Guns and the Second Ammendment

8/8/2019 Guns and the Second Ammendment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guns-and-the-second-ammendment 1/8

Copyright©2009byRobertL.Nuckolls,III.Thisdocumentmaybereproducedinanyformorvenuewhenauthorshipisproperlycitedandtheworkisnotexploitedforthepurposeofsecuringaprofitorobscuringcontext.

1

Article II of the Bill of Rights

“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.”

-----------------------------------

United Press International

Saturday, Dec. 7, 2002

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court ruling

upholding California's ban on assault rifles

was being portrayed Friday as a landmark in

the constitutional debate over the right tobear arms.

In a 72-page ruling issued Thursday, the

famously left-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals said the Second Amendment guaranteed

only the rights of states to organize a

militia and said nothing about citizens being

allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any

other firearms.

"With the federal assault weapons ban

scheduled to sunset next Congress, the

California law stands as one example of how to

more effectively restrict these weapons of

war," said Matt Nosanchuk, legislative counsel

for Violence Policy Center.

The Ninth Circuit's unanimous ruling by athree-judge panel was at odds with a Fifth

Circuit ruling known as the Emerson decision

upholding an individual's right to possess a

weapon, stating that the Second Amendment

pertained to the organization of an organized,

state-sponsored militia, and not "an

'unregulated' mob of armed individuals."

<end of excerpt>

The Simple-Ideas Occasional

A publication dedicated to the study and celebrationof common sense and repeatable experiments

Robert L. Nuckolls, III

Medicine Lodge, KS

Number 18, April 20, 2009

Guns and the Second Amendment

There are few topics of discourse in the United States

likely to bring on such fierce levels of debate as guns,

free speech and abortion. The rhetoric that flows forth

from the electronic and print media on these topics

borders on hysterical. But for the purpose of this study

in simple ideas, let us consider guns.

There are individuals who claim that the any firearm in

the hands of an ordinary citizen is a threat to us all.

They advocate severe regulation if not outright

confiscation of all guns. Nevertheless, these same

individuals are quite willing and in fact may insist that

some individuals with airs of authority keep their guns.

The notion offered is that should anyone find

themselves needing a measure of force offered by a

firearm, we can and should depend upon an office of

government to respond in a timely manner and render

that force on our behalf. The adjacent news article

excerpt illustrates but one of thousands of judgments

handed down by courts pertaining to the topic of public

ownership of guns. The article is noteworthy not so

much for what it says but what is not said.

The Second Amendment is often cited as the foundation

for public ownership of guns. In the decision cited,

California’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with

counsel for the Violence Policy Center. They opined

that certain weapons were useful only in the conduct of

war and should be prohibited for possession by ordinary

citizens. They further stated that the Second

Amendment pertained only to state’s rights to assemble

a militia.

Let us recall the role of firearms in the development of

our country. Before firearms, individuals most able to

defend themselves from dishonorable individuals hadto be large, strong and perhaps even pre-disposed to

excel in the what may have been a popular spectator

sport of the time - hand-to-hand combat.

Only a few individuals at the top of the bell-curve for

human robustness could expect to live a relatively

hassle-free existence.

There is a portion of robust individuals in every population

who readily exploit their dishonorable intent, strength and

size to prey upon anyone of smaller stature. If an individualof small stature has the resources, they might hire robust

individuals as bodyguards. These individuals may not be

especially honorable but they were at least expected to be

loyal to their employer. Indeed, in centuries gone by,

individuals of property and means always employed

individuals of robust stature with a charter to defend the

boss’s person and property.




2

In those times, groups having the greatest number of

robust defenders/attackers could pretty much have their

way with everyone else. If the boss could amass a large

enough group of defender/attackers and take charge of

enough land, he might well declare himself king of all

he could defend. Throughout history the fate of kings,and the borders of kingdoms were as variable as the

ability of individuals to form and finance alliances with

individuals of robust stature bent upon carving their

own benefits from the time, talent and resources of

others. This was long before concepts of Magna Carta

were first brought forth in recorded history.

The Magna Carta is often thought of as the corner-stone

of liberty and the chief defense against arbitrary and

unjust rule. It’s been cited as one of several foundations

upon which our own constitution was crafted. It

contains few sweeping statements of principle. But

rebellious barons managed to wring a series of

concessions from a less-than-enthusiastic King John of

England in 1215.

For the first time, the Magna Carta established a

significant constitutional principle. Namely, the power

of the king could be limited by a written grant. The

notion that the governing and the governed could agree

and record conditions by which they would amicably

co-exist was new. The Magna Carta had a profound

effect on individuals by relieving the need to hire, feed,

house and train individuals of robust stature who added

no value to daily living other than to protect boss’s

person and property.

Our Constitution was crafted from the same ideas that

prompted the drafting of the Magna Carta nearly 800

years ago. But that’s another story. The point is that the

Magna Carta codified limits placed on the power of one

individual over other individuals. This had the effect of

reducing risks to the person and property of individuals

of small stature levied by government (or the guy with

the most individuals of robust stature).

There have always been tools of conflict capable of

tilting the advantage of a confrontation. At the Battle

of Hastings in 1066, William of Norman prevailed over

Harold of Saxon in spectacular fashion. William’ssuccess has been attributed by some historians to the

fact that his horse soldiers had saddles fitted with

stirrups.

Stirrups had roots in tools of horsemanship going back

12 centuries but without noteworthy influence on world

history. But William’s solders took the day because

they remained astride their horses while wielding weapons

against the enemy. Folks with the mind-set against gun

ownership today might have clamored for a prohibition

against the use of stirrups on saddles so as to “eliminate an

unfair advantage with demonstrably horrible consequences for

one’s victims or adversaries.” No doubt, “protectors of order

and the public good” would be allowed saddles fitted withstirrups.

When firearms first appeared they were a new force to be

reckoned with. They provided a means by which lethal force

could be applied to an adversary from a distance. Further,

while firearms required the combatant to learn new skills, he

didn’t have to be built like Sylvester Stallone to be an

effective component of an attack/defense machine.

In early days of immigration to North America, the successful

immigrant was almost always an effective user of guns, or

they allied themself with others who were. Before the

immigrant put down roots and even afterward, firearms

provided meat for survival. Equally important was the fact

that many folks lived miles away from willing and able

assistance. When confronted by individuals of robust stature

and evil intent, one’s future as immigrant would be cut short

he did not possess and be competent in the use of tools of

protection.

Today, due mostly to a horribly distorted view of history

offered by the movies, there are individuals who would have

us believe there is no longer a need for honorable people to

own firearms. Portrayals of life in the “wild west” offered by

Hollywood often suggests that lawless towns had special

public works crews who came out every night to clean the

streets of bodies left by the daily melee of gunfights.

Historians of fact dispute this. Many have researched the

newspaper and death records of early settlements and found

that death rates due firearms in cases of random violence and

accident were less than they are today . . . and certainly less

than present rates in cities like New Orleans, Los Angeles and

New York.

At the beginning of this essay, I quoted Article II of the Bill

of Rights commonly referred to as “the Second Amendment.

I also quoted a news article citing the decision by three-judge

panel in California federal appeals court that decided, “the

Second Amendment guaranteed only the rights of states toorganize a militia and said nothing about citizens being

allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other

firearms.” Let us test the reasoning of these judges who by

their political appointments have assumed an air of authority

which some people believe should be dutifully accepted by all

citizens.




3

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was part of

a Bill of Rights added only 4 years after the

Constitution was written. What thinking might prompt

such rapid response on the part Congress to revise an

important document which was only four years old?

Had the government amassed a huge army or perhaps

a cabal of secret agents that preyed upon citizens? Hadthe justice system of this new nation already gone out

of control? Did this hard won freedom from England

require institutional restraint by congressional decree?

“No” on all counts. The US was very young and the

highest order of concern for a young congress was to

prevent our nation from repeating mistakes of the past.

