Liberty Commentary

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

by Kent McManigal, Examiner

The Supreme Courtjesters have handed down their ruling on The Second Amendment.  Their ruling did not surprise me.  Let’s see if you are smarter than a “Supreme”.  I’m betting you are.

“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.”

Or, as I have re-written it, by going to the dictionary for each and every word, to make it more clear:

“Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!”

This does not “grant” a right to own guns; it prohibits government from having any say whatsoever on the matter.  The right to own and to carry personal weapons has existed as long as humans have been humans, and even before that if you count claws, fangs, and various chemical weaponry possessed by many animals.  Which I do.

Just as the First Amendment protects five different rights, the Second Amendment protects two rights; the right to form a militia, and also the right to own and to carry weapons.  That isn’t difficult to understand.  A lot of people who don’t want to understand the “shall not be infringed” part tend to try to focus on the “well regulated Militia” part.

That opening statement, by mentioning a “militia”, only explained one reason the founders thought it was necessary, but didn’t limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying “Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed“. It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat “a good meal”, but states one very compelling reason why people might need them and why no individual or government has the authority to stand in the way of owning and carrying them for any reason.

Another problem with the Supreme Court equivocation is that it seems they try very hard to misunderstand what “infringed” means. Let’s use a different gold coin analogy. Suppose the recognition of your “right” is a gold coin. If someone shaves a little bit off the edge, they have infringed that coin. It may not even show up without a microscopic examination, but the damage is done. Those shavings can never be returned to their proper place, and each one steals a bit of value from the coin.

Now, the reason the ruling did not surprise me is that they did what they, as tools of the growing 21st Century global police state, had to do.  Had they said there was no right to “keep and bear arms” they faced the possibility of an armed revolution.  The “frog pot” is not quite warm enough here in America for them to get away with that move yet.  However, had they been honest about the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, including the fact that it was intended to protect your right to own weapons of current military function and pattern, without asking permission of anyoneanywhere, and even admitting those weapons were supposed to be available, outside the authority and beyond the oversight of any part of government, to be used as a defense against an unresponsive or tyrannical government, they would have had to admit that every single gun control law in the world (yes, not justAmerica) is completely wrong and evil and outside the authority of any government.  That would not suit their agenda at all.  So, they lied.

Share

Militant Libertarian

Site owner, philosopher, certified genius, and general pain in the establishment's ass.

3 Comments

"V"

This article illustrates precisely why I and many other citizens now keep serious military hardware well hidden but readily available as an insurance policy in the event of a “doomsday” scenario, in defiance of laws infringing on our RIGHT to own such weapons. It is also why I and many others now carry concealed weapons, without benefit of so called CCW “permits”. Here’s the only authorization anyone needs to carry ANY type of personal weapon, anywhere and in any manner:

Date of Authorization: 15 Dec. 1791
Expiration date: NEVER, Authorized to:
Authorized to: ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
Authorizing Authority: The US Constitution

Militant Libertarian

I totally agree with you except for the last part. The US Constitution didn’t authorize anything in regards to our rights (the Bill of Rights was ratified long after 1791, btw). The Constitution authorized Congress, the Executive, and the Courts to have powers to do very specific things. Otherwise, the Constitution is a limiting document with the Bill of Rights not granting, but enumerating and restricting specific human rights that the governments of the United States were not to infringe upon.

This is why it reads “the right to be…” and “the right of the” and so forth. The rights were taken as a given and the Constitution and BoR were written not as rights guarantors, but as safeguards to define what could and couldn’t be done by government.

Therefore, your right to a concealed weapon has always existed, since the first human walked. Animals have the right to tooth and claw, fight or flight. We are the same. Since a human’s primary weapon is his or her wits, and the ability to use tools, then it’s obvious that our right to protect ourselves from each other or other animals using more than the tools we’re born with are inherent.

I own no weapons that are registered with any entity, I own no permits that “allow” me to do anything I consider an inherent right, and I do not participate in the infringing process of “government.”

Len Hart

You did not paraphrase the 2nd, you just wrote your own version of it and it’s wrong. Significantly, you OMITTED the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ entirely and went on to describe an armed populace that clearly does not meet ANY definition of ‘milita’, legal or dictionary. I am not surprised. Lies and distortions about the Second Amendment are more numerous than fleas on an elephant’s ass and much more harmful.

Comments are closed.