Second Amendment protects citizens, not the government
by James Simpson

Potomac News
Friday, May 30, 2003

It still astounds me when I read anti-self-defense sentiments from people who were once sworn to defend and protect The Constitution of the United States. Contrary to the opinion of at least one columnist; someone found guilty of breaking the law by committing a felony, even if they have not been apprehended, cannot be categorized as a "law abiding citizen." They are, in fact, a fugitive from justice. To use the phrase "law abiding citizen" to describe a fugitive is incongruous.

As a society we have determined that the consequences of taking the rights of another individual away, without their consent, are the removal of the perpetrators rights. Sometimes the rights that are expropriated are freedom or the right to own weapons. We do this because allowing an individual continued exercise of these rights endangers other citizens.

Infringement laws, like the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994," are designed to take away rights from citizens who have not violated anyone else's rights. They are preemptive. This type of law is no different then if congress passed a law prohibiting private ownership of fertilizer … because one day it could be used to make a bomb.

Regardless of overwhelming evidence that disarming individuals leads to tyranny, people seem hell-bent on enacting laws that are only designed to disarm honest, truly law abiding citizens. This provides fertile ground for criminals and tyranny. Eventually citizens demand more police protection since their ability to defend themselves has been removed ... and before you know it we will be living in a police state. History provides all the evidence necessary for this conclusion.

If the only reason for owning guns is to kill then I can't imagine why folks who support such laws would want the state to be the only source of this power? Perhaps we should ask dissidents from China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, and Nazi Germany. Oh, that's right … they can't answer, because their governments disarmed them then proceeded to murder them (http://www.jpfo.org/speech.htm).

Every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects individuals and individual rights from the government. Why would the Second Amendment be designed to protect the government? The answer is simple; it wasn't. Nor does the Second Amendment exist solely to protect the right of hunters. It exists to protect "We the people..." from despotic government. Make no mistake; it is quite clear to anyone familiar with original intent that the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights were designed to restrict the power of government, not individuals.

In fact, the Second Amendment was specifically designed to provide a last resort for Americans to kill their leaders - if and when it became necessary. Yes, you read that correctly. The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that citizens had the power to overthrow their government if it ever became tyrannical.

One does not have to dig that deep to learn why the Second Amendment was necessary. The Declaration of Independence affirmed; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

By continuously reducing the individuals’ right to own weapons equal in capability to those of the government it becomes impossible for Americans to stop a government march toward tyranny. Limiting the sales of weapons that are of equal firepower to those used by the government effectively nullifies our Right and ability to "abolish" a repressive government.

Those who have sworn an oath to defend and protect The Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic, then enact legislation - not designed to punish those who harm other people but to reduce the rights of true law abiding citizens - are in direct violation of that oath. Just as if they enacted legislation permitting warrantless searches or preventing a particular religion from being practiced.

Like my forefathers in Concord and Lexington, I will not sit idly by when the state eventually comes to take away my arms so they may be beaten into hammers and sickles. I will however turn over my weapons in the same manner they did … bullets first.

James Simpson lives in Lake Ridge, Virginia where he still believes in the concepts set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He can be reached at JamesSimpson@aol.com.