The country had just emerged from a costly divorce

settlement with an unacceptable and tyrannical

institution of the past . . . monarchy.

If one studies the Constitution, the Federalist Papers

and numerous pamphlets written about the role of

government, it is clear that lawmakers of the time were

taking cues from the history of the Magna Carta and

observations of subsequent relations between the

powerless and those with power. They were concerned

with crafting limits upon what government could and

should do as opposed to vesting government with any

new or unnecessary powers.

So how about this 72 page decision by the California

court? Let’s look at the Second Amendment again. . .

Article [II.]

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to thesecurity of a free State, the right of the people to

keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

By golly, those judges were right. The Second

Amendment doesn’t say a durn thing about automatic

weapons. In fact, it doesn’t even mention guns. The

words “gun” and “firearm” existed in 1791 but they

didn’t use them in crafting the second amendment.

“Arms” and “armament” can be any tool of assault or

defense. This might include clubs, knives, swords,

spears, bows and arrows, or even stirrups!

Can we imagine that ideas were circulating thatgovernment should soon take on total responsibility and

power for defense of all citizens against every

dishonorable intent by any individual of robust stature

in 1791? Could the Congress of 1795 be looking

forward to a time when individually owned weapons of

any kind would become a bad thing thereby forcing

government to keep all weapons for the exclusive use

of government?

If the folks who were attempting to refine constitutional

principals by which government should conduct itself were

concerned with guns, why didn’t they say “guns”? Is it

reasonable to deduce that legislators in 1791 believed that

citizens might sufficiently protect themselves and otherswithout guns? Would they have guessed that sometime in the

future, government should decide that “guns” are a bad deal

but spears, bows and arrows and clubs were okay? For this

panel of California judges to infer that the word “arms” refers

or doesn’t refer to a particular kind of gun is pure nonsense.

It’s true that the Second Amendment cites the need for a “well

regulated militia.” Here’s an important distinction based on

the meaning of words. Today, regulations are part and parcel

of government’s propensity to rule by decree. We are acutely

aware of tens of thousands of regulations which affect our

persons and property as profoundly as any law voted upon by

representative legislation.

But what regulations existed in 1791? I suspect few if any.

Those that did were most certainly crafted in detail by elected

representatives. Individuals who are better students of history

than I have suggested than in 1791 that if a group of

individuals were “well regulated”, they were in modern

parlance “well trained.”

Let’s consider the Second Amendment again. 27 words which

many individuals are straining mightily to attribute some

meaning beneficial to their hysteria du jour. Suppose you and

I were tasked to craft an amendment to the Constitution that

speaks to individual ownership of weapons? First, what is

government’s interest that an individual own a weapon? Whyshould government take any notice either for or against

individual ownership any tool of offense/defense? It was

largely privately owned guns that supported the revolutionary

rebellion against the king of England. Were it not for the

individual ownership of guns and the willingness of citizens

to use them in a just cause, the new government might never

have come into existence in the first place!

As long as any gun is not used to attack the liberty of another

citizen, why would government care? This is especially

important when virtually everyone living outside the rural

settlements of 1800 needed guns for both survival and

protection. I suggest those 27 carefully chosen words are thefoundation of a simple idea. Suppose the security of a free

state is under attack, who has the responsibility for defending

it? How about that state’s government? How would that

security be defended? Yup, citizens of that state who own and

know how to effectively use weapons would be expected to

rise to a civic duty and defend the state. Let us consider

another article from the Bill of Rights.




4

Article [IX.]

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain

rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage

others retained by the people.”

The meaning of this article is quite clear . . . in just 21words, we are assured that just because the first 8

articles list specific protections from government

interference of liberty does not mean that other

protections do not exist because they are not defined.

The logical extension of these words says that unless

there are specific prohibitions against certain acts, then

no prohibitions can be inferred.

Those folks in the first Congress were pretty smart

cookies. They knew full well how spin-doctors of both

the present and future might use the omission of words

to grant significant power to themselves and/or

institutions of government. Lest the Constitution be

interpreted to mean that citizens do not have the right to

possess weapons because it’s not specifically allowed

under the second amendment, let us consider the

following.

