Posted on

by

in

,

Amendment II: The double edge sword

“I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

Source: https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1480.htm

The title of the article would have you believe that you will be reading about gun rights only. However, to cover the 2nd Amendment properly, the Constitution must be covered as well. The wording alone in the 2nd Amendment makes it a double-edged sword, but the Constitution is also a double edge sword. Not only that, but the Constitution is more important than the 2nd Amendment because the latter derives all of its energy from the former.  

On the topic of swords, they are only effective with a handle. The handle is where the user takes a grip and puts the sword into action. Without the handle, the sword is useless. And just as a sword is only as effective as competency as it’s, so is the Constitution. This topic will be the last of three topics examined in this article, and that takes us to the first, which is “the right” to keep and bear arms.

The Guarantee Edge-

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, and there is no way around it. The body of the Constitution implies or indicates nothing protecting the right to keep and bear arms, as it does to protection. Another important fact is that the Articles of Confederation, our first form of government, also did not mention the right to bear arms. The Articles of Confederation did say specifically that “every state shall keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces, and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage”.

Why would the Constitution, the upgrade from the Articles of Confederation, need the 2nd Amendment while its predecessor did not? One answer is that invoking the Constitution meant giving the Federal government much more power over the states. To get it ratified, the Bill of Rights was added to gain ratification. Under the confederation or a “firm league of friendship”, there was no strong central government to cause reason for the guarantee. The 2nd amendment is protection from the feds, and an obligation of the feds to protect from the infringement of state and local governments.

This makes the addition of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution even more important and speaks volumes of the great tyranny it would be to undermine it. It also speaks volumes of the real intent of the 2nd Amendment, which had more to do about what the founders were trying to avoid. That takes us to the next topic.

The Obligation Edge

As mentioned previously, the 2nd Amendment wording is a double-edged sword. The edges of this sword are equal and not so separate stations. One edge is dependent on the other, and both are purely dependent on the energy of the Constitution. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is no less inarguable than the guarantee part of the amendment. It means exactly what it says, and that is that without a well-regulated Militia, there is no security, and therefore the free State is compromised.

To fully understand the 2nd Amendment, there are two things about it that you cannot dismiss and they are the intent of its insertion and where it draws its energy.

First, the Second Amendment intended to do two things. The first was to satisfy the objections of the remaining states during the Ratification process. Many of the holdout states of the time were concerned with a Federal Government’s tendency not only to disarm citizens but even more so to form large overgrown armies. Overgrown armies, up to that time, have been the enemy of liberty to the nations that support them. That is why the “Well-Regulated” phrase was put before the “shall not be infringed” part in the amendment because the overall intent was primarily to avoid an overgrown Army, more than it was to protect “gun rights”.

Second, and this point further proves militia intent, the 2nd Amendment gets its energy from 2 places of the Constitution. The 2 places in the Constitution which provide the basis and intent of the 2nd Amendment are Article I; Section 8 Clauses 11-16 & Article II; Section 2 and are outlined below;

11-To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12-To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13-To provide and maintain a Navy;

14-To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15-To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions;

16-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

&

Article II; Section 2

The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Starting with Article 8; Section 1, it doesn’t take a lawyer to figure out its intent. There is supposed to be an armed militia in each state, maintained, trained, supplied, armed, and managed by each of their perspective states according to the “discipline prescribed by Congress.

To further confirm the “militia mandate” of the Constitution is Article II; Section 2 which says that the President will be the Commander of the Militia, when called into the actual Service of the U.S. How is the President going to be Commander in Chief of a militia if there isn’t one to command? The answer is that he cannot. You may be thinking that the National Guard is the replacement of the Militia, but the national guard is not what was intended, and does not meet the requirement of Article I; Section 8 Clauses 15 & 16. Also, the national guard is voluntary, the militia is not. Not voluntary means an obligation.

This being said, it is still tyranny to infringe on gun ownership rights. And don’t feel bad about your lack of militia service, because there is no militia to join. It was the job of Congress, and each state to “provide” and “prescribe discipline” for the well-regulated militias of the states. However, make no mistake, calling out tyranny doesn’t prevent it from happening, but understanding the Constitution and the Founding Principles would.

The Handle

“Respect for its [The Constitution’s] authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty.”

George Washington’s Farewell Address (Paragraph 16),  Govinfo.gov https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2021)

The Constitution of the U.S., our second form of government after the original Confederation, is a Republican Constitution and is meant to be the highest authority in the land. That is how a Republic works, and the only way it works. The guarantees that it provides are purely dependent upon the obedience of the citizens and the government to the Constitution. Obedience to the Constitution is what gives it its energy. If the Constitution loses its energy, then the Bill of Rights loses its energy as well. The Constitution is designed to protect our Republican Liberty, and it cannot do that if its Authority is not upheld.

Like I’ve always said…subjects make tyrants, not the other way around, and that is the case for gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Once the concept of obligated militia died, the 2nd Amendment began its decline. It’s the disregard for sovereign authority that leads to not just tyranny, but also calamity.

The constitution is not only sovereign authority, it’s ordained authority. It is our God-given manual on how to manage and protect our country. It is all or nothing. If we do not honor the ordained and sovereign authority, then we are a pseudo-republic with pseudo-guarantees. We are rights-based, with no sense of duty or direction, each deciding what is right for ourselves, which is the definition of Anarchy.

“The Constitution that we have is an excellent one if we can keep it where it is.” ~ George Washington

Source: https://www.azquotes.com/author/15324-George_Washington?p=3

So, what’s the answer? It starts with the Foundation. If the rule is not knowing the Constitution, then the exception will be to obey it. Obeying the Constitution is the same as holding the handle of a sword. The more of our nation that knows and adheres to the Constitution’s authority, the more effective we are in protecting our liberty and pursuing the things that the Declaration of Independence talks about. The Second Amendment is not a talking point, it’s an obligation, and the more we defend rights, the more criminalized we become to the would-be tyrants who also don’t understand how our Republic is supposed to function.

And never forget…The choice is yours.