Shall Not Be Infringed

The Second Amendment quite clearly states that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And yet, we are now treated to federal, state, and local politicians and pundits, as well as a host of various celebrities, on a daily basis, lecturing us on what manner of firearms we may or may not need.

But where does the Second Amendment say anything about “need?” The last time I checked the Constitution, it didn’t say “the right of the People to keep and bear the arms that they need shall not be infringed.”

The truth is, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and any other politician, elected official, bureaucrat, or government official, are the last people to be talking about what kind of firearms the People may or may not “need,” because of the inherent duality of the Second Amendment.

There are two, and only two, express purposes of the Second Amendment – that’s right: the Second Amendment was written into the US Constitution for only two reasons.

The Second Amendment was written to allow the people of America to:

  1. Protect our nation from internal threats.
  2. Protect our nation from external threats.

Those are the only real reasons for the existence of the Second Amendment.  Anyone in government or the media who uses self defense, home defense, hunting, or sport shooting as a rationale for the Second Amendment is merely trying to distract from the real issue, or is ignorant to the real purposes of the Amendment.

And there is no rationale, argument, or excuse that can possibly justify doing away with both of the Amendment’s purposes short of the establishment of a tyrannical dictatorship.

Why is this?  Because it is impossible to fully eliminate both internal and external threats without imposing tyranny.

Our military and intelligence apparatus, for the most part, do a good job protecting America from external threats, but they could always do better.  But we reach a point where we must balance security from external threats against the freedoms of American citizens.  To defend our nation from all external threats would require government monitoring of all phone calls, emails, and other communications, both internal and external – something we are already too close to.  It would require a much more massive military machine than we have already.  It would require massive walls across our borders, with armed guard towers manned 24/7.

We could fully protect ourselves from all internal threats to our safety and security, but this, likewise, would require an unacceptably massive restriction on freedom.  We would be required to become a police state, massively expanding police forces and granting officers the power to violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments at will.  City, county, and state borders would have to be monitored, and every person within the nation would have to be tracked by the government, both in their physical locations, political affiliations, and uses of technology.

This is why the Democrats are so intent on ramming through gun control legislation using every possible argument that skirts around gun confiscation. They will never fully be pro-confiscation…until they are. Currently, the Obama administration has organized a coordinated campaign toward making unconstitutional laws seem reasonable. This is why the arguments about gun control are always couched in terms of self-defense, home-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. Do you really need an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine to go hunting? Why use an “assault” rifle for home defense when you can take your double-barrelled shotgun out to the balcony and fire off a couple of warning shots?

They would rather hide under the bodies of children and young people who were killed by crazed mass-murderers in zones where their restrictive measures ensured that no one would be able to defend themselves than to live up to their oaths to “protect and defend the Constitution.” Their penchant for power far outweighs their understanding of the horrific implications a Second Amendment power grab would have for the future of our nation. Because the bottom line is that one side of the Second Amendment exists entirely to protect us from them.

The same principle that convinced Admiral Yamamoto to think twice about invading America’s mainland should be in the back of every power-hungry big-government presiden’t mind: a gun behind every blade of grass. In a government built on checks and balances, the people are the final check to balance out the power of an ever-encroaching government.


2 replies

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s