Leave the 2nd Amendment Alone

The Right to Bear Arms


Sure, we already have this right, but it is slipping away. We need clarification.

 "Interpret the Second Amendment to our Constitution as it was written, permanently.”

Stop pretending that the second amendment does not mean what it was intended to by those who wrote it. If anyone is convinced it is wrong, that the amendment should not have been written and so must be expunged, then change it properly through the amendment process. When that attempt fails, drop it. If you don’t want to carry a weapon, don’t. It is not required. Don’t pretend that the second amendment does not mean what it says, or force others to disobey the law of the land.

Many of us still believe that it is imperative that the citizenry be able to defend itself from a tyrannical government. Some people will always abuse this right by committing crimes. Get used to it - it doesn’t matter. We can’t sacrifice and punish the many responsible, honest and innocent because of the guilty few.

Conservatives agree that gun rights are essential to a free society because they too want to retain the ability to defend themselves and rise up against a tyrannical government if need be. Those on the left disagree. They believe the state should have the responsibility of protecting us. What they miss most clearly is that the right to bear arms was specifically enumerated so that the citizenry would have a method of reigning in an oppressive government, by force if necessary. Personal protection was a secondary benefit, but certainly a very important one.

Just wondering. Why is it that the Supreme Court of this country can’t agree whether a law is constitutional or it is not? The Constitution is written in relatively plain English. The Second Amendment clearly states: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Shouldn’t the court always vote 9-0 supporting the individual’s right based on our Constitution, which is the law of our land? How is it that whenever a locality tries to take away this right by imposing laws prohibiting an individual to own or carry a weapon, it isn’t a slam dunk for the court? I have to wonder what part of that statement is not clear to our learned Supreme Court justices. What part of “shall not be infringed” do nearly half of them fail to understand?

One of the first restrictions tyrannical governments impose is the disarming of the citizenry. An unarmed populace is much easier to control. Adolph Hitler did this in Germany. Only his supporters had access to weaponry. It is much easier to rule a defenseless population, certainly they would be less apt to successfully revolt, or even try to.

Once again in this debate the left is less than honest. It isn't gun-control they want at all. We have gun control, in fact many zones we have zero tolerance for guns, which is not coincidentally where many of our tragedies occur. For example, schools, guns aren't allowed within 1,000 yards of any school. This is why we have shootings at schools, they are defenseless.

No, it isn't the control of guns they want, it is their elimination. Put it directly and honestly on the table. Bring up the points that bullets can kill, it seems you think we don't know that. Try to get it through the amendment process, and then, when it fails miserably - please go away.

Our freedoms are under attack. Individualism and self protection is at the top of the list. We believe that we have the right to protect ourselves from both an oppressive government, overthrow it if necessary, as well as to protect ourselves and our family from dangerous intruders. To those who say the police will take care of the bandits in my neighborhood when the emergency response time averages over 5 minutes nationwide – if you can get to a phone:

“I would rather be tried by 12 strangers than carried by my six closest friends.” (Unknown author) 

Our Constitution is NOT meant to be flexible.

Franklin Roosevelt once said that: “The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” Uh – I don’t think so – at least that was not what was intended. FDR had a problem with a conservative court blocking some of his agenda. He lobbied hard to add six more progressive justices to make the total fifteen. This would have enabled him to foist even more of his Marxist ideology upon us even faster. Lucky for us he did not succeed.

Let’s face it, the constitution is pretty clear. It is flexible only in the minds of those who’s intention is to twist its meaning in order to accomplish their anti-American objectives.

Next: Eminent Domain Restrictions