The Right of the People

When our form of government was established at the Constitutional Convention one of the points of contention was the people’s rights. It was agreed that one of the first orders of business for the first Congress would be the passage of a bill identifying the rights of the people regarding their government. This was done with the passage and ratification of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. This block of amendments is known as the Bill of Rights. The Founder’s insisted on a Bill of Rights because they deeply believed that the basic rights of the citizens needed to be written down for all to see. These rights were not to protect the government from the people, but rather the people from the government. The Founders were very much concerned with excesses of government, as we should rightly be today. Thus the Bill of Rights establishes our rights as people and citizens of the United States. These are individual rights, for you and for me. Webster’s Dictionary defines Bill of Rights as “the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” The point to all this is the Bill of Rights is a package of rights that cannot be separated.

Acknowledging then, the Bill of Rights was assembled and passed as a package for you and I as individuals, it follows that all ten amendments apply to us, as individuals. Logic dictates that you cannot have it both ways. If the first ten amendments, labeled the Bill of Rights, were established to identify the individual rights of the people, then you cannot take any one of them and make a case that it doesn’t. The same logic applies to wording. For example, the phrase “the right of the people” appears in three of the amendments and the term “no person” appears in one. Both of these phrases either apply to you and I, as individuals, or they don’t. Again you can’t have it both ways. The right of the people in the 1st amendment, for instance, means you and I. It cannot, therefore, mean something other than that in the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, “the right of the people” in the 2nd amendment refers to the very same people it does in the 1st. To attempt to take that right away is to put in jeopardy the rest of the Bill of Rights. If the right of the people in the 2nd amendment means only a government controlled militia, such as the National Guard, then logic follows that the same phrase in the 1st protects only the speech and religion of government officials; freedom of the press is only a government press and the right to peacefully assemble is only for government persons. The 4th amendment protects only government facilities and the 5th only government affiliated people.

By now it should become clear where I am on the issue of the 2nd amendment to our Constitution. You may not like that particular amendment, for what ever reasons, and isn’t it wonderful that you have that right. But, you only have that right as long as you can defend it. As soon as you lose the basic right to defend yourself by arms, if necessary, how long will it take for other rights that we all cherish to become null? It has been said the 2nd amendment is the “first freedom”, that without it all the others are just words on a paper to be trifled with by any politician or government. Think about it, seriously, what kind of rights do the people have in Iran, North Korea, China, under the former rule of the Taliban, or the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren?

With freedom comes responsibility and that involves the willingness to defend that freedom. Our young need to be taught that our “rights of the people” have been secured, not without a heavy cost. You may not like the 2nd amendment. But, thanks to many who gave their all, it is still there. Think before you act; the freedoms you save may be ours.