Original meanings and Original intent…so what’s happened in the Interim..?Posted: March 20, 2013
The Bill of Rights brings the significance of precisely what the Founders were trying to accomplish – as far as individual liberties are concerned. It is well understood that during the Founding generation that every state within the colonies in America had their own state constitutions’ and declaration of rights, prior to that of the newly formed central government.
Furthermore, it was deemed the “lasting impact” the adoption and ratification of the “treasured” Bill of Rights – the principal contribution of Antifederalists kept the issue of these rights and protection squarely before the American public.
The ideology with the Antifederalists and other politicians was simply placing the Bill of Rights as a victory of individual liberty against the power of the formal American government. One of the primary functions of these rights are to act as a checks and balances from the people to stop the central government from over stepping its boundaries.
As perspective points please understand it is the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments that get the most assaults against them as well as the 14th. Just for the sake of a reminder let’s look at the last few decades and the changes that have happened:
What has happened to religious liberty in this country? Please focus on Elaine Huguenin and her rights not to perform photography during a same-sex union, which is not even allowed in the state of New Mexico (see above). Moreover, what right does Barack Obama have with informing those tethered to Obamacare and all of Americans that we will pay for government mandated birth control devices?
Anyone hear of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that literally takes one from the protections of their own privacy and allows the central government to search, seize, and without a warrant, arrest and detain a person against their own will?
Has any person up in Congress thought of the unintended consequences by placing a ban on guns? Make it easier, to limit a firearm in the ways some states have? The talk and reporting of assault weapons and weapons of war are rhetorical arguments intended to frighten people – fear motivation.
So at the time the Amendment was written, “…to keep and bear arms…” does not say “limit” or “control” or otherwise with the right to bear arms. Has the senior Senator from California or the POTUS thought that the founders did not consider changes in self-defense? Or perhaps they just thought that in the twenty first century we’d still be using muskets.
All matters being equal, it was like a spark that woke me up and an imploding sparkle every time I think more about it. To try to explain what it is, or what it isn’t please bear with me for just a moment whilst I make the appropriate transition.
I am of course speaking in reference to the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights; subsequently, the knee jerk reaction that various democrats including the president as well as his minions of followers, including other factions of both houses of congress. The reaction by legislators now during various times seems miniscule in comparison to what they are trying to do regarding gun bans.
Please indulge me…The media is definitely on the side of and cohorting with the members of the liberal – elite left – albeit that isn’t a new situation by any stretch of one’s imagination. Senator Feinstein’s apparent backlash to Senator Cruz’s questions have now been so exploited and changed that I can hardly tell which is what nowadays; thank the heavens for originals. Indeed, I originally swore that I wouldn’t even cover it because I saw it (the Committee hearings) live. What was being reported as a fight, battle, or stringently arguing over the idea of banning guns and the passion which was used by the parties involved had absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the matter.
For those who have seen the original video as compared to how the mainstream media portrayed the actions are nothing shy of absurd. Just as in this entire matter; ostensibly, it appears as though there was an election very soon and many of the congressional folks are looking toward whatever they believe their constituents want. In short it is disgusting.
So what is the imploding bright spark that continually goes off in my head? It is the language of the 2nd Amendment, moreover, the intentions the Founders placed in writing and with a bit of common sense much is revealed about the original meaning of the 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.” These are the words used in the Second Amendment as ratified by Congress in 1791.
So what does all of this mean? Allow me to insert just a bit of research on the entirety of The Bill of Rights to assist any reader in why the Bill of Rights exists and the primary reasons why from time to time it seems they get more attention than at different times.
Most scholars, historians, and members of the academia readily admit that without the presentation of the Bill of Rights, and then most assuredly the U.S. Constitution would never have made it through ratification. However, ironically from 1791 until 1940 they were rarely used – meaning that those rights contained were immune to Congress, Presidency, as well as the American people.