What the Second Amendment Really Means – And What the Supreme Court Really Means

Today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment – the first of its kind in our history – has been hailed in the corporate media as a “victory” for the Second Amendment and its defenders. It is anything but. In fact, it is a resounding defeat of our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend our lives and liberty from an increasingly despotic government.

When the founders wrote the Second Amendment, their intent was clear: in order that we, the people, may be able to ensure the future of our liberty, we must have the means to defend our most basic and fundamental of all rights: the right to life.

Much obfuscatory ado has been made about the language of the amendment being “confusing,” and to the majority of today’s dumbed down public, it probably is. However, for anyone with the ability to think critically, the language is clear enough. The main point of the amendment is stated quite clearly in its second clause, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The preceding verbiage is really irrelevant to an understanding of what the amendment says.

One has only to consider that the Constitution was written, not to grant rights to the people and the states, nor to enumerate all of those rights, but to spell out the limitations of the government’s powers. It does so by clearly listing several existing rights that were recognized by the founders as necessary conditions of human life and that, among these is the right to keep and bear arms. Once one understands the purpose of the document, its “interpretation” is no mystery at all: the government cannot, under any circumstances, infringe upon the rights outlined and those left open to us by the Tenth Amendment.

By merely “considering” the Second Amendment and ruling on it, the Supreme Court has violated the very spirit, if not the exact letter of the Constitution, itself. The Constitution is the founding document of our nation, the only written guarantee we have of our freedom in the face of a corrupt and tyrannical government. For the Supreme Court to even assume that it has the power to revise, alter, or even reconsider what the Constitution says is, on its face, an act of high treason. By doing so, they have said, in effect, that the Constitution is null and void and that they will tell us what the law is.

The Supreme Court is not the law of the land – the Constitution is. It was intended to be followed to the letter, used as a guide by the court to determine whether any law or action is allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. That is the sole duty and responsibility of the Supreme Court and its own powers are also limited by the Constitution.

Having said all that, there is no way this “decision” – made in smoke filled corporate boardrooms, the White House and Congress and then handed down to the court as its instructions – is in any way a “victory” for the people. The actual language used by the court in rendering its opinion says that, while it acknowledges the people do have an individual right to own firearms, the court has added the terms, “within reasonable limitations.”

Let that sink in for a moment. What this really means is that, yes, you do have the right to own a gun, but the government will tell you under what conditions you can own and use it. It does nothing to strike down the existing plethora of gun control laws that have been accumulating on the books since 1933, and because it doesn’t, it also doesn’t really strike down the so-called D.C. handgun ban, as the media would have us believe. Think about it. If they have left the door open for further regulation, then the ban – being regulation, itself – does not “infringe” on your Second Amendment right, according to the Supreme Court’s twisted logic.

In other words, now that they have told us that further regulation of gun ownership is part of what the Second Amendment really means, then, by their interpretation, further regulation of any kind and to any extent or degree they choose to force upon us will be perfectly “constitutional.” After all, the Supreme Court has said so and who are we to question its infinite wisdom?

So, the end result of this devastating ruling is that, not only will our fundamental right to defend ourselves continue to be whittled away until it no longer is recognized at all, but so will all the other rights our constitution protects, now that the legal precedent has been set to allow the Supreme Court to dictate to us what the Constitution really means.

Gary Rea © 2008

%d bloggers like this: