ETHICAL ISSUES: The SECOND AMENDMENT

ETHICS and the CONSTITUTION

Reads: “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.” Simple enough. It’s about First Principles—the right of the individual to security. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=183

Note the preface which explains the reason for the protected individual right (the entire Bill of Rights is about individual rights). The militia is necessary to the security of a free (meaning non-authoritarian) state. It’s a free country, after all.  The militia is composed of individuals for their mutual protection (“We, the people”) of their individual rights. “Well-regulated” does not mean government-controlled; this would be self-defeating. It means “of the (responsible) people.” Nor does government determine who is responsible.  Government exists for the purpose of securing equal protection of individual rights. The whole people constitute the Militia. It has the right of revolution and therefore the right to the means of revolution. This may be daunting, but it’s true nonetheless. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is the law of the land, and not to be taken lightly. Just responsibly.  http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=582

ISSUE: “…keep and bear Arms.”  Define ‘Arms.’  In the good old days, ‘Arms’ included swords, muskets, pistols, knives, bayonets, cannon, bombs.  If the term were meant to include only what could be carried in one’s arms, it would not include cannon or bombs, but that definition appears nowhere. And, by the way, ‘keep’ means own…

Not said being not meant, the fact that they are not specifically defined leaves the definition inclusive of whatever arms are available at whatever time. “Arms is (sic) arms.”  Got a nuke?  Hang onto it…

But wouldn’t that be overdoing it? Wouldn’t that threaten the powers-that-be?  After all, that would make “a well-regulated militia” capable of virtually anything.  Well…  Let government beware. The individual people are in charge. The Constitution says so.  The Second Amendment confirms it.

Not said is not meant. But what is said is that “a…Militia (is) necessary to the security of a free state.” This says that those capable of constituting a ‘well-regulated militia’ have a right to whatever methods of destruction are generally available. Where’s the line? Well, there really is none. The “right to keep and bear arms” is inclusive—all arms.

After all, were it necessary for a ‘well-regulated militia’ to challenge a standing government army, why should it be limited to pistols and knives with blades less than 2-1/2 inches in length?

It is the right and duty of the responsible citizen to protect himself and his family. From anyone–anyone who would violate his family’s sanctity, which might include the police or government agents, and his right (duty) to protect is not given by government, but is a First Principle before government. The government secures rights, it does not dole them out. That means that it protects equally the equal rights of each individual. Power is delegated to the government (by the people) for the benefit of the people. The people have in fact reserved the right to revolution—make no mistake about it.  It is that right which guarantees every other, and while it may seem frightening, it’s guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore is the law.

There’s a lot here to think about, but that does not include the right of government to violate the second amendment. The Constitution may be amended (at peril) by the several states, but any such move should be very carefully thought out. The Second Amendment is clear; the People have the right to keep (own) and bear arms for their individual protection as well as protecting those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Don’t jeopardize those formidable rights.  We, the people are in charge, and don’t forget it.

27 Responses to ETHICAL ISSUES: The SECOND AMENDMENT

Leave a Reply