Shall Not Be Infringed

“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.” – 2nd Amendment

I’ve looked at this from “every which way but loose,” and for the life of me… Well, I see nothing in the 2nd Amendment that directs the federal government to protect the right to “keep and bear Arms” so citizens can continue to hunt. Likewise, I see nothing in the wording that directs the federal government to protect the right to “keep and bear Arms” so citizens can defend themselves against other citizens.

That said, given the mindset of the occupants of the late 18th century, it seems to me that these ideas were understood… that citizens had the right to procure food through hunting and that every person had the right to self-defense (self-defense being a mainstay of the Castle Doctrine established in English Law). Did these ideas really need to be debated? I say, “No.”

While I am in no way any type of expert on the thinking of the Founders through the reading of the writings they left behind, I’ve read enough to know that the Founders were concerned about the corruption of government that would ultimately proceed to tyranny and wrote much about why there needed to be an armed citizenry. Additionally, the Founders, having just fought a revolution to throw off the tyranny of the English monarchy that placed a standing army in the colonies, were adamantly against a standing army in the colonies. They were confident that the citizenry could raise an army when needed to defend themselves. After all, they did all they could to assure that the right to keep and bear arms would never be infringed upon by government – state or federal.

To my point… Following are comments from Justice Samuel Alito from the transcript of the proceedings of the “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen” case being argued before the Supreme Court…

JUSTICE ALITO: — “…could we start with the purpose of the personal right to keep and bear arms? And the core purpose of that right, putting aside the military aspect, is self-defense.

This comment does not sit right with me. I guess, for one thing, I don’t understand the context of the comment where he states… “putting aside the military aspect.” What does that mean in context? Anybody care to comment?

Admittedly then, while I confess my confusion over his meaning, the comment that follows after with regard to the “core purpose of the right to keep and bear arms” being “self-defense,” is what troubles me.

The core purpose of the second amendment, as I’ve tried to argue above, that demands that government not infringe in any way on the right to keep and bear arms is based on the natural right to do so and the uppermost concern in the minds of the Founders was with regard to governmental tyranny that would need to be opposed by citizens.

While I have no doubt of Justice Sam Alito’s fidelity to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment, this I know… when arguments lack specificity, opponents use that lack of specificity to introduce doubt and sway any argument to prove their point.

A friend responded to my concern over this issue with: “I think he was just conceding the obvious military aspect, and he goes on to state that the 2nd Amendment has a broader purpose covering personal self-defense. I see the remark as favorable for the right of citizens to bear arms.”

I needed to clarify. Again, I have no doubt of Sam Alito’s 2nd Amendment support, unfortunately, when things are said that might lack specificity, others come along later and use that lack of specificity to disprove the issue in question. The very reason the Bill of Rights was written was because the anti-federalists were concerned that a time would come when people would deny the existence of natural rights and use the fact that there was nothing stated to that point… thus the demand for the Bill of Rights. Witness where we are today. Could the 1st Amendment be clearer? Then how is it that it is so easily set aside? For goodness’ sake, we got a bad case of the flu and violated the basic rights of people to worship as they saw fit and to assemble peacefully. What will it take for the busy-body tyrants to finally demand that we must surrender our firearms for the good of all?

The Old Testament prophet Hosea (Ch. 4, vs. 6a) spoke these words to the Israelites in the name of God: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

What we don’t know can and will hurt us.

Published by Paul J DiBartolo

I'm the Most Rational Man in the World.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: