sacrosanct, a Right, or at the whim of

There is a cacophony of rising voices in America. A loquaciousness so intense, the volume so loud, one should wonder why. In part, the legislators pontificating, claim it’s for the continuation of what they’ve sworn to protect and defend: democracy! Conversely, the safety of citizens, in that times have changed, and what was once considered a Right sacrosanct, was never meant “absolute,” government the overall designer, and provider. The rhetoric; deafening, obfuscating, yet purposeful. And when the means to achieve the end becomes absolute, times will change absolutely.   

In the Framer’s vision of government, they intwined balance to prevent tyranny. The Constitutions design and intent – allow a limited power of control over WE THE PEOPLE, with the people having control of those in power. The Constitution, itself a Bill of Rights (BORs); government unable to legislate what it’s unable to control (Federalist 84). Although, others, at the advent of the nation’s framing, with an overzealous desire to self-protect against tyrannical control, demanded a redundant addition: BORs. Those we blindly hold tightly to. Having lived under a tyrannical government, the Framer’s understood man’s desire and quest for power, including absolute power, and the need to obviate agendas of unscripted intent. Yet today, hot topic issues face the nation, one being the 2nd Amendment:

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.

Except, if one were to follow intended constitutional design philosophy, nowhere in the Constitution allows government the ability to control ownership of or hold power over an individual and their desire to own a weapon, or multiples thereof. Being word exempt, a protection against government controlling things not encompassed by restraining a power grab not authorized, a conundrum on multiple fronts.

So, when President Biden recently declared - "From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons." – Then, at a later speech, he followed with – “You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual,” though the Constitution had yet to be written, but Article I/Section 8 would: grant letters of Marque and Reprisal …

The Revolutionary War, where the navy was outgunned and outmanned, an impotent Federal along with some State governments issued “letters of Marque.” Otherwise known as privateers, individuals, or commercial enterprises built or retrofitted ships, equipping them with cannons, swivel guns and such to hunt either British warships or commercial shipping. Their pay, the prize itself and the bounty onboard. A cat and mouse game some lost, others profited from, and the British navy dealt with. The system worked, and the Framer’s continued the ability in the Constitution. So, in correction to President Biden, an individual could own a cannon, and via the second, “any weapon,” even comparable to the military and without restriction to “certain people.”

The Framer’s were abundantly clear in their thoughts about citizens being armed, the role of the militia and society, including the ability to keep government from becoming tyrannical. Yet, BORs were not in the nations original design, requiring foundational thought to the course of direction then and needed today, all of which was derived through an omission of words in the Constitution:

… standing armies are dangerous to liberty … [Constitution Article I/Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that use shall be for a longer Term than two Years:]

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of people, would not fall short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. …

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped …

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. (Federalist 29)

To understand the Framer’s desire to control the Federal, internal power was weighted toward States; “all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State” … and Federal responsibilities; “external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce” … (Federalist 45). Even the appointment of officers in State militias was pursuant to State’s themselves (Federalist 29) to prevent federal encroachment. One only need visit the grievances in the Declaration of Independence to see why they felt the need to restrain federal power:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit …

The Framer’s passionately understood that true preservation of democracy could only be secured or kept through the arming of citizens, as surrendering the ability to own is to relinquish the power endowed. To see the desire of government today, one only need listen to the vitriol espoused over gun ownership and the need to restrict. The Framer’s desire for the populace being well-armed; indisputable. A weapon to them is a cell phone to us. And if one looks outside America to nations where the people willingly surrendered, the overreach of government overtook.:

… the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate [State] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. … in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. (Federalist 46)

The Framer’s designed balance, allowing citizens the opportunity to create their personal path and outcome. They understood human nature and man, inclusive of his desire to amass control, in full knowledge of an unarmed populace being subject to the whims of those in control. The Constitution: holding government and the Republic in check for generations to come if WE THE PEOPLE adhere to the precepts set forth. The key to the nation’s survival – a moral compass; the one provided in service to others, God derived, a part of government even the Framer’s understood, but in many ways did not achieve.

The nation: designed by imperfect men through their life experience … “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Although, government can legislate against the nefarious use of firearms, thereby protecting the “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” of those they are empowered to protect. But government has no power to regulate any weapon one might want to own for protection against the same government bent on taking the power away from. A vicious cycle if one understands control, agenda, tyranny:

[willful ignorance] … is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. (Federalist 84)