Place yourself in the shoes of a legislator of 1791 and

think though the processes by which you would use the

minimum number of words with concise meanings to

describe the relationship between government and

armed citizens. As a legislator in 1791, what is your

interest or authority to control whether or not any

individual owns a weapon? Thousands of citizens of

this young nation needed weapons in honorablepursuits

of hunting for food, protecting property, and warding off individuals of robust stature and evil intent.

Under the ideas that formed our constitution, federal

legislators have a charter to protect rights of states to

assemble a militia using its capably armed citizens.

It is quite clear that the Bill of Rights was carefully

crafted to limit the ability of individuals with

dishonorable intent to use the power of government to

force their individual or collective will upon honorable

citizens. A thread that runs throughout these essays is

the notion that simple ideas are clear, concise, easy to

understand and apply.

27 words in article II and 21 words of article IX are

simple-ideas. Difficult to understand? Not when you

consider the conditions from which our founding fathers

emerged from under English Rule 200+ years ago.

Consider also the nature of their task in crafting the

minimum interest a good government should have in the

lives of people who sacrificed so much for liberty.

If a new Constitution were to be crafted by today’s legislature,

it would most certainly be a voluminous work. Crafters of

federal law today are much more inclined to micro-manage

our lives by federal decree. They are also adept at hiding the

true meaning and effect of legislation behind words with honorable sounding intent. Take as an example, HR3162,

“USA PATRIOT Act as Passed by Congress - Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools

Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (Oct. 25,

2001)”

Compared to the twenty or so pages of the Constitution where

simple-ideas provided a foundation for the forming of a new

nation, the Patriot Act expands to many hundreds of new laws

which in turn will be expanded out to thousands of new rules

by regulatory agencies.

The title of HR3162 purports to describe ideas that defend or

nation against individuals of evil intent. Individuals

(terrorists) who have compensated for a lack of robust stature

by crafting minimum-effort, low-cost techniques for terrible

destruction. This is a relatively new threat from individuals of

evil intent because they have an environment that supplies

“arms” more terrible than anything our legislators of 1791

could have envisioned.

Further, the conversion of useful tools like airplanes into

weapons of mass destruction would never have been

envisioned by the members congress in 1791. Nonetheless,

it’s not a stretch of the imagination that some future court

could decree that under present thinking about the Second

Amendment, statists could deprive ordinary citizens fromowning an airplane larger that an ultralight. Only institutions

created or blessed by government shall be permitted to own

anything larger.

If the statists can twist the spirit and intent of a mere handful

of words in the Constitution, consider how the Patriot Act’s

obscure wording and gross complexity offers individuals of

evil intent to justify horrible attacks upon the liberty of other

citizens. Either out of ignorance or dishonorable intent. It is

axiomatic that one or more features of vague, voluminous

legislation will morph into tools for evil.

It’s interesting to note how incompetent or dishonorablelegislators resort to complexity for the purpose of suppressing

or superceding simple-ideas. Befuddlement is a powerful tool

of the bureaucrat. It’s very much to the bureaucrat’s benefit to

craft law and regulation in terms so complex or difficult to

understand that we are encouraged if not required to defer

judgment and control over our lives to individuals and groups

with airs of authority . There’s an old axiom that suggests, “If




5

you cannot dazzle your audience with brilliance, then

baffle them with bull-hocky.”

Congress cannot craft a single law in less than a fist-full

of pages with a few dozen non-relevant (but always

expensive) amendments stapled to the back. Similarly,

the panel of judges in California need 72 pages of words to tell us that 48 words we’ve just considered for

ourselves don’t really mean what any thoughtful citizen

can deduce for themselves.

I’ll suggest that the Second Amendment has absolutely

nothing to do with your personal interest or disinterest

in owning any weapon. I’ll agree with the learned judges

in California that the second amendment is about states

ability to defend themselves using individually armed

and skilled citizens as a resource. But I’ll bet that the 72

page decision says nothing about an ongoing need for

states to be able to defend themselves even today.

