The purpose of the Second Amendment

Ed Protas' guest column (The Nugget, January 9, page 2) illustrates what is wrong with the discussion over gun control.

It is Mr. Protas' opinion that the purpose of the Second Amendment "must be considered in the context of the time," that it was meant to provide the means for an armed force of citizens to be available to resist whatever attempts were made to exert tyranny and oppression from outside the country.

He further asserts that when viewed through the lens of history, this is no longer a valid need as the founders never envisaged the sort of standing army and its myriad capabilities we now have.

Hence he advocates "reconsidering" the need for the Second Amendment, and indirectly implies that it should be eliminated.

Let's use history here, but for the purpose of stating what the founders intended the purpose of the Second Amendment to be, in their own words. Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors, said: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." Similar quotations exist from James Madison, Patrick Henry, and George Mason. It is clear that the founders were equally concerned about oppression and tyranny from inside the country.

One can discuss and debate whether the concern expressed by the founders is as relevant today as it was then, but you cannot claim that the Second Amendment was meant for something it was not. Everything about gun control stems from this question - what is the purpose of the Second Amendment, including what sort of arms should the citizenry have access to, to fulfill the founders intent.

It is clear that Jefferson saw this as a potential threat to liberty that would naturally increase over time: "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." He was - and remains - correct. Over 70 years later, Abraham Lincoln re-affirmed the purpose of the Second Amendment with this statement: "We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to (resist) men who pervert the Constitution."

If there is to be a legitimate, productive discussion about gun control, we should at least make it intellectually honest by acknowledging the purpose of the Second Amendment, and - if it be that the country wants to change it - then do that as the Constitution calls for.

Unless and until that happens, responsible gun owners who believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the preservation of our liberties, will have grave concerns about those like Senator Nancy Pelosi, who is on record as having said: "If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated," or Senator Diane Feinstein, who is similarly on record with this statement: "If I could have banned them all ...

I would have!" Neither these two officials, nor any of the numerous others now in office who have made similar statements, like Charles Schumer, have ever retracted them.

They have a right to their opinion, but I have a very strong problem with their deceiving the public about their intentions, which is precisely what they are doing when they say, as they have in recent weeks, that they "have no intention of taking away anyone's right to hunt or protect themselves," or they "believe in the Second Amendment." The former is intellectually dishonest; the latter demonstrably untrue. How can you possibly believe in something for which you will not acknowledge its purpose? Any thinking person has to consider that their willingness to deceive in their attempts to generate public support for their aims, confirms the fears of the founders.

David Opsahl is a resident of Camp Sherman.