In my opening article, entitled "Why the Second?" I asked why the second amendment is the second and not the last or final amendment, or some other number. Was the bill of rights indeed intended as a bulwark against tyranny? Is there an order of importance or weight implied in their enumeration?

 

I divided the Bill of Rights into four distinct sections, or pillars, the first being:

 

In the First Pillar (Right to liberty), we are reminded of our god-given right to the freedom to speak our minds and the right to back that up with the threat of, or use of force, as necessary: "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" and "[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". The Puritans in the east, the Quakers in the (then) west, the Protestants in the south, all were free to believe in god as they wished Him to be, free of government interference. Freedom of the press and the right to assemble were concepts vigorously opposed by the appointed company and royal charter governors prior to the revolution. It was these tools that most enabled the founders to organize and rebel against the tyranny of the British king and the companies that owned his charters. The colonists sent many petitions and representatives to England only to be rebuffed and further tyrannized by even further restrictions and punitive trading laws. This pillar also serves to warn us that our republican form of government will only survive for as long as We the People are willing to act in its defense, intellectually by petition, or by force of arms if our words are not given the weight of our authority in government. It is interesting to note that even though the fourth amendment guarantees the right to private property, the founders felt it necessary to single out the right to keep and bear arms as a separate item to private property. Clearly they understood that those who turn their swords to plows would plow for those who did not.

 

We have seen many attacks against the bill of rights from our Federal Government over the 220 years since it came into existence, most notable of those have been perpetrated under cover of 'emergency' or 'crisis'. F.D. Roosevelt used the cover of the depression of the 1930's to greatly expand the power and influence of government over ordinary citizens and the States. Before him, Abraham Lincoln used the 'crisis' of legal confederate secession to assert the Federal Government's dominance over States' rights and remake the voluntary union into a compulsory federation. Very few Presidents in our history have 'let a good crisis go to waste'.

 

More recently, we have seen congress routinely pass unconstitutional legislation designed to further enhance the power and influence of government over its minions. The socialist agenda of centralization of power and government control of the means of production (fascism) has been advanced at breakneck speed. Witness the TARP fiasco and the firing of the auto manufacturing executives and the ensuing salary caps.

 

The most recent and highly egregious attack on constitutional rights, and the first pillar of freedom in particular, is H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' (Is there any other kind of terrorist?) The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun or explosive might be used in connection with terrorism.

 

The 'connection with terrorism' was defined in a recent Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report and was then morphed into a Department of Homeland Security document as people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin in the 2008 Presidential elections and anyone who opposes one or more of the following: The New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration. Most outrageous of all, it also identifies recently discharged military veterans as possible 'extremist converts'. In my estimation, this list includes approximately 75% of the US population! In essence, if this bill is passed, any person holding an opinion differing from the politically correct, or government line, can and will be designated as a terrorist and will be stripped of the God-given right to keep and bear arms and, by proxy, the freedom to speak.

 

The bill's sponsor, Peter King (R-NY) would no doubt defend this legislation as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of known terrorists. I wonder at the naivete of a congressman imagining that a known terrorist would attempt to procure a firearm through a legal transaction in the first place. Criminals don't buy guns at the local sporting goods store where they are subject to identification and background checks, transaction limits and record of purchase. They are much more likely to be found passing a suitcase of money over to some guy in dark glasses in some deserted underground parking lot. No, this legislation is designed and intended to send the strong message to 'we the people' that if we dare to dissent the actions of our ever more overarching government, we will be summarily stripped of our individual constitutional rights and dragged over to some offshore gulag. We all know what happens there, except for Nancy Pelosi, of course.

 

That the Founders understood that the rights of the people would come under assault almost immediately (in a historical sense), was placed in stark relief in this speech on June 8, 1789: "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380). Mason and his contemporaries understood very well that the most effective way to moderate free speech is to disarm those who have a voice and the will to use it.

 

James Madison saw the right to speak and the ability to assert that right with force as a matter of authority: "[T]he ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone" (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.).

 

Here Noah Webster pre-emptively unites George Mason and James Madison in his attempts to urge the people of Pennsylvania to ratify the constitution: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787).

 

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, The Japanese high command urged the emperor to invade the United States continent. Their most respected military commander, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, had this to say: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Clearly the US military industrial complex was not deemed as great a threat to a successful invasion of the mainland as the American people themselves and their second amendment right.

 

An August 29, 2007 Reuters article again highlighted the importance Americans place on the second amendment: "GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said. U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies... On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38..." The article was worded to be a negative connotation on the American people and their love of guns, my only thought is to wonder what the other 10 are thinking.

 

In his 1829 treatise, William Rawle, founder of the oldest operating law practice in the United States (Philadelphia, 1783), tied the legal and practical applications of the second amendment together as being mutual in their defense: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious [Wicked, criminal, heinous] attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." ("A View of the Constitution" 125-6, 2nd ed. 1829)

 

I think the founders intended the first and second amendments as the first and most important pillar of freedom. I give James Madison the last word: "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home."

Reader Comments: