Freaks Macintosh Archive/Freaks Macintosh Archive.bin/Freaks Macintosh Archives/Textfiles/zines/DNA/DNAV1I8.sit/DNAV1I8/DNA108.003

Text File | 1994-03-01 | 11KB | 192 lines

The following is a brief essay on the 2nd Amendment to the United
States Constitution by Michael W. McBroom.  (c) 1994 Michael W.
McBroom.  Permission to quote from the following essay, in whole
or in part, is granted, providing credit is given the author.


"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."
                     - Amendment II, United States Constitution

     It wasn't by happenstance that the right "to keep and bear
arms" was placed in the penultimate position within the framework
of the Bill of Rights.  Our forefathers knew full well that an
armed and prepared citizenry would make it much more difficult
for an invader or a tyrannical government to seize the reins of
power, and that such a step was necessary if the United States
were to survive at all.  The fledgling country had just gone
through a protracted and bloody fight over the lofty principles
set down in the Declaration of Independence, and its leaders had
no desire to do it again.  But the result of their vision and
their toil, sacrifice and bloodshed was worth it: a free society
founded on the laws set forth in the U.S. Constitution and the
Bill of Rights.
     Remember, please, those inspired words in the Declaration of
Independence:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ."  These unalienable
rights were then further spelled out in the Constitution and in
the Bill of Rights.
     Unfortunately, nowadays most Americans, especially the
youngamongus, just go "Duh-=<<<Z0nE>>>=-So what's so special
about that?"  What, indeed?
     We've lived in complacency far to long, folks.  We've known
the good life for so long that we can't conceive of anything
else.  Even our poor are the richest poor in the world.  And in
today's shaky economy, Americans are probably still better off
than 95% of the rest of the humans on this globe -- and that
includes the Japanese.  We've forgotten how fortunate we are to
have a framework such as the U.S. Constitution to protect our
freedoms.
     The "unalienable rights" mentioned in the Declaration of
Independence are those rights that transcend government.  They
are undeniable.  They are fundamental rights granted to humankind
by the Creator (or whomever or whatever you feel most comfortable
with), which no government may rightfully set aside.  In other
words, laws governing, controlling, or regulating these
unalienable rights are out-of-bounds.  They are taboo; they are
not permitted -- they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

