This video (below) is four years old. You may’ve already seen it. But this video makes such an extraordinarily powerful presentation in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, that it deserves to be reviewed and recalled from time to time.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Texas state representative, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, whose parents were killed by an insane gunman while her gun was out in the car, gives moving and bold testimony about one reason that the second amendment protects our God-given right to keep and bear arms.
I would add (as I did for 60 Minutes, Coast to Coast, Follow the Money, etc.) that the reason for the 2nd Amendment (as with all ten Amendments known as the “Bill of Rights”) was to protect the People of the States of the Union from the federal government.
If you Google “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” you’ll be taken to a number of websites that, in addition to the first Ten Amendments that most people are familiar with, also post the “preamble” to Bill of Rights wherein the Founders expressed their intended purpose for those first ten Amendments.
That “preamble” expressly declares that purpose for all ten of the “Bill of Rights” was to “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Constitution's] powers“.
Q: Who could possibly “misconstrue or abuse the powers of the federal Constitution”?
A: Only those who had been entrusted to exercise any of those constitutional “powers”.
Q: Who has been entrusted with “powers” under the federal Constitution?
A: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Officers and employees of the federal government created by that Constitution.
Conclusion: The fundamental purpose of all Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights is to protect the American people from despotic individuals working for the federal government. The fundamental purpose for the 2nd Amendment must therefore be to at least intimidate and, if necessary, shoot any officer or employee of the federal government who misconstrues or abuses the powers of the Constitution.
That’s not what I say. That’s what the Founders implicitly wrote in the preamble to the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is not about duck and deer hunting. It’s about self-defense against tyrannical feds.
I presume that the right to keep and bear arms found in most State constitutions is about empowering the people of that State of the Union to defend themselves against any officer or employee of their State government who misconstrues or abuses the powers of their State’s constitution.
It occurs to me that the 2nd Amendment creates an implicit “right” to shoot federal officers and employees IF they can be shown to have misconstrued or abused the powers of the Constitution. I.e., what good is a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect yourself against despotic officers and employees of the federal government, if you don’t have the correlative right to pull the trigger? In conjunction with the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights, it might be argued that the 2nd Amendment gives the People the right to shoot at, wound, and perhaps kill any federal officer or employee who can be shown to have misconstrued and abused the powers of the federal Constitution.
This is not license to shoot anyone who works for the federal government. Odds are, anyone who tried to shoot a federal officer or employee would be found guilty by a jury and sentenced to prison. But if a very skillful defendant could prove to a jury (and it wouldn’t be easy) that federal officer or employee had “misconstrued or abused” the powers of the Constitution–it is remotely possible that such defendant might convince the jury that he had the right to shoot that federal officer or employee.
Technically, in combination with the intended purpose expressed in the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment might even be taken as evidence that anyone who agreed to serve as officer or employee of the federal government, also implicitly accepted their liability to be shot if they misconstrued or abused the Constitution.
However, all of this conjecture may be at least compromised by some of the language of the 2nd Amendment which declares “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . .” It might thus be argued that only members of “militia” who were on “active duty” might have the right under the 2nd Amendment to shoot federal officers and employees. People acting individually and outside of the militia might have the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to shoot feds who abused or misconstrued the Constitution–at least not until they joined the “militia”.
What, exactly, constitutes the “militia”?
Don’t misconstrue my previous conjecture to be a recommendation that anyone shoot anyone else. I’m simply exploring the language of the preamble to the Bill of Rights and of the 2nd Amendment to see what they might mean.
In any case, here’s the video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s brief but powerful speech to Congress: