In a word, abso-frickin'-lutely!
First of all, there is that pesky amendment #2 that gun haters dislike. Here is some of the language in the amendment that hopefully clears things up for gun-haters: "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." For ease in understanding my interpretation of the second amendment and to clarify that I do not claim any special "rights" which allow me to ignore specific parts of the Constitution, I have highlighted the part which I consider the most important (and only I, I know that I cannot speak for anyone else or imply anything other than MY OWN OPINION). As for the first 13 words, in my opinion the "militia" part does not mitigate or limit the individual right of gun ownership as others have suggested (again this is only my humble, twisted and potentially arrogant opinion).
Second, the bill of rights is ALL about the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. Why would the part about guns be any different? This suggests that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that it is protected by more than solely the second amendment.
Third, various people have claimed (and I agree) that there is protection of individual privacy provided by the Constitution. Privacy Right Unlisted, but Perfectly Clear: "We do have a constitutional right to privacy. The right to speak as you wish, to pray as you wish, to be secure in your home against warrantless searches or seizures, are all based on the same underlying right to be left alone by government. The right to privacy, in fact, animates the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights included. The drafters of those documents felt no need to state what in their minds was already so obvious."
My point is thus, the second amendment along with the right to privacy held throughout the Constitution, in my opinion, provides us the right to own firearms. The paradox to me is that many who support the Constitutional right to privacy protects things like the right to an abortion, the right to free speech, gay marriage, etc. but not gun ownership. That seems a bit duplicitous to me. But what do I know?? Many would argue that I don't know much, I wonder if they have been talking with my wife?
8 comments:
No circumstances exist in which you can suspend Rights(not given to man by gov, but are universal rights pre-dating and pre-existing the Constitution)of free men.
Liberty, right to self defense, privacy, etc.
Resist any entity that fears free men.
What profound arrogance! You state that, "For ease, I have highlighted the important part." For whose "ease?" The ease of ignoring half the text of the amendment? And, since when do YOU get to pick and choose what is and is not important in the constitution? Neither you, nor anyone else has the right to arbitrarily decide what you will and will not observe in its content. It is not for you to add emphasis to parts you find especially appealing. There are no italics, nor boldface text, nor capitalized words to indicate emphasis within the 2nd amendment, so why do you add your own?
What of the dependent clause which precedes what you deem "important?" You blithely dismiss the first 13 words of the amendment as if they did not exist. The WHOLE amendment is important, not just the part which most conveniently supports your opinions.
Do you have some special insight that authors of the 2nd amendment were incapable of precise use of the English language? The fact that the amendment begins with that 13 word dependent clause is a clear indication that they did not intend for the individual ownership of firearms to be unconditional and absolute. If they had intended such, the amendment would have stated precisely that, without any conditions or ambiguities. The second amendment was ratified in its present form, not in your abridged version. As there are no special instructions from the authors of the 2nd amendment as to what parts are and are not important, we must assume that it is worded exactly as they intended, from beginning to end. The conditions are clearly stated, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State....” Thus, when considering the 2nd amendment’s implications upon individual gun ownership, you must consider the wording of the amendment in its entirety.
Take any position you choose regarding gun ownership, but do not ignore parts of or unilaterally amend the constitution because you find it politically expedient to do so. I believe in the constitution, unconditionally and absolutely, but in its entirety.
What profound arrogance?! Wow, how aggressive. Interpreting the Constitution a particular way is not arrogant, however, scolding me for my interpretation is. So you don't think that the second amendment protects an individual's right to gun ownership. Obviously, I'd disagree with your interpretation but I wouldn't call you arrogant. Maybe I’d call you a bit angry but not arrogant.
So as to not get you into such a lather next time maybe I'll soften the statement and write something such as "For ease, I have highlighted the parts which I consider important although my opinion really doesn't matter according to gasman."
And its not just the second amendment which I feel protects my individual right to own firearms (or am I being arrogant again?!). The right to privacy, which is all throughout the Constitution also protects my right to own what I want, including firearms.
drken,
As I might have expected, you did not address the substance of my post at all, but merely launched into ad hominem attacks upon me. Notice that in my original post I criticized what I felt was your rather presumptive decision as to what was "important" within the constitution. Characterizing that as arrogant is not meant as a personal attack upon you. I would characterize ANYONE who seeks to ignore selective passages of the constitution as exercising arrogance, regardless of the issue. No personal offense was meant.
You can interpret the 2nd amendment anyway you choose, but you still have ignored the heart of my post; by what rights do you claim to dismiss the first 13 words of the amendment? Seeing as how they were part of the amendment as ratified, they were written and included for some purpose. What of this dependent clause? You cannot simply ignore the part that you find disagreeable.
My argument is based upon a literal and absolute reading of the text of the amendment, yours seems to be reliant upon an edited version.
No offense taken and I don't think that I am ignoring your post. However, just to clarify, since I did not explicitly state my interpretation of the first 13 words. The first 13 words, to me, mean that the common people can form the militia to protect freedom, whether it be against over-oppressive government, criminals or foreign invaders. That's all. Its not ignoring, its just a different interpretation.
Thank you for clarifying your stance on the entire amendment.
As to your contention that this amendment allows for the protection "against over-oppressive government," that issue was essentially settled at the completion of the Civil War. The U.S. Constitution does not contain or endorse a prescription for armed rebellion against itself. That is a canard that cannot be supported within the text of the constitution and has never been endorsed by any court.
The logic against such a notion seems hard to refute: if armed rebellion is sanctioned, then we can never have legal government. Anyone feeling disaffected is free to brandish arms and we are left with anarchy.
The Declaration of Independence does acknowledge a people's right to overthrow tyranny, but the constitution does not guarantee nor protect a device for its own undoing. To overthrow the constitution is to destroy it.
I view the government and the Constitution as 2 completely separate things. The Constitution, in my opinion, guarantees individual rights and limits the power of government. One way in which we can limit oppressive government is to be armed; you cannot oppress an armed populace. However, its only my opinion.
I still stand by my original blog post that claims that the Constitution protects our right to own firearms via the second amendment and the right to privacy. Thankfully, the SCOTUS (at least 5/9 of it) agreed.
I say we agree to disagree....
I'm now going out to by another gun. ;-P
LOL.
Whew, I didn't know people disliked their rights so much as to argue about them!
State's reserve the right to secede via their Constitutions.
As TJ said:"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants'.
This does not exactly sound like being lorded over by tyrants and accepting it like a good little subject.
BTW:I would suggest something easily handloaded for. :)
Post a Comment