Second Amendment: It Is What It Says....Nothing More and Nothing Less

I originally published this on Tuesday, August 7, 2012, but with all this insanity from the leftists over this Orlando shooting I think it's worth republishing with some updates.

By Rich Kozlovich

This issue of gun control is a constantly harped upon by the left....a common practice of all leftist governments by the way.....that way they can make sure the population has no ability to resist the abuses they've heaped upon humanity since the left's inception with the French Revolution.  As a result over 100 million innocent people have been murdered by the leftists according to the The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.

According to former Attorney General Holder, "We have no right to possess guns!”  Really?  Even if all the rest of his clearly illegal actions were ignored this demonstrates beyond any doubt Holder was as clueless as mold.   This is his view of how the world should be run irrespective of what the Constitution, supreme law of the land says. 

So what does a person who believes that we shouldn’t “need” guns to do? Well, that depends if that person believes that we shouldn’t “have” guns or not. There is a substantial difference between “having” and “needing”, but in this case the "having" is based on the "needing". The fact of the matter is we live in a dangerous world, and when the general population is armed the world is substantially less dangerous because crime goes down when gun ownership goes up. Clearly that, at the very least, is the "need" to justify this "having".

Most importantly- and we really do need to get this - the second amendment was deliberately inserted in the Constitution for two reasons. One, to make sure you can defend yourself, your loved ones and your property, and two, to give the citizenry the ability defend the Constitution against a government gone wild.  This wasn't anything new created by a brand new nation.   The founding fathers based this on English natural law as codified in the English Bill of Rights.

The English Bill of Rights became law after a politically difficult time (actually it was more religious than political…or if you will….the religious issues generated the political issues) in English history where the common people overthrew King James and forced he and his successors, William III and Mary II, into accepting the English Bill of Rights. This was done for three reasons. There was a fight over the authority or the King to govern without consent of Parliament and the King’s desire (who was Catholic)  to disarm his Protestant subjects and maintain a “permanent standing army”, against the wishes of Parliament; clearly and attempt to keep them in line with no way to defend themselves.

It might be noted that this wasn’t a new right being demanded by Parliament from the ruling authorities. This was merely codify what was always considered a ‘the natural right’ of all Englishmen, and the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) agreed by saying this regarding the English Bill of Rights "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia". Furthermore, this was not a “granting of a new right”, but codifying forevermore a right they held without permission of the King, nor did the King have the right to disarm them.

The Second Amendment says; 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.

So, who does everyone think this "well regulated militia" is made up of? The general population! The term “well regulated” merely defines the difference between legal and criminal behavior. Otherwise they would be a mob bent of murder, mayhem, destruction. When the Constitution was written a militia was not anything but the general population fighting as a civilian army, organized to their own likings and purposes. And they could go back to their regular lives and take their arms with them because they might be called upon to stand up to defend their community once again. And from where did this right originate? If this is a natural right then it didn’t originate with the King in England and it isn’t a “granting” to be given or to be taken away by the Government of the United States.

Whether a person is a gun person or a non-gun person it is impossible to avoid seeing the implications of this. The number one law enforcement agents in the nation, who've taken an oath to support and uphold he Constitution are advocating overturning the second amendment based on their leftist view of reality, one that's not only Constitutionally invalid, it's an opinion based on the idea the Constitution should be overturned and complete control of our lives should be handed over to these leftist elitists.

Fortuantely, even the Supreme Court agrees individuals have the right to own arms, at least for the time being.

According to “Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." However Justice Scalia says; “that there are limitations on the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the Supreme Court will have to decide what exactly those limitations are.” What are the implications of that?

“Scalia is saying is what every constitutional lawyer in the country knows: No constitutional right is absolute; there are burdens on each right that do not violate that right. It can give the wrong impression to refer to “limitations” on any right; it says that certain things are either beyond the definition of that right, or are a burden that the Constitution allows. For example, certain types of speech—such as perjury, fraud, impersonating a federal agent, and inciting people to engage in violence—are not protected by the First Amendment.”

Does anyone find it interesting that this has become an issue since the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty was rejected by Congress? Is this all about a movement by powerful forces in the world to impose a worldwide government under the auspices of the United Nations, The most incompetent and corrupt organization the world has ever known? Nah....can't be....everyone knows there is no such thing as a conspiracy!