HomeHealth and wellnessmisconception about legality (2nd amendment) of domestic lethal force, analyzed

Amendment 2: “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
But, this is what we/many seem to be misunderstanding: amendment 9 plays a significant role in the rational legislation over guns and second amendment right.
Amendment 9 says: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In essence, Amendment 9 is a safe-guard, a back-stop, designed to keep strict interpretation of rights protection abuse, in check.
You see, the Constitution was never written to protect evil acts. It was designed to promote and safe-guard goodness.
I make a few points here:
1. Massacres take life. What we witness in out country’s mass killings, is not armed resistance against tyranny in government. Instead, we witness over-indulgence and greed for firepower, as a person hordes arms to do evil against fellow unarmed persons. That behavior is clearly not what our Constitution was designed to protect. Moreover, such violence is motivated by insanity and/or terrorism. And for those who think that terrorism is not politically motivated – they could not be more incorrect.
2. A person having firepower that is properly limited by the people, and for the purpose of self defense and protection of personal safety (including property)? That is instead reasonable use of amendment 2. There is a proper estimation by citizens as a collective, as to what amount of firepower is reasonable for a single citizen to own. This must constantly be revisited.
3. The second amendment speaks also with regard to militia. One person is not a militia by definition (when the framers of the Constitution were at work on our document). This is what I mean about a person being greedy for firepower, when we see hording of more than he or she should have. A militia is a collective of armed persons who can only be permitted to exist for their function of fighting tyranny (that a just people would define as tyranny) if they also agree to be “well regulated” by the very object of their perceived subjection. They must be willing to die by the gun, if they decide to take up arms against our government. That’s the risk that they must be willing to take up, if they wish to exercise their right. And, the people will always have their own tax funded systems in place, as their defense against those who intend to do evil.
4. All people in our society, have every right to feel safe in our country, with reasonable measure. And, security sometimes must be protected by firepower.
But, the highest law in the land, has the utmost responsibility of securing, that amendment 9 is not breached. Amendment 9 cannot be a casualty of amendment 2. And that means that our president and others with him, has the obligation to invoke our military and police, to preserve amendment 9 for the benefit of every American.
5. Amendment 4 also authorizes our democracy and “we the people”, to send our authorities to properly act upon suspicion of those who have believed malicious intent to behave tyrannically toward his or fellow citizens him or herself [by way of executing violence that is highly unjustified, irrational, and in violation of others’ rights to life, liberty, and property (among other)]. Gun rights are not a justified means of coercing another individual to act against his or her own will (implicitly or illicitly), used to repress his or her rights by domestic violence, taking other’s life unjustly, or of leveraging intimidation and terror to suppress the natural self of another.
In closing, we should pay attention to the very first words of our US Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” How more clear can it be? This Constitution is a framework for securing the welfare of all. It is not a manuscript for how an individual or group can conquer its democratically elected government. It is also not a manuscript for how a government can oppress its own country. It is also not a manuscript that invites other governments to interfere with our laws.
So, in closing, lethal force is not legal, under most circumstances. (Some people try to defend, in our most volatile examples of unjust firepower acquisition and use, excessive exploit). We see it all too frequently used as an argument for justice – but it’s misaligned).
An organized militia is by definition a legal collective. But, it too, must operate according to law. It too, must be understood as being comprised of one person, two, or more. When a person has more firepower than can be operated at any one time by one person, he or she, is by definition qualifying him or herself as a militia.
And, this requires therefore, even more scrutiny and subjection of him or her, to Amendment 4.

Comments are closed.