What has the 2nd Amendment to do with me, anyway?
I keep hearing about my 2nd Amendment rights??? I don’t understand, what is a 2nd Amendment right and who granted it to me? I’ve read the Amendment over and over…
“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.”
…and it doesn’t seem to be addressed to “We the People,” as far as I can see. I see the word “right,” but there is nothing in the wording that suggests I have been granted a right by anyone.
I’ve done some reading and it appears to me that the group of men who wrote the 2nd Amendment understood that people naturally possess, what they referred to as, “unalienable rights.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It seems clear from this sentence in the Declaration of Independence that no person came along and told them about “unalienable rights.” They specifically signed a document, that put them in danger of their lives, stating that the truths they understood were “self-evident.” So, they didn’t need a king, or a parliament, or any governing body to grant them the “certain rights” they had in mind, the truth of the “unalienable rights” was “self-evident.”
Now maybe you are unaware but, when the writers of the Bill of Rights put pen to paper, they seemed to forget to describe the additional, God-given, “unalienable rights” they wrote about. Why would that be? Could it be that the rights were “self-evident” and needed no granting from men, or any explanation of such? Methinks we’re getting closer.
The 2nd Amendment is not a right, nor does it establish any right. It is not addressed to “We the People,” it is a direct mandate to government. It informs the “powers-that-be” that the natural rights of “We the People” are not any part of its jurisdiction other than to make sure such rights are protected.
So, when a politician attempts to curry favor by stating that he or she does not wish to interfere with the rights of Americans to “keep and bear Arms,” there’s a certain amount of disingenuous pandering going on. Most should know the truth about the Bill of Rights, however, I fear in the dumbed-down times in which we now find ourselves, that might not be the case.
When an elected official raises his or her hand and swears to uphold and defend the Constitution, one would think the official knows what’s in the Constitution, that he or she just swore to uphold and defend, and not be of the mindset that Nancy Pelosi was in about the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), “We have to pass it to know what’s in it,” or in this case, they have to “read” the Constitution to know what’s in it… after the fact. After all, the Affordable Care Act was nearly 20,000 pages long and had to be rushed through before anyone had time to read it, while the Constitution (which includes all the Amendments) contains just over 7,500 words and has been around for years, so there’s really no reason an elected official shouldn’t take the time to read it before swearing to uphold and defend it. Unless such elected officials did not think any such document was binding on them.
Let me add this… if the 2nd Amendment was revoked, actually, it would have to be amended by another amendment, like the Prohibition amendment, it wouldn’t make one whit of difference. Remember, it doesn’t grant any right, it informs the government to keep out.
Now, if the 2nd Amendment was revoked via another Amendment, and those in the federal government saw that as the removal of its mandate to secure the natural right to “keep and bear,” and further deemed it now had nothing to restrict it from attempts to infringe on such God-given rights… well, I’m not sure we wanna go there right now.