The 2nd Amendment is Absolute

There has been an interesting argument for “gun safety” (gun control doesn’t poll well) after the events in Uvalde, TX, and frankly, its the most asinine thing I have heard since Joe Biden told me it was my “patriotic duty” to be vaccinated. What we are hearing at home and now abroad is that “there is no rational reason” for someone to own a weapon like an AR-15. A wEaPoN oF WaR. Ok guys. 

But you know what is awesome? I do not require a rational reason to own anything. It comes down to one simple concept, I want it and legally I can own it. 

Despite what we are being told, the 2nd amendment is absolute. The President of the United States advocating against one amendment as not being absolute while in full support of another (the 14th amendment) to support abortion policies, is basically the tell on the political nature of what we are watching. And in my opinion, is an abdication of his duties since each member of our government takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. But from this current administration, our courts have been burgeoning with rulings of unconstitutional behavior. 3 off the top of my head are: the eviction moratorium, mask mandates, vaccine mandates. All ruled unconstitutional due a never ending desire for our leaders to retain a white knuckle clutch onto power. It’s been a crazy psyop, and there are people that defend the policies designed to break them down. I think there’s a word for that. 

So, “We must do something.” No, just sit down and leave everyone alone. We have had two years of our governments around the world working collectively to remove basic human rights. No, thats not hyperbole. Ask the people that lost their businesses because they were not “essential” or ask those that rely on the fellowship of church and assembly, lost their livelihoods because they didn’t want a forced medical procedure. I don’t want to hear your rationalization for allowing fear to ruin peoples lives. If you are doing that, then the propaganda was successful. But hey, it made you feel all good to watch Netflix while countries that have been moving towards economic independence were crushed and people have been starving to death at rates we haven’t seen in a very long time. (And all those Ukraine flags in your bios gave the green light on continuing this trend and more millions are set to die from starvation because you idiotically support a proxy war with Russia, good job). 

Whoa, back to the topic. So what does the Second Amendment say, 

The best part of this image is, when you click the link that says “second amendment explained” it just restates the amendment, because it’s rather self explanatory. 

So people really get hung up on the word militia here. I get it, in modern times that is a word we often associate with either a “crazy” group of people or the military. But in the time of the Founders writing this document that was not the definition. If we look to the majority opinion conclusion in the District of Columbia V. Heller case, “Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.”

Isn’t that the most beautiful assortment of words you have ever seen? This ruling came after the 1994 assault weapons ban, and has set precedent that will be difficult to overcome if there is a reason to approach this topic again in the Supreme Court. 

Even in March of this year, a federal appeals court in California found it unconstitutional to deny those 18-20 from purchasing certain firearms. Judge Nelson stated this in his ruling, “America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.”

So here are some things to remember as we are regularly being lied to; the assault weapon ban did not reduce gun violence, The CDC considers “children” in their gun violence studies to be those 0-19, we have more guns in our history and despite what the media is selling “mass murders” with guns is exceedingly rare unless you open that definition to include gang violence (and I am sure all those weapons were legally obtained), murder is always illegal and it is a person committing that crime not an object (think of a drunk driver in a car for comparison…I know Waukesha wasn’t good for the news cycle but it was awful, same thing in New York City and on and on).

Allowing the actions of the criminals to determine the rights of the law abiding citizens is not good policy. It will not be the criminals that will suffer at their own hands. 

To quote our President in 1985, “During my 12 and a half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.” This might be the only thing he has ever been right about. Good job bro.

Related Articles

Responses