“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.”

The language of the Second Amendment doesn’t suggest the right to possess arms comes from the government, only that it existed prior to the original draft of the U.S. Constitution and isn’t “given to us by government” Since it isn’t “given” to us by the government and is right that pre-dates the constitution, then the government cannot take it away. Any deviation from the language now (i.e. universal background checks, restrictions on concealed/open carry, etc) are implemented only because we the people have allowed government to exert a right it does not hold.

The only restriction of firearm ownership involves criminals, by way of the 13th Amendment, which states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

The convicted criminal is, for all intents, in a state of involuntary servitude, and therefore doesn’t retain most rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Once the convicted criminal has served his/her sentence and fulfilled restitution requirements, then all rights, including firearm ownership, should be restored automatically. Yes, even voting rights should be automatically restored.

Unfortunately, the citizenry, over time, has allowed government to exert non-existent rights to infringe firearm ownership/possession. The government (all branches) “derives its just power from the consent of the governed.”

If we acknowledge these facts then we have to agree that the only way gun ownership can be restricted is by constitutional amendment. So why then, do we allow our government to exert a right it doesn’t possess? And why are we continually, year-after-year, debating this non-existent right with anti-gun activists?

CHRISTIAN ROSE

Sagle