Ptooey! on the 2nd Amendment

Lew Rockwell ^ | 13 November 2003 | Brad Edmonds

[45Auto]

The Constitution of the United States of America was in some ways a good idea: Put in writing some specified powers and limitations of a central government, a government created only to preserve the liberty to which we have rights by virtue of being human, and do this by making the states play fair with each other economically, speak with one voice internationally, and pool their resources should the need arise for defense. In other senses, the Constitution was a bad idea: The same founders who reserved the right to overthrow a government that didn’t suit them turned around and instituted one in a Constitution that in principle limited the liberty and bound the loyalty of subsequent generations who didn’t have the option to sign it or vote on it before being bound by it. The 19th-century attorney Lysander Spooner – a yankee, of all things – has made this point already.

The basic idea the founders shared, or so they said, was that there were human rights that could be discovered through reason and the Bible. These rights were ordained by nature and/or God, and it would be a moral wrong for anyone to infringe on the natural rights of anyone else. That the founders considered the existence of government secondary to those rights – that is, whenever a government violates them, or merely does a bad job of protecting them, the government is therefore invalid and needs to be abolished – was proven by their engineering of, and for many of them dying during, the Revolution.

Hence, the wording of the 2nd amendment: "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." That amendment, in its specific wording, was the embodiment of the notion that the right to self-defense was one of the natural rights no government has the moral standing to infringe. Several of the Federalist Papers – propaganda pieces written to convince the man in the street that the Constitution was a good thing – made it explicit that government should not try to come between a man and his guns.

Walter Williams proposed a year or two ago that we’d have been better off without the 2nd amendment – indeed, without all of the first ten. His reasoning was that the Bill of Rights, by enumerating certain inalienable rights over which Congress had no power, left the door open for the government to erode all other rights not mentioned in the first 10 amendments. As he put it, if you are granted by your government the right to play hopscotch, that means you have no particular right to play jacks. Then again, whether we’d have been better off without the Bill of Rights is debatable, since Congress has sorely abridged even the right to keep arms. We’re allowed to own only those weapons Congressmen and state legislators want us to have.

At this time, it is obvious that all levels of government in the US view individual rights as things that exist only because government says so. Our government today has no interest in what "natural rights" are, or what people morally ought to be allowed to do for themselves. Those cities that have strict gun-control laws believe their low level of government has the right to abridge our most fundamental right of self-defense.

As if principles weren’t enough, there is ample precedence for insistence on what is morally right regardless what the government says. Acts 5:29 shows Peter, in the act of defying the authorities, saying, "We must obey God rather than any human authority." Many US federal laws have been changed because us ordinary folks insisted, or because we simply wouldn’t obey. Prohibition, the national speed limit, and Jim Crow laws come to mind. Our Revolution itself was an example of putting principle ahead of government.

So, lest any of us put the cart before the horse, it’s not the 2nd amendment that gives us a right to own weapons and be proficient in their use – our status as human beings gives us the right to own guns. Rather, the amendment should merely encourage gun ownership and prohibit interference with it. Put another way, the only good the 2nd amendment could ever do is win lawsuits on behalf of you and me whenever the government tries to pass a gun law. And since the government routinely passes gun laws, the 2nd amendment isn’t good for much. Rely instead on your natural right to self-defense, and when California (or whoever) tells you to start registering weapons so they can come back in two years and confiscate them, the first thing to do is to go live somewhere else.

[jjm2111]

Bang!

[45Auto]

"At this time, it is obvious that all levels of government in the US view individual rights as things that exist only because government says so. Our government today has no interest in what "natural rights" are, or what people morally ought to be allowed to do for themselves. Those cities that have strict gun-control laws believe their low level of government has the right to abridge our most fundamental right of self-defense."

And therein lies the problem; if even the lowliest levels of government can so blithely ignore and infringe such a basic right as that of self defense, then in what kind of contempt do they hold liberty itself? Their attitude pits citizen against government at all levels under all circumstances. Is this not the definition of tyranny?

[sourcery]

[HEY4QDEMS]

Walter Williams said "if you are granted by your government the right to play hopscotch, that means you have no particular right to play jacks."

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Walter Williams is an idiot.

[Sender]

Can I get an AMEN brothers and sisters? I know that's right.

[looscnnn]

I agree that people have the right to move somewhere else if they don't like a particular place. Some people won't, some can't, but there are definately some that should.

If the amendments had not be written down, we would have had guns and free speech taken away a long time ago. How could we "prove" that we have the right to protect ourselves when liberals don't follow, or believe in?, natural law/rights. They would say the right to protect ourselves is done by having a military and police.

[Dead Corpse]

So I can go ahead and put that gardening shed up in my backyard without a building permit?

Gee, thanks for straightening that out for us. (/sarcasm)

Williams was dead on.

[Teacher317]

I believe he's making the point that the Constitution, especially Am IX, is being ignored. Read the last paragraph.

[Sloth]

Walter Williams is an idiot.

Anyone who would call Walter Williams "an idiot" IS an idiot.

[Dead Corpse]

I wasn't going to say it, but I'm glad someone did. ;-)

[Gorjus]

Walter Williams said "if you are granted by your government the right to play hopscotch,

Others have already established that you didn't quite make your point, but you missed the key issue. If the government "grants" you your rights, then you don't have any but what the government has identified to give you.

One could make the case (Lord knows the socialists like to do so) that the 9th Amendment just means that the government can "grant" you more if they want to.

And so, Walter Williams is right. Of course, you're free to disagree with his premise that the government grants any rights at all (even to play hopscotch) but if you disagree with the premise for his argument, then talk about something else. It doesn't make him an idiot for setting up a premise that even he disagrees with, just to make a point.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Why weren't you going to say it?

I'm not violent and not not made of glass.

I can take it, really I can.

[rdb3]

Walter Williams is an idiot.

You may disagree with Dr. Williams, but he is by no means an idiot.

[vanmorrison]

Dr. Williams is not an idiot. The problem is that the people of this country have consistently relinquished their heritage of liberty by encouraging the formation of an all-encompassing governmental entity never envisioned by the generation that wrote the constitution. The last generation of Americans that took the constitution seriously became Confederates. But, they lost the war.

[Dead Corpse]

Well, I AM violent. I'm really not a very nice person. I also have a tendancy to upset the moderators here.

As I LIKE being here, I try to keep insults to a minimum and only AFTER I have first been insulted. Retaliatory force is perfectly A-OK in my book.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, would you care to enlighten us some more on your extremely low opinion of Dr. Williams and what evidence you can foreward to back up such a mindless statement?

[Saundra Duffy]

What is the rapist's worst nightmare? A woman with a gun.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Perhaps "Idiot" was a little over the top.

But I still disagree, I have a right to work, watch TV, read, Post on FR etc..., none of these things were granted to me by the government.

The IX Amendment was designed to be a catch all that makes all things legal unless laws are made to the contrary.

That is why when a new drug like Xstacy hit the streets it was 100% legal until laws were made to make it illegal.

[steve50]

Most conservatives have bought into the premise that the Constitution grants rights. In fact it grants limited powers to government and forbids the increase of such powers without amendment. They've turned it upside down and we go along for the pure joy of seeing the power of the state used against those with whom we disagree.

[Dead Corpse]

The thing is, Walter was pointing out that there is no Constitutional authority present for our government to make such laws in the first place. The qoute you grabbed, out of context, was an illustration of governments current "mindset".

For instance, exactly where does it give the government the power to make a drug illegal? Please cite Article and Paragraph fro mthe US Constitution.

Take your time... we'll wait.

And no. Distortions of the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses do not apply.