Further, under the sprit and intent of the Bill of Rights,

those 27 words of the second amendment specifically

prohibit the crafting of any federal law to the contrary.

The Second Amendment protected a resource that was

already prevalent in every state at the time it was crafted

into law. Most citizens needed weapons both for

protection and sustenance. Everyone who owned a

weapon was skilled in its use.

The Second Amendment attended to states rights and

guaranteed both freedom and duty of citizens to answer

the call of their state government to “gather up your

arms in the defense of your neighbors”. The Ninth

Amendment closes up what many consider a loop-holewhere the Constitution is silent about honorable ways

in which individually owned guns might be used.

It was fair and reasonable to assume that citizens of

1791 who needed weapons would own weapons. It was

also fair and reasonable to expect that weapons would

be used in honorable ways. The whole purpose of

law(1)

is to redress the acts of dishonorable citizens

against other citizens. Therefore, if a citizen is

guaranteed the right to arm themselves for any

honorable purpose, then there is no reason for the

federal government to take a position either for or

against such ownership.

Isn’t this great? The Constitution is barely 20 pages

long. Most of its words deal with organization and

house keeping. Very few words in the Constitution

speak to the relationship of government and its citizens.

The Constitution was not written by legislators intent

upon obscure meaning. The Constitution was written by

citizens of honorable intent, good scholarship and clear

thought to be understood by anyone who takes the time to

read it. Every citizen of the United States was encouraged to

understand the relationship between citizenry and their

government.

Today, there is much posturing and blustering by individualswith airs of authority with a goal of persuading us of what

rights we do and do not have. Millions of words have been

written or uttered to obscure the simple ideas offered by the

writings of our country’s founders. Many if not most of our

school teachers scoff at the idea of a simple and inviolate

constitution. They’ve bought into the notion that a

constitution needs to be flexible and adjusted for the present

times.

Would any of today’s bureaucrats propose to interpret the

words and deeds of Mother Theresa to be anything but

honorable and caring? I suspect not because they know that

ordinary people have observed and accurately interpreted her

words and actions for themselves. There would be no public

tolerance of “alternative interpretations” by individuals no

matter how impressive their air of authority.

Words in the Constitution were set down by individuals who

were not enriching themselves from the public purse. Nor

were they crafting for themselves offices and charters of

power over other citizens. The words they chose were few,

simple and clear. Where then is there justification for

alternative interpretations of words written and deeds

accomplished on behalf of a new nation 200 years ago?

I’ll suggest that proponents of gun control and confiscation

fall into two categories:

(1) There are ignorant citizens who fall prey to media hype

about runaway violence and accident induced tragedy

involving guns. These individuals are easily fooled and

readily indorse government offers to trade liberty for a

perception of security. These folks choose to ignore the facts

that for every tragic accident or incident of evil intent aided

by a weapon of any kind, there are hundreds of cases where

honorable individuals successfully stood against

dishonorable individuals of all sizes because they were

armed.

Weapons are the great equalizers. More than one 110-poundwoman has successfully defended herself from a robust

individual of evil intent. Some cities in our nation are almost

completely free of robbery against convenience and liquor

stores because the government of those cities have admitted

they cannot provide a useful and timely level of police

protection. They have purposefully NOT crafted law that

prevents the owners from protecting themselves.




6

(2) The other groups grow out of individual quest for

comfortable control of a defenseless populace. These

folks are bullies, thieves and cowards. It’s difficult to

face a righteous and angry citizen who is forced to

defend themself when you know they have both the

right and the ability to blow you away. Not all bullies

and thieves sneak around in the dark. Others haveimportant sounding titles, wear expensive suits and

award themselves airs of authority to dictate the

fortunes of our citizens through the crafting and

administration of law. They know too that when

individuals in uniform surround a mis-behaving group

of citizens, the outcome will be less messy if those

citizens do not have powerful weapons. No matter how

many liberties have been violated, if no one dies or gets

hurt, public outcry will be relatively docile and short

lived.

