Essay About Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms
The above title unquestionably abbreviates, condenses, and tightly encapsulates a vitally important question that encompasses a much broader set of sub-questions and or categories in which to my knowledge, have yet to be adequately answered by any one individual, impartial group or organization, or legitimate legal body.
Which Constitutional Amendment Grants All Americans the Right to Own a Gun?
The Supreme Court rendered and subsequently continue to re-affirm an extremely controversial decision in which many legal scholars would suggest inadvertently convoluted, or mistakenly commingled, two distinct passages within the very same amendment to essentially create a brand new meaning of the sentence by ignoring or altering the proper grammatical structure. One in which many knowledgeable esquires and lay persons alike, firmly believe does not correspond with, nor accurately reflects our founder’s original intent either expressed or implied.
If this subject piques your interest as you scan through the page, and it should because the ramifications significantly impact our daily lives both directly and indirectly, simply take a moment to read the brief 2nd Amendment passage below and decide for yourself if indeed, you, and all other fellow citizens have the inherent legal right to own a firearm regardless of circumstance.
Not withstanding of course potential legal issues such as incarceration which may inhibit or completely strip these and all other Constitutional Rights from an individual either permanently or until a predetermined time certain in the future. My approach when writing this article, which is of course based upon a rather highly contentious subject, was inspired from a purely nonpartisan standpoint, and in the past I’ve based all my personal voting decisions exclusively on the fundamental issues and corresponding ideas of individual candidates, and I’ve never been influenced in the least by any particular political party’s ingrained, non-negotiable underlying philosophy or beliefs.
I have personally owned firearms in the past and have friends, acquaintances, and also family members who indulge by exercising current ownership rights for various reasons that run the entire gambit. However, this close association with firearm owners does not temper my curiosity when it comes to exploring and subsequently challenging the integrity and or legitimacy of such an important subject.
I personally believe it’s my right and obligation as an American to pursue the truth. I now invite you to read on and decide for yourself without being subjected to the influential factors associated with the Supreme Court’s verbatim decision.
As we perpetually transition seamlessly from one election cycle to the next, which always seems to be in full illustrious bloom despite substantial breathers and time gaps in between, I decided, as I always do when the cable airwaves begin to routinely transmit their distinct versions of individual candidate platforms, to research the most important issues that command the undivided attention of the majority of Americans regardless of historical political party affiliation.
This discovery of new knowledge or academic “Re-enforcement”, which always enhances my existing basic understanding by either corroborating, casting doubt upon, or completely disproving certain facts or theories, or in some cases, completely discounts a subject in totality, always ensures that I’m well prepared and fully capable of making the most educated decisions possible once I enter the designated voting venue, and proceed to exercise my inherent, uncontested constitutional right of casting a preference for respective candidates.
Needless to say, I’ve always based these important voting decisions on factual data pertaining to the issues that most effect my quality of life and other meaningful considerations, and not necessarily on a particular candidate’s unwavering personal philosophy, conviction, or deeply rooted beliefs, regardless of how righteous they may seem at first glance. I believe I’m like most Americans in this regard, give me some good, sound, workable solutions and ideas designed to solve or strengthen currently pending and future issues, and I will tend to lean in your general direction despite party affiliation.
The best ideas, in my opinion, come from the in depth study of tangible factual data and evidence which ultimately leads to an enlightened decision making process. This unquestionably takes top priority when evaluating each individual candidate, not necessarily their personal beliefs and or faith based reliance or dependence. Although these considerations can indeed play an integral or even deciding roll in the voting process for some Americans.
On a more cynical note, unfortunately, we as American voters must also factor in the “Money Flow” element that inevitably reveals which special interest entity is supporting each respective candidate. With this said, and with proper disclosure established as it relates to my personal view on the subject, let’s briefly explore the “Right to Bear Arms” segment of the 2nd Amendment.
Time to take an in depth look at what had always been, and presumably always will be, a cornerstone of the GOP platform. A small, fragile brick within a much larger foundation that is based predominantly upon a Supreme Court interpretation, decision, and subsequent opinion as it relates to the 2nd Amendment and the contents therein.
More specifically, a narrow focus on the very liberal legal interpretation and subsequent affirmation of a twenty seven word sentence contained within, that now grants every American citizen, regardless of their association, or lack there of, with an organized militia such as the National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force etc., the right to own and or possess a gun. Or, in constitutional verbiage, “The Right To Bear Arms”. A legal opinion in which the GOP in general, vehemently support as an accurate conclusion.
Below is the “Right to Bear Arms” excerpt verbatim from the 2nd Amendment –
As you can clearly see, there is no “Period” after the word “State” which would indicate a pause in thought or new subject. Moreover, if you apply simple grammatical criteria to this portion of the Amendment in which our forefathers were quite adept, the only logical conclusion one could possibly draw, is that the sentence is continuous and not to be separated, indicating one seamless, connected, and uninterrupted thought. Moreover, if it is one sentence, in my opinion, It clearly states in unequivocal terms, an individual, as a requirement or prerequisite to owning a gun, “Firearm” or “Arms”, is to first become affiliated with a “Well Regulated Militia”. Any other interpretation might be considered a stretch or extremely liberal by any measure. Many Constitutional Scholars believe the drafters would have inserted a “Period” after the word “State” if the intent was to separate the two thoughts, hence, possibly altering the meaning and or subsequent interpretation. For many who are knowledgeable on the subject, this excerpt is considered clear, concise, and unambiguous, and it’s almost inconceivable that it can possibly be interpreted any other way than how it reads verbatim, adhering to the fundamental rules of proper English Grammar
What do you think?
After reading the above passage it does appear as if the literal interpretation clearly states the enlistment, and or, affiliation with, a “Well Regulated Militia” such as the armed forces which are organized to protect the security of a state or country, as a requirement or prerequisite to legally exercise gun ownership rights.
I would have to assume the vast majority of nonpartisan casual observers would tend to agree with this reasonable conclusion as well. However, we as a civil society must respect and adhere to certain decisions handed down to us by supreme entities regardless of what influential, and or, political factors may have been in play at the time of its deliberation and subsequent rulings.
I am well aware as I’ll assume most Americans are, of the intense scrutiny this one sentence has been subjected to over the decades. A few precisely crafted words that were carefully drafted by our forefathers and meticulously inserted into the body of our U.S. Constitution over two centuries ago, and what they might think of its present day interpretation.
It had endured throughout the years only to be translated and converted by a judicial body into what many scholars and considerable percentage of the general public, consider to be an extremely liberal interpretation. Which leaves us with the following question, what do you think?
Does this sentence in its literal reading, automatically and without condition precedent, grant all Americans, regardless of regulated militia affiliation, the right to own a gun or firearm? Is there a clear distinction between the literal interpretation and or what was determined to be the “Spirit of the Law” as defined by any one individual and or ruling body? Are they one in the same? Synonymous? Only you can be the ultimate judge.
