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.
I have always been told to take things in context, when reading words written by an individual, put yourself in the time and place of that individual, try to walk a mile in their shoes so to speak. Consider the influences, both internal and external, that compel the group or individual to set those words to paper.
In order to do that with the Constitution you need to go back into history and realize what these men, these patriots, had just gone through. Just four years after the end of the bloody Revolutionary War, a war that freed the people of the “New World” from the tyrannical rule of the British Empire. To understand the mindset of these people, let us examine a few of the other amendments.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
To understand why the founders of our country decided to pen this tenet, think back to why these people fled Europe in the beginning, religious freedom. These people were being persecuted for their religious beliefs, they fled to the “New World” in order to practice their religion in peace, free from the persecution of the Church of England, a state sponsored church. So that is why the establishment of religion and free exercise thereof clauses are contained in the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers knew their history from 100 years prior and strove to establish a government that would not repeat the mistakes made by the British government. The English version of the Bill of Rights, dated 1689, to which the U.S. Constitution was loosely based, included the freedom of speech clause, but in the English document, this freedom was only extended to the Parliament, who could not be questioned about what transpired inside the Parliament building. Prior to that it was deemed illegal, "any slanderous News ... or false news or tales where by discord or slander may grow between the King and the people ..." So the freedom of speech was considered an integral right to those belonging to a free country. During this same time in England, to publish any works (ie- press) you had to obtain a prepublication license insuring that the material was not of a political dissenting opinion. So basically if you wanted to speak or write anything that you wanted disseminated, it would have to be approved by officials or sufficiently vague that the meaning was obscured. Under the rule of Charles II during the years of 1661 and 1662, ordered his lieutenants to form a force of volunteers with sympathetic political views with “the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." We will touch on the arms seized bit a little later. I will not even visit the last phrase in “Jolly Olde England,” I’ll just reference the modern England for this one. They seem to be heading down the road back to their tyrannical ways: In 2005 the British Parliament outlawed free-speech within ½ mile of Westminster that was not first cleared by the police. Why are they afraid of free-thinking people?
So by looking at the 1st Amendment and knowing what you now know about the atmosphere in England immediately preceding the drafting of our Constitution, is there any question why the founding fathers crafted this amendment so precisely?
We will skip the 2nd Amendment until last, so what about the 3rd?
3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This amendment was drafted to specifically address the Quartering Acts that England had imposed on the colonies preceding the Revolutionary War. Although never allowed to reside in the occupied private homes of citizens, the Quartering Acts did go so far as ordering the subjects to provide the soldiers lodging, and provisions in the case of the first Quartering Act. The colonists viewed this as an occupation as would anyone, and the drafters of our constitution took steps to make sure that the republic they were founding did not overstep its bounds of authority. Notice that I said republic and not democracy see my post on http://sempercynicus.blogspot.com/ for the reason why.
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The fourth amendment was written in direct response to three cases, two in England and one in the Colonies that occurred before the Revolutionary War. The two English cases involved pamphlets published containing seditious opinions of the King’s ministers, and as a result the King himself. The King issued warrants for the seizure of all their papers and books. The two accused sued for damages and the judge, Camden, decided in their favor. This made Camden a hero in the colonies and as a result, many towns in the U.S. are named after Camden. The third case was called the Writs of Assistance. The Writs of Assistance was a blanket search warrant issued to combat smuggling in the colonies. Agents of the Crown were allow to search any place where they though illegal goods might be, and compelled the public to “assist” in these searches and seizures, hence the name. A Boston attorney, James Otis, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the merchants and lost, fuelling the opposition to British rule. Later, John Adams said of Otis’s lawsuit, "then and there the child Independence was born." The fourth amendment was, yet again, a tool used by the authors of the Constitution to limit the reach of government, especially the reach of government into our private lives. This is the basic right granted to us by our Creator and ensured to us by the Constitution that separates us from the Gestapo of Nazi Germany or the KGB of the Soviet Union.
And now…
2nd Amendment: 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.
Think about what these men had just been through. They had just broken away from the most powerful country in the world; a tyrannical government who had imposed many things upon them that they thought were “Intolerable Acts.” How had they accomplished this feat? They did this through conviction of heart, strength of mind, musket and cannons. Remember the Minuteman that fired the “Shot heard round the world?” Notice this wasn’t the debate heard round the world, or lawsuit, or stroke of the pen heard round the world. It was SHOT, from a gun. Governments that are no longer operating with fairness, as they should, are overthrown by patriots who are armed. Our founding fathers knew this and crafted the second amendment to ensure that if the republic they were forming ever got out of control, they could not take the tools of revolution from the people. In 1776 those tools were the musket and cannon, in this day and age there are tanks, cruise missiles, aircraft, and fully automatic weapons, all of which the government refuses you to possess…why? People are concerned for their second amendment rights; worried the government will take them away. I say the government is already violating the second amendment, and if they take the few “legal” arms that they allow us to possess, we will descend into the fascist dictatorship in which we are currently heading.
Open your eyes, They lie!
Semper Cynicus (Always Cynical)
Posts
