I am serious about my title question.  What does ‘Shall not be infringed’ mean?  I believe we know what it meant to the founders via the plethora of their written remarks. I believe we know what it means to most citizens.  But I wonder what it means to the political elitist of our day, the professional politician?  I think I know, but I would like to delve into it if you will indulge me.

Words have meaning. The meaning must be consistent with the context.  I believe that about the Bible, interpersonal conversation, contracts, and government.  I agree with those of our founding era who believed that the intent of those writing the Constitution must be given the value they deserve.  What did they mean when they penned the phrase, “Shall not be infringed.”

Our founders believed, as do many of us, that all people are CREATED and equal regarding the inalienable rights God gave us.  We are not all equal in physical stature, abilities, or talents.  But we are supposed to be given the opportunity without bias to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness according to the dictate of our hearts.  We are supposed to be allowed to express ourselves without fear of government reprisal.  We are supposed to have a right to private property and self-defense.  Our right to believe what we choose should be etched in stone without infringement by the government.

Since we have witnessed and experienced decades of infringements by the federal and even state governments upon our inalienable rights, my question is valid.  What does ‘shall not be infringed’ mean? What it means to politicians, and us should be the same as it meant to the founders who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America. 

We could open Pandora’s box in dealing with the second amendment by addressing all the potential nuisances in which the government might have the right to infringe.  Mental illness is one of those potential areas.   If a person is mentally unstable, allowing them to possess a firearm could pose a threat to others.  But does having a mental disorder automatically make a person unstable?  The concern is whether we can trust the government to determine if a person is unsuited to be allowed to own a gun.  Can we trust the government regarding our inalienable rights, privileges, or liberties?

My concern about the infringement issue extends far beyond the right to ‘keep and bear arms’; it touches every right.  I asked some liberal acquaintances why they were staunchly against the second amendment.  After a lot of mumbling and regurgitating the diatribe used by the anti-gun contingent, they failed to answer the question. 

When I broached the matter of the human heart or mindset of the individual possessing the firearm, they ranted that guns kill and if we can save one life.  At that juncture, I asked about abortion and thought I might need to seek cover because of the anger that boiled over about a woman’s right to choose and women’s health.  I dared not raise the subject of gender or sexual preference out of concern that the discussion would turn violent and physical.  I wanted answers, not war!

Most people believe that the views espoused by the anti-Second Amendment contingent that includes virtually all the Democrats in DC, including Obama, AOC, Biden, etc., are based upon the opinions of Karl Marx.  I want to offer a quote from Marx and allow you to chew on it.

In 1850, Karl Marx addressed the Central Committee to the Communist League in London and said: “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the works must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”  The author of the Communist Manifesto said those words.  So, if Marx did not support disarming citizens, where does this hate come from?

Let me be clear, Marx did not support the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right; he did not believe in individual rights.  Therefore, his view of arms was a means to an end, and the end was a revolution.  I am convinced that Marx would have withdrawn his view of the right to keep and bear arms once the end had been attained. Despots have demonstrated this in the past.  Lenin, once he ascended to power, immediately instituted gun confiscation.  The penalty for refusal to surrender arms was ten years in prison or worse.

The Marxists of America want more than the ability to infringe upon our Second Amendment Rights; they want total control.  They want our schools, our children, our property, our transportation, our belief system, and our lives.  They want us to march to their drummer and follow their edicts without question or resistance.  They want to control the Legislature and the Courts.  Guns are a fly in the ointment for them, and they know, as have despots in history, that an armed populace is dangerous to rogue governments. 

When I grew up in the 50s and 60s, it was not considered distasteful to be manly as a man, in fact, it was expected! Today that seems to be as much a part of the attack on our Second Amendment right as anything.  Yes, many fear the AR-15 and like firearms because of their appearance.  They mistakenly identify them as assault or military-style weapons and even mislabel them as automatic weapons.  But some time back, Geraldo Rivera on The Five on Fox News revealed another element in their desire to ban firearms.

He ranted that owning an AR-15 bought out the macho in the people owning them.  He said an AR-15 “makes macho the people who possess it.”  He said it oozes with the sentiment, “Oh, look at me, I’m a big deal.”  Wow!  You should not be allowed to have an AR-15-style firearm because it brings out the masculinity in you.  What a crime, right?  You dare not exhibit masculinity today; that makes you sub-human and dangerous. 

I believe that healthy masculinity demands discipline.  In that vein, responsible gun ownership is not negative to be viewed as a disease or societal deficiency.  The data compiled by various agencies indicate that gun owners are traditionally more law-abiding than people who do not own guns.  Hunting, fishing, and enjoying target shooting is not a moral deficiency.  Desirous of the ability and willingness to protect your life, family, and property is not evidence of moral declension but responsible citizenship. 

Where will infringement end if we allow infringement with regard to the Second Amendment?  It will not.  The ultimate desire is to control where we live, what we drive, and what we can say, think, believe, or do.  It is the desire to make us mindless sheeplike puppets who have neither the ability nor desire to exercise cognitive reason and think critically.  The gods of Washington believe that they have a divine right to control.  I believe they do not! 

What does ‘Shall Not Infringe’ mean?  It means that the government has no right and should be given no ability to encroach upon or prevent the free exercise of whatever is not to be infringed upon.  God gave us certain inalienable rights, including the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  The government has no right to infringe upon those rights.  It is time to stop the infringement of politicians and activists and restore America to true constitutionalism.

God bless you, and God bless America!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s