Lesson Three: March 15, 2001
The 2nd Amendment And The Bill Of Rights
by
A.K. Pritchard
1995/09/24© Copyright 1995, 2001 - Anthony K. Pritchard
All Rights Reserved"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have
a gun."
-- Patrick Henry from debates during the Constitutional convention, quoted
in Elliot's Debates, 1836If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted
with the material objects [firearms] necessary to defend their
liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American
people cannot be trusted with liberty itself.
-- Alan Keyes, The Armed Defense of Liberty, 7/30/1999 - WorldNetDailySuggested Reading - The Virginia Declaration of Rights:
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/pdocs/vadec.htmUnderstanding The 2nd Amendment:
The 2nd amendment neither allows nor disallows the right to keep and bear
arms, and indeed it cannot do either. It does, however, RECOGNIZE that
right. The 2nd amendment states that the GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT INFRINGE upon
the right "of the people" to keep and bear arms."The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it
in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second
amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress,
and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national
government."
92 U.S. 542, U.S. v. Cruikshank, (U.S.La. 1875)The very purpose of the Bill Of Rights is made clear in its preamble:
PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES"Begun and held at the city of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th day of
March, 1789.The conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT
MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public
confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its
institution: [emphasis mine]The purpose is to PREVENT government abuse of its powers, not to grant
rights. So when the Bill Of Rights mentions rights, which are endowed by
God not government, it is recognizing inherent rights that pre-date the
Constitution, and it mentions them in reference to preventing government
abuse of those rights."Amendment Two
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.ARMS, Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
[Websters 1828]BEAR, 2] To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place;
as, to "they 'bear" him upon the shoulder;" "the eagle "beareth" them on
her wings." Isaiah, Deuteronomy. 3] To wear; to bear as a mark of
authority or distinction; as, to "bear" a sword, a badge, a name; to "bear"
arms in a coat. [Websters 1828]MILITIA, The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not
engaged in actual service, except in emergencies; as distinguished from
regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The
militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies,
regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to
attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to
pursue their usual occupations. [Websters 1828]INFRINGE, 1] To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by
contravention (contravention - Opposition; obstruction; a defeating of the
operation or effect), or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of
performance. A prince or private person infringes an agreement or covenant
by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is
stipulated not to be done. 2] To break; to violate; to transgress; to
neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law. 3] To destroy or
hinder; as , to infringe efficacy. [Websters 1828]So, the Bill Of Rights prevents the government from violating, either
positively by obstruction, or negatively by neglect, the rights that are
being addressed.Compare Amendment Two with this sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed." [author unknown]It is easy to read and take the meaning of the above sentence with clear
understanding. Who, upon reading that sentence, could deny that it speaks
directly to the right of the people, in the individual sense, to keep and
read books, or who could make the valid claim that keeping and reading
books pertained only to the state? Yet this is a direct comparison to the
Second Amendment, word for word. How is it that many people claim that the
Second Amendment only protects the rights of the people in a collective
sense, that being the state, the police, National Guard, Armed Forces and
so on, to keep and bear arms and not the individual citizens?Consider the following:
1- We see from the Second Amendment that there exists a RIGHT endowed by
God that is RECOGNIZED, that being the right to keep and bear arms. Now,
as we learned previously, the government does not own rights, does not
grant rights, rights are the gift of God, including the right to keep and
bear arms.2- We see from the Second Amendment that it is a right that the government
SHALL NOT INFRINGE UPON. This is the very purpose of the Bill Of Rights,
IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, as revealed in
the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights.3- We see from the Second Amendment that this right shall not be infringed
upon by the government BECAUSE the security of a free State demands it.
Because an armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state,
the God given right to keep and bear arms by the individual shall not be
infringed!4- We see from the Second Amendment that this amendment, which does not
grant rights but ONLY places prohibitions upon government infringement
CANNOT AND DOES NOT obstruct (infringe) upon your right to keep and bear
arms by restricting that right to a militia, or to the police, the National
Guard, or any others.5- We see from the Second Amendment that this RIGHT is an INDIVIDUAL one
and NOT a STATE right as shown below:The phrase "of the people" does not mean "of the State", as many claim in
regards to the wording of the Second Amendment.Consider the phrase "of the people" in other Amendments:
Amendment One
"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 to peaceably assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Now who, in complete honesty, could claim that the phrase "of the people"
here would grant to the State the right to peaceably assemble, and to
petition the Government? Note also the wording "Congress shall make no
law", a prohibition on Government infringement, but NOT a granting of any
right.Amendment Four
"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. "Another State right? No! It is another individual right RECOGNIZED by the
Bill Of Rights, just like the Second Amendment. How about "shall not be
violated"? Yet another prohibition on Government infringement upon rights
granted by God! So we see that the phrase "of the people" means just that,
OF THE PEOPLE individually, else the first and fourth amendment also belong
to the State, and not to the individual."The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982[excerpt]
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording
of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well
as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first
halfcentury after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an
individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a
peaceful manner. "
http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/pdocs/senrep.htm
""The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent
in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times
armed;..."
--Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.When a government leaves the lawful purpose for its existence, protecting
liberty, and begins to suppress and attack liberty, even with the idea of
helping people, it exceeds its lawful limits and turns from liberty to the
beginnings of totalitarianism.In the United States, within the relationship between the government and
the citizen, there exists a PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE possessed by everyone,
even the accused criminal. Guilt must be proven, not innocence. This is a
hallmark of a government that derives its power from the consent of the
governed. Regarding gun control efforts, our government has begun to leave
the principle of presumption of innocence and has begun to mistrust the
honest innocent citizen. Regarding the average American with suspicion they
have attempted to control crime by limiting our LAWFUL activities, by
infringing upon our rights, ostensibly to prevent crime - by attacking
rights! The very thing that governments are supposed to protect!The PRIMARY right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. stems directly from the
principle that it is the Citizens who ultimately control the government
through a Republican form of government, backed by an armed citizenry, and
that government must remain a servant and not be allowed to become a
totalitarian master. The framers of the Constitution FEARED A GOVERNMENT
WITH A STANDING ARMY, and for good reason. This right to keep and bear
arms, which is endowed by the Creator, not government, has been granted to
the government to secure our liberties (raise and equip an army and civil
police force). But the founders realized the potential for abuse by a
government with a standing army - with good reasons. The 2nd amendment was
intended primarily to PREVENT A MONOPOLY ON FORCE BY THE GOVERNMENT! The
individual right to keep and bear arms is a last resort against tyranny in
government, and is essential to the survival of this nation as a free
people.Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to
keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,
liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws
of England.""As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must occasionally be
raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of
their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of
amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- -- Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 regarding the Second AmendmentTYRANNIZE, 1] To act as the tyrant (tyrant - A monarch or other ruler or
master, who uses power to oppress his subjects; a person who exercises
unlawful authority, or lawful authority in an unlawful manner; one who by
taxation, injustice or cruel punishment, or the demand of unreasonable
services, imposes burdens and hardships on those under his control, which
law and humanity do not authorize, or which purposes of government do not
require. 2] A despotic ruler; a cruel master; an oppressor. [Websters
1828]"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young,
how to use them..."
-- Samuel Adams - Constitutional Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of
1788"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties
of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all
inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to
defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 29"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are
in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are
armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that
can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at
the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people
perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power,
and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the
execution of a law which appears to the unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster -- An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution -- October 17, 1787The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free people, only free
people are armed, slaves are disarmed. These principles, among others, have
helped to make this nation the most powerful, prosperous and free nation on
the earth. Do we render void our right to self-defense and defense of our
liberties (the protecting of which is governments sole purpose, remember!)
by authorizing the government to raise and maintain a standing army or
maintain a civil police force? Hardly! We do not, by our willing obedience
of lawful laws, and the lawful exercise of police powers, give up the right
to defend ourselves, our liberties, or our nation."The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any
natural rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to F. Gilmer, 1816The ultimate guardian of our freedom, against the potential tyranny of our
own government, when government fails in its purpose of protecting our
rights and begins to infringe upon them, are indeed the people themselves,
armed, prepared, educated and ready to exercise their rights and fulfill
their duties. It has been rightly stated that government is instituted
with the mandate to protect our rights, but it is the people who retain the
force necessary to protect their rights in the event of tyranny in
government.Our founders fully realized that a government of man was not to be trusted!
"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people
were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a
consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege
has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."
--Patrick Henry, Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought? 1788
[From a speech made on June 5, 1788, in the Virginia Convention, called to
ratify the Constitution of the United States.]That knew that left to themselves human governments will turn to tyranny.
An armed people stand in the way of that! It might well be stated that the
second amendment protects the second amendment, and all other rights as
well.
Self Study Questions For Review
* These study guide suggestions are included especially for the benefit of
homeschooling students who may be using this course as a part of their
Civics study for high school credit.Define:
1- arms
2- infringe
3- bear
4- militia
5- tyrannize
1) Does the Second Amendment actually allow or disallow the individual
right to keep and bear arms?
2) Do the Bill of Rights grant any rights?
3) Do the Bill of Rights RECOGNIZE rights?
4) Does the phrase "of the people" indicate individuals or the State?
5) What other rights are recognized by the Bill of Rights with the phrase
"of the people"?
6) Are these rights individual or State rights?
7) What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights as revealed in its preamble?
8) Only _______________ people are armed, _______________ are disarmed.
9) With whom does the sovereign power of the United States rest?
10) Who or what is the ultimate guardian of our rights?
11) Given the clear intent of the founders of this nation to have the
civilian population "little if at all inferior to them [the military] in
discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and
those of their fellow citizens," how does this compare to the present day
movement to restrict firearms ownership?
[Please do not return the answers to these questions, they are for
self-review only]Constitutional Basics E-mail Course
brought to you by:
The Republican
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/
The Freedom Page
http://www.freedompage.ws
and
RepublicUSA
http://www.republicusa.org/This address is for the
Constitutional Basics E-mail Course
only, please do not subscribe
it to any email list.