Suppose friends and relatives of Elian Gonzales had

both the means and the will to resist an illegal and

oppressive action by government. Suppose they had

responded in kind to actions of 150+ federal agents

invading a tiny house with automatic weapons loaded

and cocked. The scene would have been a bloodbath in

a shootout ending in a matter of seconds.

This is what politicians fear most. It’s not that ordinary

citizens have a ghost of a chance of prevailing against a

government ordered and orchestrated invasion. If the

citizens under siege by government at Waco, Ruby

Ridge and the home of Elian Gonzales had been

outfitted and motivated to mount an effective defense

the outcomes would be the same. The overwhelming

force brought against them by their government wouldhave prevailed.

But the blood-baths televised world-wide would be

more than a malleable public would tolerate. The

messier an invasion becomes, the harder it is for bullies,

thieves and cowards (agencies of government) to

maintain their facade of a charter to “protect and serve”.

If people knew about every incident of government

abuse of citizens, there could be at disaster at the polls,

perhaps even risk of revolt. Far better that government

figure out ways to quietly and incrementally gather up

all weapons. It’s even better when government enjoyssupport of every hysterical advocacy group willing to

trade liberty for government provided “security”. The

problem is compounded and the future of liberty

uncertain when a complicit media refuses to look evil in

the eye and name it.

The end result is a docile, disarmed and complicit public

that prevents future adventures by government from getting

messy. Let’s see, what were those 27 words again?

Article [II.]

“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.”

What conceivable threat could the framers of the Constitution

envision that would even require a state to exercise its right to

call up the militia? What institutions in 1800 threaten state

security? Three things: (1) a threat of conquest by another

state - which the federal government would be obliged to

defend. (2) a threat of conquest by the federal government

which no single state can successfully defend itself against.

(3) a threat of conquest by a foreign power wherein citizens

who possess arms and are skilled in their use may be called

upon to join in our nation’s defense. Is the situation any

different today?

How about the state where you live? Does it concern you that

individuals who crafted the foundations of our country did

everything in their power to protect us from excesses of

government while those in power today are demonstrably

interested in doing just the opposite?

How “free” is the state of Florida? How was it that federal

agents used deadly force to effect the will of the federal

government a case that would normally be handled in quiet

wrangling by a bunch of taxpayer-financed lawyers in family

court? Few would argue that a little 6-year old boy’s rightfulplace is with his father. But kicking in doors under the cover

of darkness and gassing innocent civilians in order to

accomplish this end are tactics reminiscent of another time

and continent. I’ll suggest that the “security” of Florida, and

indeed of all states is demonstrably in doubt. Plotting current

trends out into the future suggests there are many more

demonstrations of government malfeasance yet to come.

This instance illustrates a frightening trend in the conduct of

those who wield the power of government over our lives.

Statists routinely demonstrated that liberty is not for

everybody. Individuals and institutions of government have

reserved for themselves moment by moment decisions as towho’s liberty is to be protected or who’s liberty is to be

sacrificed. Based on circumstances of the moment they decide

whether the power of government will be the tool of

protection or the tool of destruction against ordinary citizens.

When makers and enforcers of law do not operate under the

moral imperative of protecting liberty, every citizen of either

honorable or dishonorable intent is at risk of attack.




7

Does this mean we should all endeavor to become armed

and prepare to sacrifice ourselves to some government

agency run amok? Of course not. Mahatma Gandhi

protested the English monopoly on the production and

sale of salt to the citizens of India when his followers

made a "raid" on the English Dharasana Salt Works

surrounded by hundreds of guards and barbed wire. Themarchers silently approached the fence, they were

ordered to leave. None of the marchers raised so much

as a hand to defend themselves when dishonorable

government employees of robust stature rushed the

marchers and struck them with clubs and rifle butts. As

the front line fell, more protesters marched in to take

their place. The entire column of marchers was beaten

down.

