Almost
on a daily basis you can find an article or speech by someone seeking to
eliminate the cherished 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Whenever such items appear it is a foregone
conclusion that no valid statistics are presented that would support the
repeated desire to control gun ownership by private citizens.
The
words of the Constitution if read as originally written are not difficult to
understand. However, the
misinterpretations are legion. Most
often the claim is made that guns should only be available to a state’s
militia. While the militia may have been
considered a “first line of defense” during colonial times, that is a
misunderstanding of the actual nature of a militia.
Historically,
a militia is a group of citizens assembled, either hastily or previously
planned due to an impending emergency, for the purposes of defending the homes,
property and lives of the citizens. It
was never considered and thought to be a “standing army”. In fact, the colonials had an inherent
distrust of a standing army, having witnessed the problems encountered with the
British soldiers stationed and quartered among them.
Any
review of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reveals the
primary concern with protecting the understood rights of the individual and an
absolute minimum of government interference.
Both the 2nd and 4th Amendments establish this
position. The 2nd by
acknowledging the “right to keep and bear arms” and the 4th the right “to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, . . . etc.”
We
will not argue the point that today is different than colonial times but the
potential for harm and commission of a crime remain pretty much the same. The need to be able to protect one’s self
and/or property, family or others still exists, albeit the means and/or methods
of so doing have changed.
Would
anyone seriously contend that the average law abiding citizen purchases a
weapon for the express purpose of committing mayhem or any crime? That goes beyond reason and logic.
Yet,
there are those who believe crime can be prevented by making the average
citizen incapable of defending themselves, their family or their property. That, on the face of it, would leave the
criminal (defined as one who does not abide by or adhere to the law) free to
acquire and use whatever means would be considered effective in either subduing
the person from whom the criminal wishes to take property or life. It’s a little late when such a situation
arises to call 911! And, there is no
excuse for blaming the police under such circumstances since they can only
react when they become aware of such a situation. No police force, regardless of how well
trained and/or armed is capable of anticipating events or the actions of a
criminal.
It
appears that the importance of the individual citizen is often ignored or swept
aside in the political and legislative environment as laws are written to
restrict or control the means of self-defense.
History
repeatedly reports on the ultimate subjugation of the citizens of a country who
have had their weapons of self-defense confiscated. The Founding Fathers must have anticipated
such a possibility when they included the 2nd Amendment.
The
right of self-defense is not something granted by government. It comes with you as a natural right at the
time of birth. It is an unalienable
right and should be guaranteed and protected by government.
That’s
my view. What’s yours? Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright
2012 Hillard W. Welch
