A More Perfect Union

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 2 of 5

 

It wasn’t by accident that those who wrote “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union”, included the right of free speech and the right to bear arms. During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the new central government. The various state conventions demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. As a result The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”.

 

The Second Amendment says “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”. It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a single shot black powder rifle but not a semi-automatic rifle: It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a revolver but not a pistol: It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a hunting rifle but not a self-defense rifle. It clearly states the right of The People to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. Remember too that whereas the word militia has been repeatedly invoked to challenge firearm rights, it has been upheld as referring to the people.

 

I realize that the constitution can be amended or updated to reflect the needs of current society, and in this same way the Bill of Rights can be amended or updated to reflect the needs of current society. However, it is a very slippery slope, and the government will have a tough time selling a change to the Second Amendment while “promising” not to mess with any of the others. I don’t think it’s a good idea, and I especially don’t think it’s necessary.

 

Nevertheless, many people still refuse to accept that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with private firearm ownership, pointing out that “None of the gun owners they know are part of a well-regulated militia”. They go on to say that “Even if the 2nd amendment is interpreted to apply to private ownership, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be restrictions on behalf of public safety”. They argue that the 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are far more precious, and yet we can't yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, or slander others, and even assemble with others and wave signs near anyone protected by the secret service.

 

I would suggest that similar to the regulations on free speech and free assembly there are already plenty of laws restricting and regulating firearm ownership and use. Applying more gun controls to law abiding citizens is not going to reduce crime.

 

I will however, agree and admit that the Bill of Rights argument is weaker today than ever. The country we live in is different from the country our Founding Fathers formed and it may no longer make sense to protect the right to own firearms on that ground alone. Our firearms are not going to protect us from a government that is trying to take our freedoms. If it comes down to that, no matter how many guns we have we will be bringing small arms to a very big gunfight. They will have tanks, armored vehicles, bombers, missiles, and drones, and they will simply confiscate our guns from our cold dead hands.

 

That doesn't change the fact that the loss of freedom has happened many times in other countries and it almost always followed the confiscation of guns: It can happen (again) in the United States. If you don't think so remember the plight of the American Indian, and more recently the internment camps full of Japanese American citizens who lost everything. The fact is our government panicked and the citizens of the US were separated into us and them categories which resulted in the loss of freedom for Americans on their own soil. I understand that the internment camps were a reaction to an outside threat and that today we can say we learned our lesson, but don't tell me it can't happen again or that later reparation makes it all right.

 

I understand why some people think firearms are woefully under-regulated. The AR-15 is a fascinating weapon, and frankly a lot of fun to shoot, but so is a tank and I don’t own a tank. My point is that once we start down the path of registration and confiscation of “scary looking” firearms we are at risk of losing our freedom; either from the inside or the outside. For that reason, acknowledging that I've resisted organizations like the National Rifle Association for years, I now feel compelled to support the NRA, The National Association of Gun Rights, The Liberal Gun Club, and other organizations like them.