The Right-To-Bring-Assault-Weapons-to-School Second Amendment

guncontrol2

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

2ndAmendment_t607

George Mason’s original draft amendment reads:

“That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.”

Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights stated 12 years earlier:

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

The Right-To-Bring-Assault-Weapons-to-School Second Amendment turns out to have its origins in an attempt to ensure the ability to quickly raise an armed force under a civilian government to defend the new nation in an age when maintaining standing armies was prohibitively expensive and logistically difficult.

The first half of the Second Amendment explains why people should have a right to bear arms:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … “

Rather than standing armies, the states of the new United States created “well-regulated militias.” The current Supreme Court ignored this powerful qualification to gun ownership when it ruled erroneously against Washington D.C.’s gun ban.

75-jm062708_300SupCt_Second_Amendment

Bearing arms in a well-regulated militia did not mean bearing guns that can reliably shoot well, since such didn’t exist. It certainly didn’t mean bearing guns that can kill entire crowds of people without reloading. It didn’t mean bearing arms outside of the well regulated militia. Much less did it mean bearing arms in school and church and Wal-Mart.

No instead, in an age absent of the assembly line, standardized manufacturing, big box stores, and gun shows… bearing arms in a well regulated militia meant a cash-strapped young nation had ready access to means to defend itself. Moreover, as we know, the Constitution was written within the restrictions of its colonial times and should not be understood as frozen in time.

By “free state” many supporters of this bill of rights meant, of course, slave state. By “people” they meant, of course, white male people — specifically people who would be taking part in well regulated militias. Things changed, didn’t they?

The militias of the Second Amendment were meant to protect against tyrannical and unconstitutional coercion, popular rebellions, slave revolts, and — no doubt — lunatics who seek to mass-murder children.

second-amendment-scoreboard-cartoon

The descendants of those militias are what we now call the National Guard. To comply with the Second Amendment we must end current use of the National Guard in foreign wars, regulate such state militias and police forces well, regulate their weapons well, and deny such weapons to all others and for any other use.

The Second Amendment has been made to mean something very different from what was originally intended or what any sane person writing a Constitution would intend today.  This means that we must either reinterpret it, re-write it, or both.

1355823949055.cached

Adapted From An OpEd By David Swanson – The Wait-Just-a-Goddam-Second Amendment – Posted 19 December 2012 on War Is A Crime.org  (http://warisacrime.org)


5 responses to “The Right-To-Bring-Assault-Weapons-to-School Second Amendment

  • KairosM

    Well stated and presented. Thank You!

  • Nick Turner

    Hrmmm.. hard to argue with what the amendment says.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The purpose of this amendment is to keep a balance between the politcal agendas of tyrannical administrations and the people it represents. Our founding fathers knew the cycle of democracy when they founded our great nation. Know this cycle the only way to break the cycle of destruction within a democracy was to allow the citizens the right to arm and defend themselves. Our current and past Potus’ know that the cycle of democracy will eventually move to a time of enslavement of the people for their own good.. and only when the people rise up will the cycle continue.. however they want to break the cycle at the point of slavery in which all citizens are dependent upon the Federal Gov. to ensure their basic needs are met. They cannot do this if we are armed and can fight against it. Bottom line is guns do not kill people.. they are a piece of machinery without the ability to think, breathe or make decisions. Criminals do not follow the laws.. hence the reason they are criminals. To take away the peoples right to arm themselves for defense, you are only empowering criminals over those who once could defend themselves. I ask a simple question: When someone breaks into your house with a weapon of any kind, are you comfortable with knowing that your call to 911 will take more than 10 minutes to have officers at your house to defend you? Or would you prefer to be armed and defend yourself during that 10 minutes of terror? Good people with guns do not break the law, bad people with guns do. Sorry but I would prefer to have the police show up at my house and find the intruders body laid out for them to retrieve, than have them have to go notify my next of kin of my death because they couldnt respond quick enough to save my life.

  • therighttobeararms

    Your a bunch of dumb asses. Why tell me what I can and can not have? I don’t tell you you cant have your head up your own ass, drive a Prius, or have unprotected sex with strangers. Ill keep my guns, money and freedom, you keep the change.

    • Coronare Modestus Faust

      I think your comment speaks for why you are not a reasonable enough individual to be trusted with an automatic weapon or high capacity magazines. Moreover, I think I showed well the intention of the author of the second amendment…that the right to bear arms was primarily intended as a defense protocol for the nation and secondarily as an actual individual right. I appreciate hearing other opinions, though, and do value that you have a view different than mine. But, be that as it may, the intention of the second amendment’s author and the founders is quite clear. Be well.

      • Coronare Modestus Faust

        A note of Clarification: in theory and practice, every gun control advocate is a supporter of the Second Amendment, a supporter of law. We all likely want better enforcement with more stringent rules in line with the constitution and have an honest disagreement with the sitting Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

        Control advocates like myself see the phrase, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” as a strong if ignored qualifier to one of our “rights” and, as the Supreme Court unilaterally nullified this limitation, advocate a reinterpretation of the amendment through the legal and constitutional process of a further amendment.

        Even those very rare few who advocate repeal of the Second Amendment are suggesting that the repeal be done in a constitutional manner, with a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States.

        The fact that one advocates serious and meaningful firearm control legislation is an argument that one also supports the foundation of the Second Amendment, more so than those who would advocate that the government should stay out of every and all firearms issues as preferred by the NRA and its acolytes.

        After all, saying that the government should have no involvement in firearms sale and ownership is to say that the government is not a valid arbitrator of firearms, which denies the Second Amendment’s very existence… and its reason for existence.

        Nowhere, though, in the Constitution does it advocate anarchy. And since when is anarchy patriotic? How do some consider themselves patriots when they openly talk of rebellion and revolution (I’m looking at you, NRA)?

        As said by Stephen Colbert so eloquently, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s