Sunday, October 16, 2005

The Second Amendment

It's been a while, I apologize for that. Today we discuss the Second 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."

Hello gun lobbies. This is the most debated and hated legislation by our government. No, I don't hate our government; this is just the truth. It's a control issue. The government's purpose is to control. This is what we've discussed. The reason we need limitations on government control is because it only controls one way: through force. We'll elaborate further on this when we discuss the Social Contract. Today we're discussing what the Second Amendment means and how our government is following it (and not following it).

"A well regulated militia"

What is that? What is this militia?

mi·li·tia - 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

I think, in this case, we need all three definitions to full understand the meaning of this word. An army of ordinary citizens. In this case, a well regulated army of ordinary citizens. Expanded, it means a military force that is not part of a regular army, but subject to call for service in an emergency. But we still are refering to a well regulated group. What does this mean? The third definition is a body of physically fit civilians eligible for military service. Ok, so that's what a militia is. If you combine the three, you understand that these are ordinary citizens who are not part of the army, but can be called up, and are eligible by law.

The Second Amendment notes the importance of this group of average, but well trained, people when it says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

This group of people is NECESSARY. This is the reasoning behind the Second Amendment. The wording itself is saying 'Because of the importance of a militia' (in, of course, longer terms):

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

ok, here's where we find the ultimate problems withour government. What is an arm?

arms - weapons considered collectively

An arm is a weapon, so what does bear mean?

bear - 1. To hold up; support. 2. To carry from one place to another; transport.

So bear means basically to carry openly (or unopenly), or to show to others. When Charlton Heston holds his rifle in the air, he is bearing it. So we understand the words (we've already discussed infringed), but what does the second half of phrase mean when we put it together?

The right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be limited.

Now, many people believe the second half to be subject to the first. The argument is that the right to keep and bear weaponry is limited to the aforementioned militia. The question is, how would you define this militia? Well, our federal government has openly given way for the states to individually create a National Guard. This National Guard, they believe, qualifies as this "well-regulated militia". By naming and limiting the members of this group, the government is able to force limitations on the people outside it (in its eyes) because the only militia is this Guard. What happened to "ordinary citizen" and "physically fit civilians"? Well, by collecting this group into armed military, they are able to treat the clause as though it is ubordinate. Let's ignore that decision on their part, and decide for ourselves.

Because of the importance of well trained, armed, ordinary citizens, the right of the people to keep and openly carry weapons shall not be limited.

OK, so that's a little editorializing on my part, but if you put together the meaning of militia, that's the most effective meaning. These are armed ordinary citizens who for be called up. That's why I worded it that way. By putting them into a single group, we eliminate this 'ordinary citizen' status. More important, that's not who the right is for. The right is of the people, not of the militia. This militia is every individual who carries these arms, it is not intended to be this group, but that is not the biggest problem with the federal government's actions here. The problem is that this right has been limited. We cannot carry weapons on planes, or openly on our person (not even swords!). We cannot even buy many different weapons. The government has clearly broken from the Constitution. Whether or not this is a good thing, we leave for another date.

Sincerely,
Ted

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State. – Heinrich Himmler

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. – William S. Burroughs

1 comment:

melissa said...

This is interesting Ted. Papa Pete would be very proud. Ok, so I don't really read your opinion into it does it mean that you support carrying guns or not?

Google