The Second Amendment should not be infringed

Rebecca Wagner /

The Second Amendment states: “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.” (Emphasis mine.)

It occurred to me recently that the word “infringed” is significant. My computer’s definition of “infringe” is: “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on as in his legal rights were being infringed.”

Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary says: “Infringe” is to “fail to conform with; violate ... encroach.”

“Encroach” is defined as: “to overstep the limits of what belongs to or is due to one ... to make gradual inroads ...”

Well, guess what is happening to the Second Amendment: All the restrictions, prohibitions and regulations the anti-gun movement has already implemented or wants to implement are INFRINGING on it. They are encroaching, acting so as to limit or undermine, making gradual inroads against the Second Amendment.

Until or unless this is changed, not by “executive order,” but legally and through the proper congressional channels and ratified by the states, there is nothing in the Second Amendment about what type, quality or quantity of “arms” “the people” may bear, and any attempt to limit citizens’ access, type, quality or quantity of arms is an obvious infringement of the Second Amendment, and it must not be tolerated.

I have seen three quotes recently that indicate the authors of the amendment defined “militia” as the total citizenry, and that the purpose of the amendment was to give citizens parity with the government’s military as a safeguard against tyranny. Yes, weapons have changed a lot in the last 200 plus years; with today’s military firepower, parity is no longer possible. The government will have the edge in any conflict with the citizenry.

So think about this: If gun control proponents manage to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and Congress by passing the proposed gun ban, and if our government moves from the proposed universal registration to nominal criminalization of the citizenry who refuse to “voluntarily” turn in their weapons (and there will be millions), and if the government then moves on to enforced confiscation, we will see in this country many more incidents of shameful government abuse and atrocities such as Waco and Ruby Ridge.

This is becoming obvious to many reasonable people who are becoming fearful of an ever larger more dictatorial government.

As an example, one of my good friends — a very intelligent, highly educated older woman who is just now getting her concealed carry permit — actually said to me recently that while she never expected to say it, she fully expects to end her life being shot by her government.

Let me repeat that: BEING SHOT BY HER GOVERNMENT! And when I have relayed this sentiment to other friends in the same situation, they agree with it.

When ordinary, reasonable, tax-paying, law-abiding people make this kind of statement, just what does that say about the state of foreboding and division in this endangered republic?

Postscript: I’m a small woman. In my almost 70 years, I’ve had to use my wits more than once to defuse a potentially dangerous situation.

Joe Salazar recently said on Fox News that women shouldn’t have the right to shoot a gun at a potential assailant, that they should fake diseases or vomit to stop a rapist. It might work; many years ago while traveling alone in Europe, where I had no weapon available but my own brain, I personally stopped an intoxicated potential rapist by deliberately making him laugh, thereby making him human again and apologetic about what he was about to do.

But in many situations, guns can be an essential tool for women against home invasions, muggings and rapists. Here in this country, where guns are still legal, they are a great equalizer for us, and their availability must be preserved.