posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 10:14 AM
The United States 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states…”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.” This is the Thomas Jefferson authenticated ratified version by all the states at that
How is the statement to be read and understood, and more importantly, does it refer to an individual right to own a gun for one’s own
Let’s be clear here, we are dealing with a ratified clause enshrined in the Constitution. It is irrelevant what commentaries followed, or what
interpretation came by voices seeking to usurp the amendment’s intended meaning by which it should be understood.
Clearly, one’s first comprehension of the whole statement can only be understood to disclude the individual right to own a gun for one’s own
self-defence, one’s own self-defence is neither discussed nor enshrined in the Constitution. The statement is one of plurality, not of
The statement is about the security and defence of the state, by persons living in the state, contributing and participating the arms they keep in
their home to the state’s defence against a threat to the state as part of a well-regulated militia. The right of the people (this is plural, not
singular) to ‘keep’ arms in their home is entirely for the state’s defence against another state or states. One such clear example of this was
the American Civil War, where Southern states fought against Northern states…and lost.
The irony is that in the modern world, the 2nd amendment needs to be amended in order to ratify a right for the arms people are allowed to keep in
their home to bear them for their own individual self-defence, because no such right exists in the Constitution.
The concept of ‘keeping arms’ is to store them, whereas the concept to bear arms is to carry them, not on an individual basis, but on a group
basis…as a militia. The use of the word ‘people’ rather than the word ‘persons’, maintains the non-individuated plurality throughout the
whole statement. Why is the statement pluralised?
Simply because the threat to the state does not only come from another state or group of states, it also comes from within the state. For the defence
of a state’s social and communal stability, it was necessary to curtail the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms, so that disgruntled
communities living within the state cannot lawfully attack the state. It is a lawful expectation of the people living in the state to duty-bind the
state to defend them, which is why police forces and the home guard were created.
Individuals do have a right to defend themselves, in so much and in proportion to the threat upon them in circumstances where neither the police nor
the Home Guard are able to be summoned to their defence. However, this aspect of individual self-defence has been skewed all out of proportion, and
now requires a strong legislative grip to be brought to bear on the issue.
Perhaps, it would good to be reminded that random and instantaneous vigilantism is not good for the community. The reason being is that innocents can
suffer under it, non-involved people can become involved by getting caught in the crossfire and/or gun fire exchange, potentially increasing the
likelihood of deaths and casualties. This in itself nullifies the twisted logic of ‘carry and conceal’. It also places the police and Home Guard
in very peculiar and threatening positions. They will have no idea who is concealing and carrying, nor if they are a good guy or a bad guy.
As things stand, the Constitution is not a haven for an individual’s right to bear arms for their own self-interest and self-preservation.