On the Second Amendment
“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.” - The Second Amendment to the US Constitution
Where I stand
I own firearms and support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I hold a Colorado Concealed Carry Permit. I believe in the Founding Fathers’ purpose of defending liberty with firearms when tyranny raises its head.
That’s not to say we don’t have a firearm problem in the US. Mass shootings and gun violence rear their heads daily. The solution to the firearm problem in this coutry comes down to holding owners responsible.
Better background checks with a database that includes both criminal and psych flags
Hold firearm owners accountable when they fail to use, carry, or store their firearms safely
Charge firearm owners when their guns are used in crimes because they failed to store them safely, i.e. a child finds a gun in the nightstand and shoots up the school
Remove firearms from owners who fail to operate their firearms safely and harm someone with a negligent discharge
Stop making laws limiting specific firearms just because they are scary; that fixes the wrong problem
Historical Context
On December 15, 1791, the Founding Fathers ratified the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment. Since that time it has been one of the most controversial constitutional amendments.
A well-regulated militia…
At the time the US had no standing army, preferring to rely on citizen militias to protect our young nation. Ordinary citizens had to be ready at any time to stand in defense of the country. In making this point the framers wrote the first clause of the amendment. A clause that since has created much debate as future legal scholars debated whether they meant that the miliia or the arms should be well-regulated. Based on the laws made by the same group, I put forth they meant that both should be well-regulated.
There were targeted restrictions on who could own firearms. Those labeled dangerous through criminal behaviour, limits on “dangerous and unusual weapons” such as cannons and blunderbusses, and the storage of large quantities of gunpowder were put in place. There were also racial prohibitions, restricting the possession of firearms for black people.
That said, the overall consensus at the time was stated clearly in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, “no freemen shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
…being necessary to the security of a free state…
As mentioned, the US had no standing army at the time and that was for good reason. The Founding Fathers had just broken free from the oppression of the British. They were distrustful of having a standing military, preferring instead a militia made up of regular citizens to protect the fledgling democracy from invaders and from a tyranical government should the goverment ever be corrupted. This was made clear in the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founding Fathers.
…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is where the debates start. What is infringement? Absolutists would say the constitution guarantees the right to own and carry any weapon. Some say the “well-regulated” clause implies that the government can limit what arms can be legally owned and carried or who can carry them.
Even the SCOTUS over the years has had different interpretations.
In Presser v. Illinois, 1886, the SCOTUS upheld a state law prohibiting private militias and held that the Second Amendment restricts only federal action, not the states.
In United States v. Miller, 1939, SCOTUS upheld a federal ban on sawed off shotguns under the National Firearms Act of 1934, ruling that the Second Amendment protects only weapons “in common use” for lawful purposes such as militia service.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, SCOTUS made a marked switch from a collective right interpretation to an individual right, recognizing an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self‑defense within the home, separate from militia service and rendering the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional.
McDonald v. Chicago, 2010, applied the Heller individual‑right holding to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. State and local gun bans are subject to the same scrutiny.
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 2022, declared that modern gun regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed‑carry permits. This cemented the court’s history and traditon test as applied in Heller and McDonald.
Today
There is no consensus on the Second Amendment in the US. There will always be absolutists who would be fine carrying a rocket propelled grenade launcher into Arby’s. There will also be those who’d prefer we melted down all of the guns. Then there is reality. There are more firearms in the US than there are people. It is unrealistic to believe that disarmament is possible, even if there was the legal will to do so. This also applies to “assault rifles” such as the AR-15 and AK-47. When the Assault Weapons Ban expired that cat jumped out of the bag and it won’t be going back.
That doesn’t mean we can only send “thoughts and prayers” every time a mass shooting happens. We can limit access to firearms with better background checks that include psych flags. We can remove firearms from those who operate and store them improperly. We can hold owners responsible for how they are used. We can start fixing the real problems with firearms, the people pulling the triggers.
