Re-framing the Second Amendment Debate.....

If firearm owners and the organizations that represent them hope to win the debate regarding the Second Amendment right to bear arms, then the entire debate must be re-framed.


For far too long, this debate has been framed by those who oppose a constructionist view of the Second Amendment solely in legal terms.  Therein lies the problem.  As any debater can tell you, the first axiom of debate is that the side that frames the debate ultimately wins the debate. 


As was true of the fight to secure the right of minorities to vote, among other social issues, we will only truly make ground when we come to realize that the Second Amendment expresses a human right.  The Bill of Rights is entirely about human rights, those rights that were recognized by the States as having been bestowed upon humans by God Himself. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because, as originally written, the Constitution, masterpiece that it is, failed to provide protections for these most basic rights.  It was for this reason, to insure that the Constitution did not create yet another all-powerful centralized government that had no regard for the inherent rights of its citizens, that the Bill of Rights was created in the first place.  Before the right to bear arms is a legal right, it is first a human right.


This recognition will change the complexion of the debate that surrounds current treatments of the Second Amendment. The sooner firearm owners and the organizations that represent them come to terms with this realization, the sooner we will begin to re-frame this debate in terms of a basic human right, and the sooner we will be able to establish a firmer legal foundation for our right to self-defense and the accompanying right to bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment.