Menu
Gun ownership is about liberty, security
To the editor:
Unlike Andy Weld, (Opinion, Wednesday, Jan. 16 issue) I am going to discuss what impact the specific wording of the Second Amendment has (or should have) on the various arguments being made in the national gun control debate.
Like Mr. Weld, I am no Constitutional scholar, but I have read the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. I have also read some of the Founding Fathers' Federalist Papers where they elaborate on their intent concerning the Second Amendment.
The purpose of the militia was to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic. The militia were all citizen soldiers, not the National Guard, and certainly not a standing army, which the Founding Fathers did not want to establish. (See Article I, Section 8)
The main reason for citizens to own firearms is to maintain "the security of a free state." The Second Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense. It is about liberty, and it is for this reason that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." These are rights derived from God and natural law, not government. These rights are inalienable (incapable of being surrendered or transferred) and the government has no right to tell the citizens what guns they can or cannot own; what caliber they should shoot; what type of action their gun should have or the amount of bullets that are "allowed" to be put in a magazine. Certainly law-abiding citizens "need" to own the same "dangerous weapons" as federal and local law enforcement are allowed to have, to protect themselves, their property and others from those who do not obey the laws, or whom would do them harm.
James Madison said it best: "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed population." Looks like the government has already gotten the first two and is working on disarming the public, if we the people allow it. Gun control is not as much about guns ... as it is about control.