Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Editor
Author:  Bob Webster
Bio: Bob Webster
Date:  January 17, 2013
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Constitution/Constitutional Crises

The Second Amendment Exists to Secure a "free State"
Guns have been and remain the most practical means for the People to ensure the security of their freedom

The anti-gun hysteria that has gripped "the usual suspects" (weak-kneed politicians, journalists, and the ignorant and illiterate) is rooted in the false belief that fewer guns will mean fewer mass murderers. Those pursuing efforts to prevent legitimate gun ownership fail to grasp the essence of our Constitution's Second Amendment and it's real purpose.

Much is being said today on both sides of the gun ownership issue. Inevitably, discussion must come to the Second Amendment of our Constitution which states:

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.

That's it. Just 27 words in a single sentence.

As with each of the first ten amendments, the Federal Government is specifically prohibited from infringing upon "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

For those whose vocabulary is limited (apparently, this includes many politicians), let's examine the root word of this prohibition, "infringing". What does it mean "to infringe"?

infringe (verb) - restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise.

Our Founders could not have made it any clearer. The People have an uncompromised right to bear Arms. Routine and reasonable registration requirements are certainly not prohibited, so long as they are not so cumbersome and restrictive that they become clear evidence of an attempt to subvert our Second Amendment right. And while not specifically stated in our Constitution, that Second Amendment right can be forfeited by those who have demonstrated either criminal intentions or significant mental instability. In either event, such review is a State prerogative and the Second Amendment makes it very clear that our Federal Government must steer far afield of involving itself in any activity that might be viewed as subverting the clear intent of our Constitution (for example, purchasing obscenely large blocks of ammunition for the purpose of reducing the People's supplies of ammunition).

What is the purpose of this prohibition of our Federal Government from involving itself with gun ownership?

Another question clearly answered within those 27 words of a single sentence:

... being necessary to the security of a free State...

Simply put, the people have a right to use guns if necessary in order to secure the free State guaranteed them by their Constitution. The People are no longer free if their activities are being taken from them by laws, regulations, and declarations that are far beyond the constitutionally limited scope of authority designed to constrain the power of our Federal Government.

Some people have tried to make the absurd claim that the phrase "A well regulated militia" refers to the military services and not ordinary people. The suggestion is preposterous. Article I, Section 8 clearly spells out the authority of the Federal Government to defend the People and States from all enemies, domestic or foreign. It would be absurd to propose a separate and distinct amendment enabling the Federal Government to arm its own military services!

The clear and solitary purpose of the Second Amendment is to put Federal Government officials on notice that should they willfully erode, abuse, ignore or undermine our Constitution in violation of their oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" they will be subject to removal and replacement by force, if necessary.

Recent massive election fraud that created the appearance of the re-election of an unfit individual who is not constitutionally qualified and who has committed numerous federal crimes regarding fraudulent Selective Service and Social Security documents, provides clear evidence to many people that our nation has been the victim of a silent coup that has rendered both our election process and our Constitution meaningless while Federal authority becomes more and more tyrannical by routinely extending well beyond its limited scope of authority as defined within our Constitution (see Article I, Section 8).

It is for just these times that our Founders clearly and emphatically provided the People with the means to secure their freedom and assure violations of our Constitutional Republic are terminated and the soft tyranny of federal abuses of authority is ended.

There is no constitutional authority for the Federal Government to ban ownership of any guns, including "assault rifles" or any other category. Only States have authority to address such issues, but they cannot circumvent the constitutional right of people to arm themselves.

Those who conspire to subvert our Second Amendment right to secure our freedom from tyrannical government are acting treasonously to our Constitution and risk being held accountable by the most severe punishment possible.

Many of the 23 "Executive Orders" signed by Obama appear to be pursuant to Federal law enacted by Congress and many are common sense measures. Note that many of those orders do not address guns, but rather, the standards for determining whether an individual is mentally unsuitable to be armed.

So long as the following two orders make it optional for "health-care providers" to ask and patients to answer inquiries about "guns in [patients'] homes" then there is really nothing wrong with either of these EO's:

  1. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
     
  2. Release a letter to health-care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law-enforcement authorities.

However, should it become mandatory for "health-care providers" to ask such questions about gun ownership, then the proper response by patients, whether or not they own any guns, should be:

I assert my Second Amendment entitlement to be free of unreasonable government infringement on my right to be armed."

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Send email feedback to Bob Webster


Biography - Bob Webster

Bob Webster is a descendent of Daniel Webster's father and early American patriot, Ebenezer Webster. Bob has always had a strong interest in history, our Constitution, U.S. politics and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican ("little r" republican) with objectivist and libertarian roots, he has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student so they can understand the dangers of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.


Read other commentaries by Bob Webster.

Visit Bob Webster's website at WEBCommentary

Copyright 2013 by Bob Webster
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2014 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved