Fixing America In 500 Words Or
Less
Chapter 5
DOES THE NRA REALLY
DEFEND THE 2ND AMENDMENT?
According to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed". ¹ The word "Arms" was deliberately capitalized, a common practice at
the time used for emphasis. Since Thomas Jefferson later
owned a private cannon, the largest weapon in his day, the term "Arms" to the
original framers clearly meant more than small arms one can easily "bear"; note, to
"keep" and bear Arms.
The word "gun" is found nowhere in the Constitution, a very carefully worded
document. It should also be noted that in the Consitution's pre-amble, one of the
main purposes listed is to "insure domestic Tranquility" (also capitalized). ² To
honestly and correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything that follows the
Preamble, including all ten original amendments soon added, must be
viewed in light of the Constitution's stated purpose.
For many years, the NRA has been guilty of drawing a non-existent, artificial line down
the center of the 2nd Amendment, limiting the debate to guns, knives, grenades and similar
small arms. To contend that the 2nd Amendment permits unlimited unregulated private
ownership of modern assault weapons, is no more Constitutionally rational than to pretend that
the 2nd Amendment allows unlimited private ownership of chemical weapons, nuclear bombs and
space-ray weapons, which are also modern "Arms" unknown to the framers.
In order to engage in an honest Constitutional debate, the NRA must admit that, according
to their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, we have just as much right to own private
nuclear bombs and Anthrax as we do to own a multi-round handgun, none of which existed when
the 2nd Amendment was drafted. If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st
Century question is not “if” we are going to restrict the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd
Amendment but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict it.
For the record, if any living Americans have the right to argue in favor of restricting
the 2nd Amendment, it is Jim and Sarah Brady. ³ And, as the “founding fathers”
wisely allowed for, we can always amend what they originally wrote down. A perhaps better
and much saner idea would be to amend the NRA, entirely and altogether, by forcing our reluctant
media to point out their deceptive and entirely irrational position.
The NRA has no more rational or Constitutional right to limit the 2nd Amendment to an
issue of small Arms ownership than the ACLU has a right to restrict the 1st Amendment to their Constitutionally,
historically and scientifically irrational interpretation of the known evidence. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson's
re-write of the New Testament, while he was a sitting president, would
today include the following wry observation: If conservatives and liberals crawl into a similar
dark bed of deception, they will likely both end up in the same bottomless black hole,
accordingly.
Does the NRA really defend the 2nd Amendment? You decide.
NOTES:
1. The U.S. Constitution Online.
2. Constitution of the United States. The
significance of the Preamble is
often ignored by many so-called "scholars" when addressing various constitutional
issues. In order for a Constitutional position to be correct, it must fall within the
stated purposes of the document as outlined in the Preamble.
3. Brady
Center to Prevent Gun
Violence. The modern NRA position does not remotely fit within the Constitution's
stated purposes, as outlined in the Preamble.
|