Second Amendment Absolutist ?That?s Me, Alright by Colonel Dan 5-25-01
Second Amendment Absolutist ?That?s Me, Alright by Colonel Dan – 05.25.01
——————————————————————————–
Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
~ James Madison (1788) ~
A good cowboy friend I call the Professor?a lawyer whom I have yet to meet in the flesh?hung a label on me awhile back that I have since worn with some degree of pride. He referred to me as a Second Amendment Absolutist. Meaning that my position on gun rights could be accurately summarized with a simple question?What part of ??shall not be infringed? doesn?t the world understand?
I have always been a simple cavalryman and take things as I see them, not trying to read into much or engage in complex mental gymnastics where the concepts of right and wrong or my general philosophy of life is concerned.
The view from my saddle is that the founders were wonderfully insightful, brief, simple and to the point. The most profound documents in history have been the simplest in my opinion.
God saw fit to run the whole world with only Ten Commandments and our Constitution is divine in its simplicity and brevity. No long drawn out complexities anywhere in either of these two documents that I see. So why should ??shall not be infringed? be subject to lengthy and complex legal-babble? It shouldn?t.
??shall not be infringed.? According to Webster?s Dictionary:
shall: Determination or promise. Inevitability. Command. A directive or requirement. To have to: MUST
not: ? In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal or prohibition?
be: ?Make: cause to become?
infringed: ?To encroach upon something.?
Another way then to state the concept of the Second Amendment would be:
?The right of the people to keep and bear arms must in no way or to no degree become encroached upon.?
The founders, many of whom were lawyers themselves, knew exactly what they wrote and what they wrote is exactly what they meant. If you notice, the phrase does not say, ??shall not be infringed except for?? it says what it says and that?s all that it says. Trying to read anything else into it those words is more than a stretch.
The founder?s intent was not about arming only militias as some claim based on the prelude to the Amendment. The intent is quite clear and evident not only in the Amendment itself but their concept is widely strewn throughout the Federalist Papers and other quotes from those men.
Samuel Adams: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
During Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, (1788.)
Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776,) Jefferson Papers 344, (J.Boyd, ed. 1950.)
John Adams: “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self defence.” A Defense of the U.S. Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88.)
James Madison: The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” The Federalist #46.
Alexander Hamilton: ?The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.? The Federalist Papers.
George Washington: ?A free people ought… to be armed? and ?When firearms go, all goes – -we need them every hour”
The above should be basis enough for why I think the way I do about the Second Amendment, but I?ll gladly provide another reason.
Politicians, with few exceptions, have proven themselves totally untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon to faithfully uphold and defend the original letter or intent of the Constitution as they swore an oath to do.
Incrementalism and obfuscation have always been the methods of choice to circumvent the Constitution and slide more government control into our lives by these deceitful social engineers we call elected officials. The proof of this has been clearly apparent throughout history. The most pertinent example is how we?ve gone from that wonderful concept of ?…shall not be infringed? to over 20,000 gun laws.
When we allow politicians to impose one exception on us a hundred more will quickly follow?all designed to restrict, limit and increasingly infringe on American?s rights while expanding government control into every aspect of our lives until the precedent is slowly but surely set. Americans then come to accept such intrusion as a normal government function! I detest such deceit.
The dangers of incrementalism clearly extend beyond the Second Amendment; consider the Tenth Amendment:
?The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.?
Clear enough. If a power is not specifically delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution, they have no power or authority in that regard. So show me where in the Constitution it says anything about a role for the Federal government in education, for example. Yet we have a cabinet post dedicated to it, tons of federal regulations that control our community schools and the Department of Education was the recipient of the largest increase in the Federal budget of any department this year! This is a pure incrementalism and demonstrates the encroaching nature of tyrannical politicians, yet modern day Americans now accept such intrusion as a legitimate fact of life.
As I?ve said in the past, whether it?s cigarettes, the confederate flag, or guns, incremental tyranny can never be satisfied. No matter what concessions or agreements you make today, it will never be enough tomorrow?not until society is totally dominated.
The other method I point to that is used to usurp freedom is obfuscation?making the simple complex.
Why do politicians always want to make the obviously simple inanely complex? Answer: They fear simplicity but complexity is their loyal ally. They can?t hide behind simplicity because everyone can see through that. However, the more complex and less understandable they can make anything, the more subject to their own interpretation it becomes?the income tax code is a perfect example. Obfuscation allows them to interpret questions most any way they want, most any time they want in order to serve their own ends.
These are not methods of modern political science, these are just methods of old-fashioned deceit.
James Madison was right as rain. More freedom has been lost through incrementalism than any sudden usurpation of rights?and I would add obfuscation to that as well. Therefore, I simply abide strictly by what is written in the original Constitution and I expect our leaders to live up to their sworn oath of office by protecting and defending that document and the inalienable human rights it recognizes and guarantees.
My personal conclusion: ??shall not be infringed? means just what it says and anything more restrictive than that is unconstitutional. Americans have the right to keep and bear arms and the government shall not encroach upon that right?period, end of discussion.
As I?ve said many times before, I?m sure some lawyers, including the good Professor for whom I have the highest respect, will tell me that this line of thinking would never hold up in a court of law and that wouldn?t surprise me. But then many times, what I consider common sense and plain talk doesn?t hold up in a court of law these days anyway.
Just the absolute view from my simple saddle?
The Colonel