Summary
My Argument
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is not a privilege. Imagine if we treated all our rights as we did the RKBA. For example, let's think about Background Checks being needed to exercise your RKBA. What is a background check in terms of the RKBA, exactly? It's a permission from government to exercise your RKBA. Now, imagine needing permission to exercise your other rights:
- Right to free speech
- Right to an attorney
- Right to due process
- Right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment
- Right to life
Any time you're thinking of a new gun control proposal, please compare how that proposal would fare if it applied to all of your other rights.
If we were to treat our other rights as we did the RKBA, I think people would realize we'd be living under tyranny.
Interpretations Of The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment reads as such:
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.
Some people believe it reads:
A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of only some of the People to keep only certain types of arms, may be infringed by default, unless people request permission to buy via a background check against a database of second class citizens, pay fees, wait a while, and if granted permission, request permission to carry via permit/license schemes which require certified training, additional fees, and the people must agree to surrender all arms to government agents with badges immediately upon demand, without question or hesitation.
Clearly, if this was the Founding Father and Framers had intended, they would have specified which people had the right, which arms it applied to, and replaced the clause "shall not be infringed".
Common Concerns & Rebuttals
The Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means.
Even though our rights do not come from the Constitution and the purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to restrict the government, not the people, I'll play along.
The first part I'll address is Well Regulated. Well Regulated doesn't mean what you think it means. Regulated was a term used back in the time of the founding that referred to militaries, and means "to put in good order". Here's some examples of its uses.
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Resolved, That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army. - Saturday, December 13, 1777, Journalsof the Continental Congress, 1774-1789.
"But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline." - Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8.
The next one they point to is that the 2A refers to the Militia's right to keep and bear arms. I won't waste time on this because the 2A is clearly referencing the People's right to keep and bear arms, not the Militia.
The last argument I usually hear is that the 2A is a Collective right.
And again, the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a restriction on Government, not the People. To think that the Bill of Rights would be used to deny people rights is ridiculous in it of itself.
We will repeal the Second Amendment.
Rights are natural; they do not come the Constitution or the Government.
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." - John Adams
This is reaffirmed both in the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment.
"[T]he separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... 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." - Declaration of Independence
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment
Although the name Bill of Rights may lead one to believe that our rights enumerated, in actuality, the Bill of Rights is actually a reminder of the restrictions on government. If you read all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, you will see that they do not grant a right, they simply restrict government from infringing on those rights.
In fact, there was a debate about whether the Constitution should include a Bill of Rights. The two primary reasons for not including them were:
- Our Constitution enumerates what the government can do, so the government would never have the power to infringe on our rights
- People might get the idea that our rights come from government or from the Constitution
Assuming we were to play the game of repealing the 2A, the RKBA is still protected under the 9A. And even if you repeal the 9A, the RKBA is still protected by the 10A. And if you repeal the 10A, the RKBA is still protected by the simple fact that the Government's power is enumerated in the Constitution and there is no power to take away arms. But even then, our rights are natural, and no government can ever take them away, they can only infringe on them. It just means that the People would have to water the Tree of Liberty to preserve those rights.
The Framers planned for tyranny at every step of the way. God bless them.
You're unreasonable and a radical.
Am I, really?
Let's talk about one of the concepts of liberty: you have every right in the world so long as your rights do not infringe on another person's rights.
I think that's pretty reasonable, don't you agree?
If so, how is it that keeping and bearing arms is infringing on anyone's rights? I would have to brandish the weapon in the use of a crime, or use it to hurt someone, as to infringe on their rights. In which case, this is already outside of the scope of the RKBA.
Here's another example: many pro-gun control people hate the NRA (as do I, but not for the same reasons that you do). However, the NRA is America's number one gun control organization. If the pro-gun control crowd hates the NRA, despite being responsible for most of the gun control laws on the books, then what does that say about them?
No comments:
Post a Comment