HomeJoinMissionAbout UsLinksActivism

Defending Our Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Edward L. Daley

Amendment 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.

Think about what the 2nd Amendment actually relates. First it contends that it is necessary to the security of a free state to allow for a well regulated militia. Then it demands that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, for the aforementioned reason. It does not, however, necessarily exclude from consideration all other reasons for the people to keep and bear arms, merely because it only cites that which is arguably the most important reason for them to do so.

And just what exactly IS the reason mentioned in the text? Consider this, if we add the qualifier 'because' to the beginning of the 2nd Amendment and change the word 'being' to 'is' (both of which mean "a state of existing"), we get the following sentence.

Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment obviously conveys a need for the private ownership of fire[arms] in reference to a militia... but in what way exactly?

Why the 2nd Amendment wasn't written this way is fairly obvious to me. Back in 1791, they didn't write or speak exactly as we do today, and James Madison, the Amendment's author must have felt that his meaning would be clearly understood by future generations. But no matter the reason, the 2nd Amendment obviously conveys a need for the private ownership of fire[arms] in reference to a militia... but in what way exactly?

I feel that President Madison was guaranteeing the people the right to keep and bear arms in case they needed to form a militia in order to fight the government itself. After all, how can the people possibly form an armed militia if they are not allowed by the government to possess firearms in the first place? And if citizens were only supposed to have guns in order to fight FOR the government, there would certainly be no need to afford "the people" not already in the military the Constitutional right to possess them.

At this point you should ask yourself a key question. What was the drafter of the 2nd Amendment concerned with when he wrote the words "shall not be infringed"? What entity is capable of infringing upon the rights of the people? The answer is obvious... THE GOVERNMENT! The very reason you are afforded rights under our Constitution is to protect you from the potentially despotic rule of the government. Madison once wrote in the "Federalist Papers", the following passage in reference to a standing federal army.

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties..."

To those people who think that the aforementioned Amendment means that we are only supposed to have guns for the sole purpose of fighting for the federal government, I have only this to say. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is the federal government even mentioned. The right outlined therein is inarguably afforded to "THE PEOPLE"! The amendment being discussed is a part of the Bill of Rights, which was designed specifically for the purpose of defining the unforfeitable rights of average American citizens. Keep that in mind the next time a bunch of politicians in Congress tell you that they have the authority to infringe upon your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. THEY DON'T!

The fact of the matter is that the man who wrote the 2nd Amendment knew all too well that governments often grow to be more powerful than they should be, and recognized the necessity of affording "the people" the means with which to overthrow the powers that be if the need should arise. If you doubt that contention, then you should familiarize yourself with the Declaration of Independence.

Some have argued that "well-regulated" means controlled by governmental agencies, but that is not necessarily the case. The term in question was commonly understood to mean "properly functioning" back in the 18th century.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Some have argued that "well regulated" means controlled by governmental agencies, but that is not necessarily the case. The term in question was commonly understood to mean 'properly functioning' back in the 18th century. A passage from the Oxford English Dictionary of the day provides the example "as in a well regulated clock" in reference to it. It is only in recent times that people automatically associate those words with the government. The term was not added to the 2nd Amendment in order to enforce any particular standard per se, but rather as a means of qualifying the statement "being necessary to the security of a free State".

In order for a "free state" (free people) to exist, the people must be afforded the ability to form a well regulated militia. A militia which is not well regulated (well trained and drilled) would be incapable of fighting a well regulated federal or state army. That's the ONLY reason the term is mentioned. The first part of the amendment simply relates the reasoning behind the author declaring the second part, which is the actual right being discussed.

As far as state governments are concerned, although the 2nd Amendment mentions that the people are afforded the aforementioned right in order to secure a free State, one has to consider what that passage really means. By "free State" is Madison talking about any state government or the people of any state? Consider this, if he was only talking about a state government, how then would the people of any state defend themselves against the potentially despotic rule of such a state government if they were not allowed to keep and bear arms individually? The answer is obvious, they wouldn't be able to.

Our Republic was founded upon certain principles regarding the individual and his/her relationship to our government. First and foremost, primary consideration is, and has always been afforded to the unalienable rights of the individual! The day that agencies within our government decide to place the importance of the government before that of individual liberty, is the day that our nation ceases to be a Republic of the people, by the people and for the people.

Any attempt to eradicate the 2nd Amendment would be tantamount to a crime against the people of this country, and indeed humanity, perpetrated by a despotic and tyrannical group of people who seek nothing but dominion over their fellow human beings!

Some have referred to the Constitution of the United States of America as simply a political or a legal document, but it is far more than that! It is a HUMANISTIC document, which asserts the necessity for self determination above and beyond all other human constructs, yet does not deny the importance of God in people's lives. It embraces a philosophy which has guided this nation to pinnacles of advancement and achievement in every meaningful sphere of life, the likes of which have not otherwise been evinced throughout the recorded history of this planet! To refer to it merely as a political/legal document is to ignore its raison d'être.

March 18, 2004

www.weholdthesetruths.org

Edward L. Daley, owner of The Daley Times-Post

e-mailprint version

AFA Tough