner hats and take another, fresh look at the Second Amendment, shall we?

"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."

That's the whole amendment as written; now let's break it up into pieces.

"A well-regulated milita:" A militia was (and is) a group of civilians who band together and operate as a military group. This group has no ties to any established government and is not under the control of any such government. They are loosely organized and are, for the most part, armed with privately owned weapons and use privately owned equipment. "Well regulated" in the 18th century meant "adequately drilled," or "adequately trained" in the use of those weapons. Considering that most of the colonists in the 18th century had to hunt to survive, it goes without saying that they had their own weapons and were fairly proficient in their use.

"Being necessary to the security of a free state:" Here's where we of this day and age really go wrong. "Being necessary" simply meant then, as it does now, that you had to have it. It's required, period. The part where we go wrong is the "free state" part. Back when the Second Amendment was written they weren't referring to a state as in a piece of land, for the simple reason that there were no states at that time. The word "state" refers to a state of being, that state being free.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms:" The big thing that the British tried to do that really pissed the colonists off was when they tried to confiscate the powder, cap, balls, and muskets of the militas. Back in the 18th century most communities had an armory in which the arms and ammunition for the militia was stored when not being used. The British knew that in order to resist the people had to have arms, so they attempted to confiscate the arms and ammunition from every armory in every major town and city in every colony. So this part of the amendment simply states that the people, the individual citizens, have the right to own and keep their firearms, and that they have the right to carry (or bear) them as they see fit.

"Shall not be infringed." Do I really need to explain this? This specific part of the amendment is what fuels my belief that ANY gun control law OF ANY TYPE is unconstitutional. "Shall not be infringed" means just that - no government or person has the right to tell me in any way, shape, or form that I can't own and carry a firearm, period.

The liberal left and the Democrats will tell you that the word "militia" means the National Guard, but that's bullshit. You have to remember what the 18th century definition of the word means; if you do that, then you know that the liberals and Democrats are full of crap. They'll also tell you that the phrase "the people" refers to the individual states as an organized entity and not the individual citizens. Again, that's crap to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. If that's the case, they why does that phrase mean the individual citizens in the other nine amendments? The Supreme Court of the United States recently handed down a decision affirming what we of normal intelligence already knew, that the phrase "the people" did in fact refer to the individual citizen and not the state as an entity. This, of course, made the gun-grabbers VERY unhappy, but that's life.

When all else fails, the liberals and Democrats will pop up with the word "need," as in "Why would anyone NEED an M-16" or "Why would anyone NEED a .50 caliber rifle?" That's always a prelude into the old "common sense" thing which I wrote about yesterday, and I, for one, never fall for it. My stock reply is always that nowhere in the Second Amendment does the word "need" appear, nor does it refer to the "need" of the people. It specifically states the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that's that.

Boy, does that really piss them off.

If you're a supporter of the Second Amendment as I am, then you'd better keep your eyes open because the Buffoon In Chief is about to try his hand at denying us our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a way that will allow him to circumvent Congress. He's considering an Executive Order along those lines, and the only reason he's doing it now is because he's coming up on the final year of his final term, is not eligible for re-election, and therefore has nothing to lose.

We, on the other hand, stand to lose everything. Repeal the Second Amendment and the others will fall as well. After all, do you really thing that the Founding Fathers organized the Bill of Rights in its current order by chance? Or do you think as I do that they placed them in order of importance from one to ten?

Keep your eyes open, patriots, it's about to get ugly.

Deo Vindice.

IHC