OPINION: What The Founders Intended
In response to a letter to the editor that appeared in the June 25th edition of the Nevada Appeal regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment, I would like to refer the author to The Federalist Papers where much of the intent of the men who framed the provisions of the Constitution can be found.
Touted as the first and most authoritative commentary on a document that would define us as a nation, it provides a useful and discerning glimpse into the minds of those who helped conceive this experiment in self-determination. This series of essays was written to explain the complexities of the proposed constitutional government – its structure, the fundamental principles on which it would be built and its respect for certain immutable rights. If, as the author asserts, the true meaning of the Second Amendment is obscure because it was “poorly drafted”, then we must look to the intent of the drafters for clarity.
In response to concerns that the rights of the individual states (and, by extension, the people) could be usurped by a standing army under the control of the Federal government, Alexander Hamilton wrote to the general public the following in one of a series of letters that constitute the Federalist Papers: “… 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”.
This unambiguous statement clearly refutes the assertion that the Second Amendment “is not meant to shield us from tyranny”. Having just waged war against a tyrannical nation in the form of the British empire, the people of this country were understandably leery about entrusting too much authority to a new centralized government. The Second Amendment provided a check on the congressional power afforded the government under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, enabling the states through their citizens whose right to “keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, to thwart an assault on their liberties.
In an article that appeared in the Epoch Times, Lee Smith, a veteran journalist, opined that “Tyranny is a constant throughout history because it’s in the nature of man, and also, therefore, the political institutions that men make, to seek more power”. This is consistent with the comment by James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, that “… all men having power ought to be mistrusted”. It is therefore, imperative that the governed have the wherewithal to defend themselves against an abuse of power by those who govern.
Venezuela is a perfect illustration of how an abusive government can subjugate a people who can’t defend themselves. Following the confiscation of all privately owned firearms, pro-Democracy demonstrators now have only rocks to throw at well-armed soldiers to protest the meager amounts of food and other basic necessities their government allots them. In the words of Javier Vanegas, a Venezuelan teacher now living in exile, “Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people … (who) never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government."