An Unconventional Thought On The Second Amendment

April 11, 2008
by Evans Munyemesha

The idea that the Supreme Court must not only determine from the Second Amendment whether an individual has the right to bear arms or not but as well act as the final authority on its interpretation is both irrelevant and foolish because the right of an individual to bear arms for the protection of his person and property is independent of the Second Amendment by being inherent in the individual and dependent on the nature of his social existence.

It is irrelevant to the ongoing debates and discussions in the sense that it (the Second Amendment) is nothing but a mere opinion made necessary and popular by the prevailing conditions during the ratification of the American Constitution, and therefore could not be the source of an individual's right to bear arms.

And foolish in the sense that the Justices on the Supreme Court, apparently having the exclusive power to interpret the provisions of the Constitution, are no more qualified than any other knowledgeable citizen in interpreting the 'sacred mysteries' of the Second Amendment. The rulings on the question at hand are mere opinions that are dependent on the composition and personal beliefs of the Supreme Court Justices.

From here then, it is safe to argue that the various opinions of the Justices, past and present, are no more valid than any other arbitrary opinions offered by other citizens. Giving more weight to the rulings of the Supreme Court presupposes the false fact that the Justices are more wise and in possession of profound insights on the matter. The historical record refutes this nonsensical presupposition.

If the right in question has its origin in the nature of our common existence (and not from the literature of the Founding Fathers) then it would be preposterous to insist that the Second Amendment serve as the basis for the interpretation of that right. For to do so would mean that the living ought to be bound by the opinions of the dead, a vicious absurdity!

If any good is expected to come out of the debates on the Second Amendment, it is significant to recognize the desirable fact that this generation must determine for itself how to secure for itself all its rights by answering and adapting to the demands of the present conditions while holding onto the Second Amendment only as an historical guide.

(Article Continues Below)

Now if the right to bear arms emanates from our common existence (and not from the Second Amendment), and being a corollary of the first right, that is, The Right to Life, then each individual has a duty to exercise this right for his own good as long as he does not violate it. But for each individual to exercise this right, we are necessarily assuming that individual to be free to act. This right can not be exercised without the freedom to act.

Put differently, the banning or suspension of this right (assuming a right can be banned or suspended in any true sense) as some misguided activists continue to irrationally argue, will simultaneously diminish freedom for all except for the freedom of those few who arrogate to themselves the special and strange powers of banning or suspending this right!

Moreover, as the right to bear arms is not a right only for a particular class of people but a right for all since all are equally entitled to protection by their own resources either as individuals or as voluntary groups, then all must have the liberty to exercise this right.

If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active: