Hi John, good questions. To clarify though, I was referring to several amendments in that post. So, if you’ll allow me…
The Constitution defines the powers, authorities and responsibilities of the federal government, and ONLY those things. The delegates from the original colonies realized that that certain powers would be common to all colonies, so it didn’t make sense, nor was it efficient, for each colony to maintain its own military, currency, certain laws, etc. So these certain “enumerated” powers were consolidated and given to the new federal government and defined in the Constitution. The 10th amendment drives home the notion that ANYTHING not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the individual states. And yet, the federal government takes over health care, education, loans, redefining marriage and science and gender, the environment; they just keep piling on more and more to control our lives, it just never ends.
But what about slavery? one might ask. Yep, that was bad, a stain on our history no doubt. Slavery was prominent around the world throughout history and still exists today. The United States, a relatively young nation at the time, went to war to abolish it and the 13th amendment makes certain of this. Our Constitution is malleable, it can evolve.
The 2nd amendment deals with the right to keep and arms. Some claim we the people don’t have that right because “Militia” or all they had back then were muskets or some other nonsense. As with most other rights in the Bill Of Rights… they are given by God, not the government or even the Constitution. It’s just that, no one had ever bothered to write them down before. This new concept is that The Constitution states that the government cannot take away or infringe on our God given rights.
The first amendment for example - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… - that simply prohibits the federal government from establishing a national or one-nation religion NOR can it prevent the free exercise of religion. It doesn’t say anything about separation of church and state, in fact, the words “separation” and “church” are not even in the Constitution. It doesn’t say that there can be no prayers in schools, it doesn’t say that the 10 Commandments can’t be carved in stone outside the Supreme Court building, it doesn’t say that a school football coach can’t take a knee with his players before or after a game to pray, and it doesn’t say that a baker must bake a cake for anyone nor that a pastor can be compelled marry two people of the same sex. And none of that makes me racist or bigoted. I have friends and acquaintances of different races, cultures, orientations, etc. And yes, I realize some would say “Oh that’s just what a racist would say”. I can say that as a Christian, I won’t turn my back on anyone or devalue anyone because of anything.
The gem I refereed to in my original comment; the Yale students were signing a petition to ban the first amendment, because they don’t like hate speech. So many people believe that the first amendment only covers free speech when in fact, it covers five freedoms, the last of which is - to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. They were signing a petition to ban the right to petition. Wow.
And now, finally, to your question John. Boy howdy, I write long. Anyway, the second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of what it says about a miltia, and I’m not discounting it, it is important, it’s just another discussion… the 2nd amendment says - the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. So, to clarify my original comment, I’m saying that the 2nd IS NOT what give us the right to keep and bear arms. I’m saying that the 2nd states that our right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. The 2nd implies we already have that right, it’s just saying that the government shall not infringe on that right.
So, yes, local, state and federal governments make laws preventing many from purchasing firearms using age (young and old) restrictions, unfounded suspicions of whatever, regulations requiring licenses or training or paraphernalia that make it cost prohibitive for many. Also by imposing carry restrictions, type and quantity restrictions, requiring registration and many other tactics to prevent people from purchasing, owning and carrying firearms. The latest push is the Red Flag laws. Government now wants the ability to confiscate our weapons simply based on hearsay with no due process of law. If someone doesn’t like you, they can complain about you to the “authorities” and police show up at your door to steal your property. It’s already happening.
That ALL sounds like infringement to me. But yes, of course we have to draw a line somewhere. Obviously, I don’t want criminals to have guns or the mentally ill, and some others perhaps. It’s just that gun laws, especially so called common sense gun control, only impact law abiding citizens. One must ask oneself, why does more than 90% of gun violence happen in so called “gun free zones” and states and municipalities with the most gun control laws?
I have mixed feelings about that. Not too long ago, certainly in my younger years, we used to be able to carry a gun onto an airplane in our bag or even on our person. I seem to remember a lot hijackings back in the 70s and 80s honestly. On one hand, if I’m assured that no one else on the plane has a gun, I’m OK with checking mine in my checked baggage. But let’s not forget, the 911 hijackers did not have guns, they had box cutters. In a case like that, I don’t want box cutters though, I want a gun. But then there’s the whole - if I shoot and put a hole in the fuselage and the resulting depressurization then causes a massive fiery explosion that kills most of us and the one or two that miraculously survive that still die when the ground rushes up to meet them - thing.
OK, I’m tired and need a nap. It’s about common sense, unfortunately, the government’s idea of common sense and my idea of common sense are miles apart.