Why is the Second Amendment so crucial?

Many people view the Second Amendment to the Constitution as only for gun-nuts. Why should anyone care about it if they do not have guns? The answer is really quite simple: it is the perfect example of the government's willingness to infringe on rights. There is no better barometer for government involvement and ignoring citizens' rights than on gun issues. Why is that? Because the Constitution is direct in prohibiting the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You see, there are other areas of government where there is some gray area, such as welfare, military spending, abortion, and other social and economic issues. However, none of these areas has a constitutional amendment that expressly prohibits government infringement.

Here is the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution: "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."

There is really one argument against ordinary citizens having the right to keep and bear arms. First, is that "militia" part. The Founding Fathers did not make a difference between the militia and "the people;" they are one and the same. Anti-citizens' rights groups have claimed that the Founding Fathers meant that the militia is the same as the National Guard, thus limiting private firearms' ownership to the militia and not "the people." However, when people take this tack, applying this same logic to the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments then reads something like this: such that the right of the National Guard to peaceably assemble, the right of the National Guard to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the rights of the National Guard are theirs even if they are not enumerated. Does this make sense to you? I certainly hope not. The Founding Fathers saw "the people" and "the militia" as one and the same, but socialist-leaning government has twisted this to its own ends, in spite of the admonition and mandate that this right "shall not be infringed."

Many state constitutions created around the same time are even more explicit. For example, Pennsylvania's State Constitution reads thusly: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power." Any guess as to when this was written? If you said 1776 you'd be correct! It is quite obvious that the Second Amendment is for citizens, not the military, or some narrowly defined militia, like the National Guard. That is a farce that anti-citizens' rights propagandists have perpetuated on the public for far too long. I guess if you repeat something enough times in print and other media, it might, somehow, become true. Fortunately, there are others who know better.

So what is a peace-loving citizen to do? How can you be a non-violent person and still believe in the people's right to keep and bear arms? This seems so counter-intuitive, right? I wonder what Gandhi would think about disarming the populace? Let's ask him.

Me: "Yo! Mohandas! What do you think about disarming the populace?"

Mohandas K. Gandhi (in 1983): "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Hmm, that seems clear. What about the opposite perspective? I mean if a peace-loving icon can be against government's disarming citizens, what would the most hate-filled and violent icon say about disarming the people? Let's see:

Me: "Yo! Adolf! What do you think about disarming the populace?"

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

So what does it all mean? Yes, here in America, I can carry a gun and so can you, with certain restrictions, or should we call them infringements? I have been fingerprinted, background-checked, am limited in where I can carry a gun (most notably on Federal Property — do they even read the Constitution?), required to have training, et cetera. All of these are infringements! I don't care if you never, ever, in your entire life touch a gun. You are still a citizen of the United States, not a subject of King George, who sparked a revolution by attempting to confiscate the arms of the colonists.

But it's not about carrying a gun or not, guns are merely tools in the hands of people. It is about government intrusion and infringement in the private lives of citizens. Guard jealously the inherent rights we have, and especially those clearly enumerated in the Constitution. I urge you to use gun rights as a barometer for the direction the pendulum of government intrusion is swinging. It always comes down to the same conclusion. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.