The second amendment states “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.”
This simple little sentence has caused a major uproar from the American citizens of today. The idea of citizens having the right to arms has, for some reason, become a hot button issue. Giving citizens the right to defend themselves is not okay in some circles and some say that it should be illegal. But why?
I have no idea.
But, before I get involved with my personal opinions, let’s focus on what the second amendment actually means.
A well regulated Militia is NECESSARY to the security of a free State. This is literally in the Constitution…and to top that, it is the second amendment listed which proves the significance is greater than some of the latter. The strong, well-regulated (which could also mean well-disciplined) army must exist in order to ensure a free country for the citizens. Period. There is nothing else to be said on this subject…it is literally written in black and white in what is considered the most important document in American history. That is all that needs to be said on this for now…let me know if you want me to support my beliefs on that subject.
Let us get into the heart of this matter. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“…it is literally written in black and white in what is considered the most important document in American history.”
Austin
Image courtesy of pexels.com.
That seems pretty black and white in itself.
There shall be NO infringement on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Frankly, this is so black and white that it shocks me that anyone thinks that we should totally ban guns. It disturbs and disgusts me that the Constitution is just being tossed to the side like it is a shopping list from last week…who cares what it says anymore. For now, let us just ignore those extremists who obviously do not care about American freedoms.
Let’s focus on those who want gun control.
Britannica says that “Gun control refers to any legal measure intended to prevent or restrict the possession or use of guns, particularly firearms.” I like what it says later on in this definition. It says “…it is a fraught political issue, pitting those who regard it as necessary for public safety against those who view it as a dangerous infringement of personal liberty.”
True words.
This battle of control puts people who value their personal liberties over their safety against those who battle their safety over their personal liberties. See the difference?
During this time (October 2020), we are very much in the middle of a “safety or liberty” argument. We understand the need for safety and the need for liberty as important rights Americans have…but there has been a huge misunderstanding in the public. I will get more into this “Safety and Liberty” subject in later blog posts but here is just a quick sample of my thoughts.
Americans are guaranteed rights, not safety.
So, applying that thought to guns, why are we even discussing the disarmament of American citizens? It seems very cut and dry what the Constitution says and it does not feel as if we should be debating those black and white words. We are specifically guaranteed the rights to bear arms and there are no limitations given.
Back to the Constitution. Let’s remember the importance of the phrase “no infringement shall be made…” An infringement, as according to our beloved Google, is “the action of limiting or undermining something.” This means that there should be NO act of limiting the American people’s right to bear arms. NO act. None, nada, zilch, zip.
Earlier I made the distinction between the extremists who hate America vs. those who just want gun control. Well, don’t you think that people who want to ignore the Constitution and walk all over it actually do not truly love America? Think about it.
More thoughts in the future.
This post was written by Austin, co-host of Seriously Political.
Seriously Political Podcast 