THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

  

In a recent article Titled; "BY DEFINITION: GUN CONTROL, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT," I began an analysis of the Meaning contained in the TERMINOLOGY used in the 2ND AMENDMENT. To complement that line of reasoning, I have decided to use this post to look at other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and see if that can aid us in properly interpreting the true meaning contained in the 2nd Amendment. 

To do this, we must understand the following: THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RIGHTS THAT WERE CREATED AND DRAFTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND INTERPRETED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PRECEDENT.

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS- RIGHTS THAT CAN NEVER BE LOST OR TAKEN AWAY BY THE STATE. (ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY.) ALSO, THAT THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON SPECIFIC EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

For Example:

   Amendment VI- INCLUDES SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.

  "All criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

    

CONTINGENT RIGHTS- RIGHTS EXTENDED TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE LIMITATION OR TERMINATION DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS AND/OR INTENT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS OR SPECIFIC EVENTS. 

    For Example:                                                                                                                        

The First Amendment reads as follows: 

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR...AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FOR OUR PURPOSES, WHEN DISCUSSING THE 2ND AMENDMENT, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

THAT EVEN IF YOU HOLD TO THE OPINION THAT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A "RIGHT" TO OWN OR POSSESS A GUN OR FIREARM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE CANNOT SET GUIDELINES OR RULES TO:

-  RESTRICT THE FIREPOWER OR DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF EACH FIREARM.

-  SET A MINIMAL STANDARD OF INTELLECTUAL AND/OR

MENTAL COMPETENCE OF THOSE OBTAINING SUCH A WEAPON.

-  MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF MORAL CHARACTER (CRIMINAL) OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT UNRESTRICTED SPEECH AND UNINHIBITED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, IN THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS AND SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, CAN CAUSE SUCH DESTRUCTION THAT IT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF WHOLE SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. THIS IS WHY EVEN OUR MOST REVERED "RIGHTS" MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE.

SO, SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SUBJECT EVERY AMERICAN TO A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE "RIGHTS" OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE "RIGHT"  TO POSSESS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON WITH AN AMMO CLIP THAT COULD KILL SCORES OF PEOPLE IN ONE OR TWO MINUTES?

To find a reasonable solution, or compromise,

we must ask the following questions.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-   Have Previous Judicial Decisions and Legislative Actions set

 PRECEDENTS as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE and COVERED BY THE

"BILL OF RIGHTS" SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

WHAT MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO FORGET IS THE FOLLOWING:

YES, IT SEEKS TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT

INTRUSION INTO LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS, BUT IT ALSO...

...CREATES GUIDELINES THAT THOSE SAME CITIZENS DO NOT USE

THE "BILL OF RIGHTS" TO ABUSE AND HARM OTHER CITIZENS WITH

UNREASONABLE, MALICIOUS, AND UNJUSTIFIED WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Question #3- CAN ANY PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE 2ND

AMENDMENT BE...

-   ...UNACHIEVABLE, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  ...AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  ...A PUNISHMENT ON HONEST GUN OWNERS, INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?