Why all the fuss?

Almost on a daily basis you can find an article or speech by someone seeking to eliminate the cherished 2^nd 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 2^nd and 4^th Amendments establish this position.  The 2^nd by acknowledging the “right to keep and bear arms” and the 4^th  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 2^nd 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