                   Misconceptions and the Truth

     "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State . . ."   Whenever a discussion or debate occurs
regarding the 2nd Amendment and the intentions of its authors,
most of the attention centers on this very first phrase.  Have
you ever wondered why?  Because this is the one phrase in the 2nd
Amendment that allows the Liberal Left the most wiggle room,
that's why.
     For decades now, liberals have been shoveling shinola at us
about the meaning of "A well regulated militia."  Let's take a
look at "well regulated" first.  In order to understand what our
founding fathers meant by "well regulated," we MUST view these
words in their original context; that is, we must give them the
definition that was used in the 1770's.  In those days, a firearm
was said to be "well regulated" if it was accurate.  And a
rifleman was considered "well regulated" if he could shoot
straight -- not a mean feat considering that many of the long
guns used at the time were smooth-bore muskets!
     Some of you will scoff and say this interpretation is
nothing but more NRA-sponsored pro-gun propaganda.  Fine, go
ahead and smirk, but do check it out for yourself, won't you?
What you'll find may surprise you.  As it turns out, this was a
term in use long before and long after the Bill of Rights was
penned.  During the days of the Old West, in fact, some of the
most feared men to strap on a six-gun were known as "regulators."
And it wasn't because they were from the "gummint" looking for
folks who spit on sidewalks, either.  Nope, these regulators were
often guns for hire -- and what they shot at, they hit.  Still
don't believe me?  Go to your favorite well-stocked video store
and rent "Missouri Breaks."  It stars Jack Nicholson and Marlon
Brando.  Brando plays the regulator, and does a bang-up job of
it, too.
     To this same group of leftists, who would have you believe
"well regulated" means a liberal dose of government interference,
the word "militia" means the military or the National Guard.
Writings by the framers of the Bill of Rights clearly indicate
otherwise.  Our forefathers had a long-standing and profoundly
deep mistrust of a standing army; they were vehemently opposed to
it, choosing instead to rely on a civilian militia.  And the
National Guard did not come into being until much, much later --
until 1903, to be exact.  Thus, in those first formative years of
our country, the "militia" were all able-bodied men and some
women who owned firearms, and knew how to shoot them -- in fact,
if you fell into this broad category, it was your patriotic duty
to be ready and able to defend your country.  Restrictions,
regulations and requirements would come much later, once the
ossification of the federal government began setting in and slick
lawmakers took it upon themselves to twist the meanings of such
basic principles.
     ". . . being necessary to the security of a free State . .
."  This phrase is abundantly clear in intent, but it should be
noted that our forefathers weren't just concerned about our
national security being threatened by foreign powers.  They were
equally concerned about the possibility of a tyranny arising from
within the federal government, and repeatedly warned against the
prospect of this occurring.  They were also concerned about self-
defense, reasoning that if crime ran rampant in America, there
would be little if any security remaining.
     ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms . . ."
This is, without question one of the most quoted and heavily
debated phrases in the entire U.S. Constitution.  Debate has
raged in recent times over whether the framers intended this to
mean an individual right or a collective right.  Once again, the
liberal, anti-gun crowd has done its level best to try and have
this phrase interpreted to mean the people's right to keep and
bear arms is a collective right.  This is important to their
argument, because it strips from the INDIVIDUAL the right to keep
and to bear a firearm.  It also lends credence to their argument
that militia means some sort of organized military force, despite
abundant evidence to the contrary.  And contrary evidence exists
-- plenty of it, in fact -- that the right to keep and bear arms
was always intended by our founding fathers to be construed as an
individual right.  In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, in the
case U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, that the right to keep and bear
arms is an individual right held by "the people," which the court
defines as all "persons who are part of a national community."
     The word "bear" is extremely important, and is often
neglected when the Second Amendment is discussed.  Ah, but don't
liberals like Senator Patrick Moynihan, who want to ban
ammunition, or tax it out of existence, wish the word "bear"
wasn't there!  When arms are brought to bear, they are fired.  In
order to fire a firearm, one must have ammo.  And since the
Second Amendment expressly states the individual right to "bear"
arms, ammunition for the arms is just as fundamental a right to
possess as the arms themselves.
     ". . . shall not be infringed."  Of  the four clauses in the
Second Amendment, this, the last one, is by far the clearest in
its meaning.  But it is also the one clause that is most
consistently ignored by our illustrious lawmakers.  Still, there
can be no doubt: No means NO!  "Shall not be infringed" means,
under no circumstances, can (they) be diminished.  Period.  End
of story.  Yet we have seen a steady erosion of the Second
Amendment since 1934, with the passage of the National Firearms
Act, and even earlier in some cases.  Over the past several
decades, our lawmakers have chosen to ignore the language of the
Second Amendment and have passed blatantly unconstitutional
legislation, relying on the reluctance of firearms owners to
bring constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court.
     To divert attention from their maneuverings, the liberal
gun-grabbers have produced a separate fiction.  Each time they
introduce a new piece of oppressive, unconstitutional anti-gun
legislation, they talk reassuringly about how they have no desire
whatsoever to deprive hunters and sportsmen of guns that can be
used for "legitimate sporting purposes."  This is nothing but a
smokescreen, folks, designed to cover up their real intentions,
which is nothing less than the disarming of the American people.
     How do I come to this conclusion?  Easy.
     Even the most basic interpretation of the Second Amendment
will reveal that its purpose is to provide for defense and
protection by force of arms.  Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or
in the Bill of Rights is there reference to Americans having the
right to keep and bear arms for hunting or for target shooting,
although modern-day liberals would have you believe these are the
only firearm rights you deserve, if you're lucky, if they're in a
good mood, if it's a good hair day.  When the 2nd Amendment was
written most average families supplemented their diets with game,
so hunting was simply a given.  And in order to deck the game you
were aiming at, you had to be a pretty good shot, which meant
target shooting was as necessary as gun powder -- once again, a
given.
     Thus, because such basics of life as hunting and
marksmanship practice were taken for granted by the founding
fathers, just as the right to breathe was, the importance of the
Second Amendment should become even more apparent: it ain't about
hunting, folks -- it's about freedom!
     Yes, freedom.  That's the meaning behind the Second
Amendment, and the meaning is clear, especially when viewed in
the context of the time in which it was written.  Put into
everyday modern English, the Second Amendment has always meant,
and still means:

 "So that this country will remain free and secure, able-bodied
citizens who are competent with firearms shall not be denied them
or their use."

It's really that simple, folks.

Michael W. McBroom
February 26, 1994