P-14
NES Member
As we know, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads: “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[1].”
As we also know, there are two interpretations out there: The Second Amendment is about a collective right (i.e., only applying to militias) or it is about an individual right of the people[2].
How foolish are we? If you actually read the entire Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” is used in 3 different Amendments: The First, Second, and Fourth.
The First Amendment states: “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.” (emphasis added)
Is there any argument by anyone that the First Amendment is not written for individuals (i.e., the people)? No, of course not.
The Fourth Amendment states: “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.” (emphasis added)
Clearly, the First and Fourth Amendments leave no doubt about our individual rights. It is our right to peaceably assemble, petition the government, and be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
So, why is there even a discussion about the true meaning of the Second Amendment? It is clear, as in the First and Fourth Amendments, that it is the right of the people that the Founders stated “shall not be infringed.”
Is it a misguided attempt to take the Second Amendment out of context and claim there is only a collective right to keep and bear arms? I think not. I think it has been a deliberate attempt for a very long time to control arms and remove them from the people by using this subterfuge.
How foolish are we for letting this hoax of an interpretation even be considered? All that matters is the rights of the people!
[1] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
[2] Second Amendment
As we also know, there are two interpretations out there: The Second Amendment is about a collective right (i.e., only applying to militias) or it is about an individual right of the people[2].
How foolish are we? If you actually read the entire Bill of Rights, “the right of the people” is used in 3 different Amendments: The First, Second, and Fourth.
The First Amendment states: “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.” (emphasis added)
Is there any argument by anyone that the First Amendment is not written for individuals (i.e., the people)? No, of course not.
The Fourth Amendment states: “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.” (emphasis added)
Clearly, the First and Fourth Amendments leave no doubt about our individual rights. It is our right to peaceably assemble, petition the government, and be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
So, why is there even a discussion about the true meaning of the Second Amendment? It is clear, as in the First and Fourth Amendments, that it is the right of the people that the Founders stated “shall not be infringed.”
Is it a misguided attempt to take the Second Amendment out of context and claim there is only a collective right to keep and bear arms? I think not. I think it has been a deliberate attempt for a very long time to control arms and remove them from the people by using this subterfuge.
How foolish are we for letting this hoax of an interpretation even be considered? All that matters is the rights of the people!
[1] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
[2] Second Amendment