Replies

One thing to remember in the upcoming so-called debate on gun rights.

The 2nd amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, it plainly acknowledges that the right exists.

The 2nd actually prohibits infringement of that right.
Please note I did not say government infringing or federal infringement, simply infringement.
It applies to all.

While the 1st notes “congress shall not pass any law”, the same cannot be said for the 2nd.
It does not specify the federal government, state government, or any subordinate authorities, or even The People.
It simply states that a Right of the People shall not be infringed.

Infringement includes prohibition, regulation, ( not the “well regulated” in the introduction, but actual laws, rules, and policies that interfere with the practice of that right ) outright bans and other laws that might reasonably be construed as anti-weapon.
Many congressionally instituted laws ( 1934 gun tax act, ‘68 gun control act, Brady Bill, Assault weapons ban ) are by any logic, unconstitutional when looked at in the light of the 2nd amendment prohibition.

Likewise, States and municipalities like DC, New York, Chicago, etc. are also unconstitutional when considered under law.
Implied: If no one agency is specifically prohibited, All are prohibited.
Inherent: If “A well regulated militia” is one reason for protecting the People’s Right to keep and bear arms, then it stands to reason that not only Federal authority is prohibited, but State authority.
In fact, the states are required to organize a militia, composed of residents of the state and the federal government is required to properly equip them, and train them. ( This is the 1791 meaning of “well regulated” stated in the 2nd amendment. Trained and properly equipped. )

Finally, Weapons did not then and does not now only mean guns.
Knives and Swords were included as essential arms.
The argument was made that even cannon were to be considered as arms needed by the people to protect the nation. ( Militia protecting territorial waters )

The creators of the Constitution were some incredibly thoughtful people that put together one of the most advanced and forward thinking documents of the last 250 years.
The Bill of Rights was hotly debated at the time of it’s adoption, many opponents proclaiming that naming any of the People’s rights would only be a legal means of weakening and eventually eliminating those rights, or other rights not enumerated.
Others felt so strongly that the 2nd amendment was not strong enough, and amended their own State Constitutions to insure that the Right to keep and bear arms was more plainly stated.

I suppose we’re still unable to say, in the end, if they were right or wrong in their objections, but I tend to feel that those enumerated rights would be gone already if it were not for their inclusion in the Constitution.
Let’s not forget that said document also plainly speaks to the People’s Rights (and State’s Rights) and places those Rights in the hands of “the States and respectively, the People.”
Let’s not forget also, that the final authority lies in the hands of we, the People of the United States.
We elect those representatives to State government, to do our will.
Too often, those representatives ignore the wishes of the people and do as they wish, amassing personal power and wealth, and we simply allow it to happen.
The same happens locally, and even nationally.
You know it, You’ve all seen it.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is exactly that, a recognized Right of the People.
The 2nd amendment is designed to protect that Right by prohibiting Anyone, Federal, State, or Local, from standing in the way of that Right.
It is in the Constitution to protect our Nation, it’s People, and our way of Life.

four later read

@ Drammach - great analysis, insight and valuable input. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that the 2nd Amendment is more complex than simply protecting the rights to bear arms. Thanks for sharing.