An Open Letter to Both Houses of Congress

Please vote “no” on any so called “assault weapons” ban.

Anti-gun advocates are pushing hard in the heat of the moment to rush through legislation that violates the intent of the Second Amendment.  In their zeal to take advantage of any crisis, they seek to consolidate ever more power in Washington and eliminate perhaps the most important check on Federal abuse in the Constitution — that being private citizens retaining the power to abolish a government that becomes too tyrannical.  The Federal Government was not formed to grant and revoke rights, it was formed to protect our God-Given rights.

“… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Second Amendment is, as are all of the standing amendments, a part of the Constitution.  It can be revoked, but only by the Constitutional Amendment process.  I don’t see anybody moving in that direction.  The movement is in the direction of what the Constitution, via the second amendment, specifically prohibits.

“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.”

It does have an introductory clause, but that clause does not change the meaning of the declarative portion of the wording, which is ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It doesn’t just protect our right to keep them.  It protects our right to carry (bear) them.  And that right — protected as a directive to the Federal Government as to what it specifically cannot do … SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do these people not understand?

1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

The first definition applies in that to actively break the Natural Law that gives us the right would be an infringement.  But the second definition is the definition that most people think of … to “act so as to limit or undermine”.  So the Federal Government cannot act so as to limit or undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  That’s what it says.

It doesn’t say it “shall not be infringed” “unless”, or “until”, or “as long as”, or “but only if”…

It doesn’t mention hunting.  It doesn’t mention sport shooting.  It mentions security of a free state, though.  That bit was apparently far more important.

If we want to address mass murders, let’s address mass murderers.  Let’s also address the gun-free zones that enable them.   Let’s not break the Constitution by infringing on the right of millions of law abiding citizens.

Your job in Washington is an important one.  It is not, primarily, to make laws.  It is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Loading Likes...
This entry was posted in Know Your History on by .

About philmon

Part mountain junkie, part decent amateur photographer, part survivalist, part not-so-decent amateur musician, part sysadmin. Husband, step-dad, grandpa, and music freak who digs mechanical clocks, barometers, and Gil Elvgren pinups. Studied Meteorolgy & Computer Science. And the U.S. Constitution.

2 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Both Houses of Congress

  1. Cylar

    I’ve recently tangled with several gun grabbers who’ve attempted to ‘school’ me with, “But what about the ‘well regulated militia’ part, Cylar? Huh? HUH? What about that?”

    My reply: “‘Well-regulated’ means disciplined, you nitwit. It doesn’t mean ‘covered with lots of laws.’ Try reading some of the other writings from that time, by the men who drafted our Constitution….instead of projecting your 21st-century, public-school-victim mentality onto the words of our Founders.”

  2. Cylar

    A further thought: During my freshman year in college, I had to take a Writing Composition course from the English department. While writing an essay for one of my assignments, I decided to recycle a paper I’d written in high school which opposed the Brady Bill, an now-defunct and ill-conceived piece of federal legislation mandating a five day waiting period for firearm purchasers.

    Early in my essay, I quoted the Second Amendment as you have, then wrote, “That should have been the end of the issue right there,” meaning the end of the discussion on the matter of ‘gun control.’ Naturally, my left-leaning professor wrote “Why?” in the margin of my paper. Then when I wrote that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, he wrote, “The Constitution guarantees no such right” in the margin.

    I would have loved to see the look on his face when the news broke in 2010 that the SCOTUS had affirmed what I, a freshman college student, had written back in 1992 after doing no more than growing up around guns and reading a couple of books from my high school library.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *