This month’s lesson in government intrusion seems to be aimed at infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Amendment II
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.
As you can see, the Second Amendment never mentions hunting or sport shooting. The right to bear arms is clearly for military purposes. It is to protect our State and nation from threats. This was a purposeful Amendment to prevent a specific violation of rights that the British had committed upon the Colonies prior to the Revolution.
Furthermore, the Army of the United States was envisioned by the Founders as a defensive force. The Founders wanted to avoid the political entrapments and intrigue so common in the European States of the period. The modern American Military with an offensive force and the capability to “project power anywhere in the world” is the opposite of what was intended by the Framers of the Constitution.
The history of the Amendment was to ensure that citizens could protect themselves against tyranny and foreign aggressors. Or as the standard oath of office phrases it’ “I , _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; …”
• Protection from Foreign enemies is a pledge to protect our territory from attack.
• Protection from Domestic enemies is a pledge to defend citizens from the tyranny of the government; State or Federal.
Our dilemma is what to do when office holders have broken their oath and become the tyrants? This scenario was not envisioned by the Framers—at least not as part of their draft of the Constitution.
This leaves us with the right of civil disobedience and the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. These are helpful but the question remains; at what point do we stop submitting to the authority of our government? When does our road to serfdom necessitate a “line in the sand” that requires a response?
The question is further complicated by the fact that the politicians are no more corrupt that our fellow citizens. Do you actually believe that if someone “did a Tom Clancy” that the new leaders would be better than our current crop? I think it might actually result in a worse government and less freedom.
The Second Amendment is the only tool we have to insure that the rights that we have from God are not denied by the State. As long as politicians can’t disarm the population then we have hope that they will acknowledge limits to their power.