Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment: “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.” Second Amendment, US Constitution.

A well-regulated militia, comprised of the armed people/citizens, is not necessary for the defense of a Monarchy, Tyranny, or Oligarchy. Those forms of government require standing armies loyal to a king, a tyrant, and an aristocracy to provide their security and historically they receive the opposite of security from an armed populace. Herein lays one of the key differences between our Republic and the other sovereigns of the world. Our founders acknowledged that the government of a free people holds power at the pleasure and discretion of the armed people and not the armed king. Our Supreme Court has acknowledged this interpretation as recently as 2007. In the DC v. Heller case, Justice Scalia articulated for the majority opinion that the reason for a well-regulated militia (armed people) was that “when able bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” DC v. Heller page 27 (quoting The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.1961) (A. Hamilton) found on); http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf.

Thus, august legal scholars, from Hamilton to Scalia and the current Supreme Court, agree that an armed population is the check and balance against an oppressive government. So, when the federal, state, and local governments attempt to disarm us, realize that they know the purpose of the Second Amendment as well as we do, and they realize that it is THE impediment to their absolute rule over us all. Considering all of this, do you really believe that our disarmament is for “public safety”, or is it just another attempt to sell us false security in place of our freedom? I say false security because mad gunmen do not attack police stations; they attack un-armed students and civilians. Clearly, security is to be found in being armed.

However, all of this does not mean that we armed citizens can break out our guns and march on Washington tomorrow, although I really do understand that sentiment given the socialism that has been pouring out of there lately. The militia, (National Guard) belongs to their respective states unless, and until, Congress calls them forth to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.” US Constitution Article I § 8. A disparate group of armed, disgruntled citizens attempting to force redress is the textbook definition of an Insurrection, which the Congress has the authority to suppress. If you do not believe accept my position on this point, Google Daniel Shay. Contrastingly, legitimate state governments, protecting their citizens from federal abuses of power, is a Supreme Court recognized use of the militia. Therefore, wielding the awesome power of the Second Amendment against the federal government falls to the discretion of our state governments; keeping the state governments in line falls directly on the armed citizens of the individual states.

Additionally from DC v. Heller, the majority held that the reasons given for the right to bear arms, those being the necessity of a well regulated militia and the security of a free state, are not exhaustive. The right to bear arms is an individual right and is situated among a list of individual rights known as the Bill of Rights. The first Ten Amendments have long been referred to this way and for liberal scholars to say otherwise is more than just a little disingenuous and revisionist. Given then the importance of the Second Amendment in securing for us the other Nine, I can sum up my position on this issue by quoting the late, great, Charlton Heston, “FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS”!


RJ Harris
Norman, OK
Oklahoma Fourth District
Constitutional Conservative Republican

No comments:

Post a Comment