[Mis]Understanding the Second Amendment
By Adolph Caso
ARTICLE [II] 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.
of past social savagery
into our modern
"I will not have
any part of it,"
says the shopkeeper
with signs on
G U N S F O R S A L E
"If you believe
and want them,
I will keep an open mind
so long you're
Our Founding Fathers were careful to distinguish between the single and collective individual forming our society, being sure that whoever was given the responsibility to govern, that, that person or persons governed on behalf of all citizens and not on behalf of oneself, or of one person, or of one entity. Individuals, therefore, could not give up their natural right of defending themselves, either as a single citizen, or collectively as a society.
Citizens, individually, have the right to self-defense through defensive weapons designed and used for single purposes; their society, however, has the same right of self defense through weapons designed for offensive operations.
Nowhere, in the Second or other amendments, is there any reference that grants private citizens the right to both defensive and offensive weapons—hand guns and shot guns on one hand are for the individual’s self defense; machine guns and cannons on the other hand are for the “militia” to defend society as a whole against threats from within and from without that very society. No exceptions!
Today, as an example, by rationalizing its medical benefits, the legislators have made marijuana available to the public at large as though it has no bearing or relationship for the overdose carnage across America; the same legislators, by rationalizing non-self defensive rights to the public at large have made available automatic offensive weapons to individuals the likes of Nikolas Cruz.
That being the reality, legislators are aiding and abetting criminals, who commit unacceptable crimes, without any risks or condemnation from the populace at large and without any accountability to the people for whom they work. Except to recommend to the public at large not to vote for a specific politician, the very legislators, who empower people like Cruz, bear no direct or indirect culpability for acts committed by such individuals.
The law is clear in the Second Amendment concerning the distribution of weapons. There is no need to create new laws that have proven fallible in their implementation. Nikolas is clearly guilty in having committed the atrocious crimes using assault weapons. From what we have seen, it is the legislators who empower individuals like Nikolas in gaining access to assault weapons. The culpability of the legislators, therefore, has to be accorded to those legislators in breach of that Amendment.