The Immutable Right

by John Bernard, ©2024

(Aug. 28, 2024) — The Left has challenged the very definition of a right since before the signing of the Constitution in 1789. The origin of the concept of the individual right is as old as humanity. The philosophy underpinning the declarations of the preeminence and immutability of rights has certainly evolved over time but only in the way the subject is presented, not the substance. The two viewpoints of the origin of rights more honestly assign the terms “right” vs “privilege,” the former naturally occurring, the latter granted by some governing earthly authority.

The rhetoric has been honed during the buildup to every major revolution in modern history, and lists of rights have been drafted reflecting the recent experiences of the authors, friction between government and the citizenry, proliferation of Biblical truth and strife.

Our unique U.S. experience with rights predates our revolution. as several of the Founders studied the concept, history and academic works of people such as John Locke and Edmund Burke (both contemporaries) and Greek philosophy. They drew up and embedded a type of headed outline in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) from which the Bill of Rights was naturally derived.

The tension between the individual and the state has existed for all of human history. It stems from man’s sinful nature and the divergence in natural inclinations that we live with every day. In school it manifests in a migration toward the arts and a desire to control versus building the individual and his naturally-occurring gifts and talents. This tension first manifests in innocuous settings but quickly seeks established venues where the desire can be nurtured and a herd affected. Our Founders had learned of this divergence, saw it in one historical example after another, lived with it and were determined to extract themselves from it; establish a new model with a new guard and a new hierarchy placing the individual at the apex.

The Constitution established three co-equal branches of government with the expressed intent of shared scrutiny and ultimate protection of the individual, his unhindered access to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and the limits of government in that regard. The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the extraneous, prolific writings of the Founders explain in detail their viewpoint, intent and desire to identify a list of basic, naturally-occurring rights which allow the individual to establish his life, maintain his liberty/freedom and to pursue ventures that are both fulfilling and allow him to sustain and enrich his life.

Rights, therefore, are philosophically acknowledged to be as much a component of the individual as his eyes, ears, hands, feet, tongue, heart, brain and the very God-breathed life within us as opposed to privileges which are granted by men, require prerequisites and are finite in duration.

Leftists have for years sought to diminish the immutability characteristic of a right in an effort to justify the insinuation of government control of rights starting with the Second Amendment. It is ironic that while they zealously pursue government control over the engagement of the Second Amendment, they simultaneously demand the establishment of a new right from new cloth, i.e., unregulated abortion. It is ironic because their precedent- setting attempts to negate a well-established acknowledgement of the keeping and bearing of arms as a natural, God-given appendage to each individual and with it the very concept of the existence of the uninfringeable right makes their demands of no effect.

As to the Founders’ intent, meaning and understanding of the “rights” concept and how the Second fits the other nine, you only have to revisit the clause, “that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Life requires certain basics: food, clothing, shelter, freedom of thought and expression, supplication to, worship of and communing with God; selecting like-minded fellow citizens who swear to defend the Constitution and the nation, the freedom to improve your lot in life and the ability to defend against all threats to those basics.

In order to decipher the clear intent of the Second Amendment, it requires just a very little history, etymology of a few words, the future expectations of the Founders and their dedication to arming the citizenry with every tool required to establish, maintain and defend the society at large.

The Second 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.”

Well Regulated – The phrase itself has never been argued. However what is being regulated has. Punctuation is important, and clearly it is the organization/Militia being described as “well regulated,” i.e., trained, disciplined…even answerable.

Militia – In the absence of any other martial terms in language, “Militia” could be used to describe any number of assembled individuals gathered for defensive action. HOWEVER, given the context, the document and the historical period during which it is rendered — the writers, signers and their recent history — “Militia” refers to an extra-governmental assembly. Additionally, it defies logic to think the Founders would take the time to essentially plead with the world that they had the right to establish an Army. It also would be inconsistent for them to include collectivist language in a list of individual rights. History, etymology and language clearly indicate that the American Militia is manned, armed, trained, fielded, led by civilians without government sanction and in spite of it.

Keeping – Individual Ownership

Bearing – Keeping on your person, i.e., carrying

Shall not be infringed – Cannot be cordoned, denied, categorized, interfered with, legislated. It is important to note that this phrase does not appear anywhere else in the Bill of Rights, indicating the forethought of the Founders, knowing there would be an endless queue of unscrupulous, power-hungry people who would seek to deny the free exercise of this right in an effort to solidify power and control.

Arms – One of a few words in use today as it was in antiquity, so much so that the Leftist argument against private ownership of the Leftist-conjured classification of “assault weapon” is made anathema.

Arms, militarily, historically, traditionally, culturally, and in literature define a category of weaponry carried and employed by a single warrior, without qualification. Interestingly, civilian weapons used for hunting, sport, personal protection or even law enforcement are not categorized as arms.

Arms can include but are not limited to daggers, swords, bow and arrow, matchlock, flintlock, cap lock, breech loaded, bolt action, trapdoor, semi-auto, select-fire, internally fed or magazine-fed rifles, handguns, etc. that are or have been issued to soldiers, militiamen, Hoplites, etc…Ironically, an argument could be made that only “weapons of war” are covered by the Second Amendment.

What is missing from the text in the Second Amendment is the unregulated use of/discharging of those arms. Legislation detailing when and where you can shoot is reasonable being as fellow citizens in some instances could be endangered, i.e., on city streets, inside buildings not having a range, near schools, etc.

In summary, the Founders’ personal studies and recent, shared history fueled their debate and the resultant Constitution with its delineated, protected and preeminent Bill of Rights, all of which was designed to afford the individual guidance for and protection from government.

SF

John Bernard