We are defending the right to bear arms with the wrong argumentSubmitted by Duane Vick on Thu, 12/27/2012 - 11:41
I see a lot of back-and-forth about the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms and it dawns on me that we are going about this completely the wrong way.
The first thing I notice is that people use the Constitution to justify keeping and bearing arms. The Constitution is very sacred, however, the right to arms is not created by the Constitution. It isn't even created by the founding fathers. It is a right endowed upon us by our Creator. When you use the Constitution as the "force" behind our right to keep and bear arms, you allow the enemy of your rights to declare those rights void by declaring a portion of the Constitution void. Without a doubt, there are people that would give up a portion of the Constitution to enjoy undeserved safety.
Another major problem with using the Constitution as the basis of our rights is that it leaves the debate up to the interpretation of the words of the Amendment itself. The words are just a means of communication. While they do serve as specific instruction to the government exactly what to do with an armed people (shall not be infringed), it does not by itself stand the test of time. The words themselves tend to take on slightly different meanings over time. That means that same Amendment will have different meanings to different people at different times. This is the source of the "militia right vs. individual right" argument.
Another thing I notice is that people argue the intent of our founding fathers when defending our rights. This leaves the argument up to the various interpretations of the several statements of the founders. The founders couldn't agree on a lot of things but they were very good at compromise. The argument then shifts to our recollection of those statements and our recollection of what the founding fathers intended.
In order to make our arguments infallible to the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms, we must defend the rights on behalf of a higher power. A power higher than government itself. Indeed, the right is not derived from people, from government, from paper, or from the intentions of a group of people that passed away a long time ago. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the inalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator. Our founders recognized that people had these rights. Of course, they also knew that governments didn't always respect those rights so they did write them down as a set of instructions for our government. What you must keep in mind is that our rights exist not by grant from the government, but because we have a right to life and liberty. How do you preserve a right to life and liberty if you do not have the means to protect it. It is why the rhinoceros was given a strong horn by its creator, to protect its life. It is why the shark has so many teeth. Whether you are predator or prey, your only right to life is your willingness to preserve it. I can not reinforce this enough, it is simply by our Creator's design that we have such rights.
Never let someone argue that changing the sacred document of the Constitution, or that any mild piece of legislation can ever take away our right to self defense. The government didn't give us the right to self defense, so it can never take it from us. It was never theirs to begin with. It is no less cruel to disarm a free people than it is to cut the horn from a rhinoceros.