The left for years has tried to undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The right to bare arms as defined in the second amendment is one of the most argued and misrepresented and abused amendment of them all.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This amendment is fairly straight forward but gun control proponents have argued that the amendment only refers to gun rights in context of militias. The argument assumes militias in the context of state created and controlled entities.

The problem is this view is not the traditional context of militias which is why the argument has been rejected by many courts over the years. Militias were formed on a, as required bases, from the available able bodied men in the area. They were not some government based entity. In the context of the day it was a citizen based defensive group, neighbors joined in a mutual objective. In that context it was the fact that they had guns and were able bodied that allowed militias to form. It was not the need for militias that men had guns. Also it doesn’t say “right of Militias to bear Arms” but “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

A more recent argument being promoted by gun control proponents, in light of a recent court ruling, is that the federal government can’t control guns but state and local governments can put in place limitations on gun ownership at their level. Even though the silliness of this line of thinking should be obvious, let’s examine it anyway.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights define the priority to be given for rights. If a power is not specified to be granted to the federal government is it reserved to the people and the States. If a power is not specifically granted to the States it is reserved to the people. This is clear in the last two Amendments:

9th – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is nothing in the Constitution giving state or local government power in regard to gun ownership. With the second amendment clearly stating, it is right of the people that shall not be infringed upon, it is clear it is a right held by the people.

Many will argue it’s a matter of public safety, you have to control guns because they’re so dangerous. Here you make the assumption that everyone is incapable of handling guns by default. This is a presumption of guilt without due process and once you make this argument then all rights are null and void.

If everyone is but a child to be cared for by the state, then you have no rights. If we, on the other hand, are adults capable of our own choices and decisions as free individuals then we must be afforded those responsibilities and the presumption of being an adult as the natural order. It is only when we neglect those responsibilities by action and after due process may those rights be forfeited. Forfeiture of any rights shall also be fair and proportional to the acts committed.

The standards as laid out in the forth through eighth amendments establish the parameters and process under which someone’s rights may be diminished. They along with a long history of legal tradition presume a standard of innocent until proven guilty.

We also most note that the right is there so that individuals may protect themselves against abuses to freedom by the government. In this light it is difficult to see how one could argue bans on assault weapons as if the reason for the amendments is an issue of a right to hunt or to engage in sport. This is not only clear in the amendment but within the Federalist Papers at length.

So until or unless an individual shows themselves to be irresponsible regarding fire arms then the government has no right to bar you from owning one. It may be argued by some that buying or using a firearm without proper training may constitute a level of irresponsibility and just cause for not permitting an individual to acquire a gun until they have the proper training to handle it . That question and the process required to make such a determination should be argued and properly defined.