Injured and hospitalized numbered over 300 and two

men died. A journalistic spotlight on this terrible

example of government abuse of citizens precipitated

the end of English colonial rule of India. This was but

one example of how dedicated citizens volunteered their

bodies to make the consequence of government

malfeasance a messy affair. Even the most complicit of

today’s so-called journalists would find it difficult to

resist reporting a messy adventure on the part of the

government they have come to worship.

Further, if an individual is struck down in honorable

defense of liberty of innocent individuals because the

opposing firepower is greater, does it matter if uniforms

of the victors are the colors of a local street gang or

standard government issue? Unfortunately, there is

never guarantee that a messy encounter will alter

attitudes of those with airs of authority . Further, it maytake a really messy event like Tiananmen Square to

bring the activities of a dishonorable government out

into the bright lights of world attention. Dishonorable

individuals have no friends, only allies. If the usefulness

of any thug, be he a gang member or holder of

government office is no longer useful to his allies, he’ll

be “sacrificed” in a heart-beat. Therefore, dishonorable

individuals in power know they cannot depend on

undying support of other dishonorable individuals

including journalists. So it is essential that government’s

most egregious adventures be conducted quietly and

with an air of dignified authority. Relieving all citizens

of effective weapons of defense is one way to keepgovernment’s most egregious adventures from becoming

messy and undignified.

In summation, any time you hear the Second

Amendment cited in a discussion about individual

ownership of guns, keep the following points in mind:

‘ The Second Amendment is not about guns. It was

crafted to prohibit the federal government from

making any laws concerning ALL manner of

weapons that a populace might assemble for the

purpose of public protection. To illustrate this I’ll

suggest that had any member of Elian’s household

picked up a chair and dispatched an armed invader,he/she would most certainly have been charged for

an “assault with a deadly weapon.”

‘ Politicians masquerading as defenders of liberty and

rule of law will generate big piles of paper arguing

against any present day need for guns under the

Second Amendment. They’ll opine that states and

local governments have sufficient police forces and

even small armies (National Guard). Individuals

with airs of authority will decree (with enough

fuzzy logic to make it sound credible) that and

provisions for gun ownership under the Second

Amendment are now “obsolete” and may be

discarded.

‘ They will hat-dance around a fundamental right and

duty of every citizen to protect their person and

property. They’ll also ignore an honorable

individual’s willingness to defend victims of

individuals of robust stature and evil intent.

‘ Aside from providing every honorable citizen with

a taxpayer employed body guard, there is no way

that government can provide a level of protection

more responsive than a citizen can provide for

themself. Further, there is no provision in the

Constitution that government should take on thatrole. And besides, how does one vet a government

furnished bodyguard? If he/she is an employee of a

corrupt organization, how dependable might they be

in protecting anyone’s liberty?

‘ The act of arguing the individual ownership of

weapons based on the Second Amendment leaves a

crack into which the artful statist-politician will

drive a wedge. It matters not that those politicians

wear robes and sit on high benches or occupy seats

in the legislature. The Second Amendment cannot

and should not be interpreted in any way that either

restricts or promotes the honorable use of anyweapon.

‘ The Ninth Amendment tells us there is no charter for

government to take notice of your possession of a

weapon of any kind unless used in dishonorable

ways. There are individuals who prattle about

turning all guns over to government to assuage their




8

personal discomforts and side-step individual

responsibilities. These souls join with judges

who opine that two small paragraphs in our

constitution requires 72 pages of lawyer-babble

to smoke-screen ignorance and dishonorable

intentions.

I trust I’ve shown how the California court’s 72 pages of

slicing and dicing the Second Amendment is irrelevant

to the issues surrounding gun ownership . . . or indeed

ownership of any weapon. I note further that it took only

7 pages to craft and illustrate a common-sense

understanding of constitutional spirit and intent of our

citizen founders with respect to individual ownership

and honorable use of any tool as a weapon be it your

fists, a chair raised as a club, a gun, or your automobileused to run down an attacker.

(1) “The Law” a pamphlet published in 1860 by Frederick Bastiat

Documents

Guns and the Second Ammendment