The right way to defend the Second Amendment

What I said yesterday is what Robert Curry is referring to today.  Curry is suggesting that rather than get in the same tit for tat refutation of Leftist arguments, we return to discussion of rights, as properly understood:

Repeal the Second Amendment all you want, but we still have the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. These rights are not granted by that document, but rather that document acknowledges these rights granted by our Creator. Yes go ahead and make some laws. But to the degree you break the laws you are supposed to enforce, to that degree you absolve us of following laws we disagree with. You can not have it both ways.

Robert Curry has written an excellent explanation of the Bill of Rights as the Founders understood them, and the Second Amendment in particular. As always, Curry is clearer than I was, but you will find that I take the same reasoning as he does in his article at the American Thinker entitled How to defend the Second Amendment.  For our arguments are based in the Rights of Man, that come from our Creator, and are thus prior to and therefore above the Constitution.  Not, of course, that anyone is listening. As Curry points out:

On one side of the debate, there is the left. The Founders' understanding is certainly not to be found there. The left rejects the thinking of the Founders and is determined to take the Founders' republic down...

The sort of argument the Left usually uses is a utilitarian argument. Often, after a mass shooting event where a number of people are killed by an unstable crank, they will point out that if only that individual didn't have a gun, those people would be alive. Fair enough. But that assertion begs the question, for which the Left has a ready answer, how do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of such cranks in the future? Without mentioning that one of their previous "solutions" to mass shootings, a gun free zone, not only failed to stop such shooters, but guaranteed that the killer would be the only one with a gun, they propose that if they take just a bit more of your rights, nothing you would miss, they can "solve" the " gun problem." Suppose you balk. Well that is when the cry goes up that "You don't need an AR 15 for hunting," which is totally irrelevant. Or, they will screech that such and such a gun is only designed to kill as many people as possible, which is both untrue and irrelevant. The Left will never argue on principle because the only principle they have is they want more power to impose their idea on you. As long as we retain guns, they can not have ultimate power.

The problem many defenders of the Second Amendment have, and I have been guilty of this myself, is that they accept the Left's arguments, and then attempt to show those arguments are untrue, or will not work.  The Left doesn't care about the truth or untruth of their arguments.  All the care about is power.  they are not interested in debate: they just want you to shut up.  Like most on the right, I want to believe that the other side is reasonable, and that they can be convinced by reason, but sadly that is not the case.  These days I have ceased proselytizing, and preach only to the choir.

How would any of the Founders have made the case for the Second Amendment? Why, in terms of unalienable rights, of course. The concept of unalienable rights is the key to understanding the American Founding. The Declaration of Independence declared that we have unalienable rights. It went on to declare that securing those rights is the very purpose of government – "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." According to the Declaration, any government that deviates from the noble purpose of securing those rights is illegitimate.

John Paul Stevens – how astonishing that this man once served on the Supreme Court, charged with upholding the Constitution! – and others have called for repealing the Second Amendment. But according to the Founders, repealing the Second Amendment would not get rid of our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. No action by government can overturn an unalienable right. An unalienable right remains no matter how a government moves against it. That's what "unalienable" means. Repealing the Second Amendment would not in put an end to the right it was designed to protect; it would only put an end to the government's claim to legitimacy.

When a government acts against a peoples' rights, it no longer acts legitimately, and the people are absolved from following unjust laws. But doesn't this go against St. Paul's counsel that we should submit to civil authorities? Paul writes in Romans 13:1-7

Romans 13:1-7 New King James Version (NKJV)

Submit to Government

13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Paul was writing here about legitimate authorities, i.e. those that protected the rights of its citizens, and that punished those who infringed on those rights. And while Christians were certainly martyred under Roman rule, a great many more met in secret and remained below the radar, or the faith would not have survived.  People met is secret in various houses, or the met in the catacombs of Rome.  The fish was a sign telling those who were in the know that here was a place to meet.

Now, let's consider the First Amendment before moving on to the Second. Please notice how it begins: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[.]" The very first words of the very first amendment are "Congress shall make no law." No rights are here granted to the citizen. They cannot be because those rights are unalienable, that is, already possessed by the citizen.

The First Amendment follows the logic of the Constitution as a whole; it restricts what the federal government – in this case, Congress – can do.

So does the Second: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That "shall not be infringed" is strong language and perfectly clear. To infringe is to trespass, to intrude, to encroach. "Shall not be infringed" in plain language means "No Trespassing." And it is the government that is warned to keep out.

So, again, make your laws if you must. But we the people (not the masses) are not bound to obey illegitimate laws because you say so.