Philosophy Politics Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

A Response in Refutation of the Cited Story On The Second Amendment

I’d just like to say that this person’s arguments in the listed article, are the very definition of clueless for the most part.

By way of example, they talk about the idea of “well regulated” as though it was intended to discuss gun ownership, not the militia. Well regulated was intended to describe the militia, not the ownership of guns. The fact is, many of the founders lived in places where things like hunting game were standard activities that allow for their very survival. That being true, they saw not one reason to talk about that in the amendment in question. Had they done so, would that have weakened or strengthened arguments for gun ownership? The answer seems to me obvious.

The second obvious error never occurs to most folks who make it, because they refuse to read anything but The U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

That would be that the idea of the Second Amendment was somehow related to things like personal protection against thieves and murderers or hunting. That’s not to say the Founders would have been against such things, just that they intentionally chose not to talk about the in the Second Amendment.

Looking at other writings made by the U.S. Founders and others, it was put in place for no such thing. Rather, it was to protect individuals from government.

As to the idea that such an intent means that no definition of treason could or should exist. I can scarcely imagine a more ridiculous argument. Why? No country doesn’t have a definition of treason. To be clear, the United States could be said (and would have been said at the time) to have been started by men committing treason against “Crown and Country” of England.

The Declaration of Independence lays out with clear intent, the types of infractions committed by the king at the time, that made the “break” necessary and intentional.

Further, you have to assume the Founders were schizophrenic to say this was not the case. As has been said, they intentionally and with aforethought, penned statements to this effect (as to to the purpose of the Second Amendment).

One of the things that makes that insignificant to big government folks, is that they LIKE government being in control of things. For those of us that support small government–particularly on a federal level, but in general as well–part of the reason is that government tends to run roughshod over the people for whom it is intended to work, the bigger and more powerful it becomes.

Another error would be the assumption that the reason more subsequent amendments have not been passed in recent years is related to the number of folks in Congress or anything of that sort. Anyone thinking about this for just a moment would realize that as a document matures, the likelihood is high that it will need less and less modification. This is particularly the case when a document is well crafted.

You think the quartering of soldiers in private domiciles is “not a big deal?” You might change your mind, had that amendment not “changed the rules” to make it impermissible. That it stands is a sign that it was so significant that the founders wanted it there–to keep that from EVER HAPPENING AGAIN.

One of the more amazing things about The U.S. Constitution is how very short it is. Was that an accident? By no means! It was entirely intentional. Many would argue that many subsequent amendments were actually a bad idea.

Looking for a good example? Look no further than the 17th Amendment!

Just as with the Electoral College, the Constitution’s initial and well considered intent, was a bicameral Congress in which the people and the individual states would “share power.” It was never intended that the people would elect all representatives. This is—as I’ve said—a similar measure to Electoral College, which makes it so electors have the final say in a presidential election, not the people. This too, was an intentional and considered act, making it so states with large populations would not be able to dictate to states with smaller populations how they would “do business.”

Had the U.S. Federal Government stayed small (as was intended by a large part of the Founders), this would not have been an issue. States would have been able to decide for themselves on many issues, since the Federal Government would have had little to no say in those matters.

Okay, don’t want to get caught up in that ridiculousness. On to the next false premise. The idea that if murder were legal, it would result in a hugely greater numbers of murders is equally (and equally hilariously) false. And before you ask, no, I cannot “prove it.” I can tell you that when you have a society with strong moral standards, laws mean little to them, but that doesn’t prove the aforesaid is the case.

What we can show though, is that the vast majority of gun crime in the United States, is committed by people who are otherwise criminal in their behavior, and mostly with illegal weapons. When people legally possess weapons, they tend to be careful to ensure they are not used in criminal acts. More often than not, if a tragedy happens as a result of somebody legally owning a weapon, it is the result of a toddler or someone with mental incapacity finding and accidentally discharging that weapon. In some cases, at the very least, it would be entirely reasonable in many folks’ eyes, to charge a person leaving such a weapon in a place where such folks could get at it with negligence (if not something more serious). The only reason this doesn’t happen more, is that the person is generally devastated by the effects of his or her mistake.

As to discussion of the age of the Bill of Rights being a “tricky thing”, that would be like arguing that nobody could have enough foresight, nor intentionally refuse to discuss things about which changes matter in a document as well laid out (by the article writer’s admission) as the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Let’s be clear about something. At this point in my life, if a blanket prohibition on guns in the U.S. were to magically occur, I would have zero to worry about. Why? Because I own no guns. As such, it could easily be argued that I have, “No dog in the fight.” Even so, I staunchly support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Third, I might add).

As a final thought, permit me to say that absolutely nothing said in the article referenced is outside the realm of easy answers.

Okay, as with pretty much all of my blog posts, this one is beginning to run long.  As such, permit me to wish you a good day, and thank you for reading.

Original article inspiring this post:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prove you're human *