With liberty and justice for all
The promise of “liberty and justice for all” is a constitutional commitment that demands concrete social structures. The freedoms that underpin democracy cannot be realized when we lose sight of this fact. The pillars of liberty must be shored up if we are ever to attain the vison which our nation was founded. I know this topic will anger some, but I ask you to remember, rights aren’t a limited thing. Others gaining rights doesn’t take away your rights. Rights aren’t pie. Everyone can have them without you giving up any.
1. Bodily Autonomy: The Bedrock of All Rights
Bodily autonomy means that each person has the exclusive right to control what happens to their own body. It is the foundation upon which other liberties rest. If you cannot control your own body, no other right matters.
Reproductive Rights
The right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy is a quintessential exercise of bodily autonomy. When a person’s ability to decide about their reproductive health is stripped away, women die. The fundamental core of this right isn’t the argument so often presented about when life begins. Instead it lies in equal protection under law. No man can be made to risk their own life to keep another person alive. This renders the fetus/baby argument moot. If I as a man cannot be made to use my body to keep someone alive, equal protection under law requires that anyone with a uterus recieves that same right.
If that argument isn’t enough for you, there’s another vital point. Access to abortion saves lives. Pregnancy in the best of times is risky. Access to abortion is often the only way to protect a mother’s health. When safe, legal abortions aren’t available, desperite people will turn to unsafe back-alley abortion. Before Roe v. Wade between 5,000 and 10,000 women died every year in back-alley abortions. Hundreds more died due to pregnancy related complications. Access to abortion saves lives.
If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one.
Gender‑Affirming Care
For transgender, non‑binary, and gender‑diverse people, access to gender‑affirming medical care (hormones, surgeries, counseling) saves lives. Denying that care forces individuals to live in bodies that do not reflect their identities, leading to severe mental‑health consequences and marginalization. Recognizing gender‑affirming care as a protected right affirms the principle that no one may be compelled to surrender control over their own body.
Gender-affirming care isn’t just for trans people. Hair transplants, breast implants, hormone replacement, etc are all gender affirming. Men who develop breast tissue, gynecomastia, need the same surgery trans men get to remove the unwanted tissue.
If you don’t like gender-affirming care, don’t get it. Others getting it doesn’t harm you in any way.
Why Autonomy Is Fundamental
If the state can dictate what we do with our bodies, it gains a foothold to regulate speech, belief, and association. Protecting bodily autonomy therefore protects the entire architecture of liberty, ensuring that the government cannot arbitrarily intervene in the most private aspects of our lives.
2. Freedom of Religion—and Freedom From Religion
The religion clauses of the First Amendment guarantees two intertwined freedoms:
Free Exercise: Individuals may practice any religion—or none at all—without governmental interference.
Establishment Clause: The government may not favor, endorse, or establish any religion.
The Founding Fathers were students of history. They understood the conflicts that arose from state-sponsored religion. Eurpoean history showed them the folly of mixing government and religion.
Equality Across Faiths
A truly inclusive society treats every faith tradition with equal respect. Whether someone follows Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Indigenous spiritualities, or identifies as atheist, the state must remain neutral. This neutrality protects minority religions from majoritarian oppression and safeguards secular citizens who choose not to worship.
For those who want their religion to take legal precedence, think about it this way. How would you feel if the chosen state religion wasn’t the one you believe in. Even among Christian sects, there is sufficient difference that choosing one would alienate many others. By keeping separation, it grants room for all to worship as they wish.
History shows that when governments align with a particular faith, dissenting voices—whether religious or secular—are silenced, and civil liberties erode. Maintaining a clear wall between church and state preserves the pluralistic fabric essential to liberty and justice.
3. Freedom of the Press: A Bulwark Against Tyranny
A free, independent press serves is core to a functioning democracy. Jouranlists investigate and expose abuses of power, keeping officials accountable. This information provides citizens with the facts needed to make informed choices in a democracy. An informed populace is central to the preservation of a free state.
When the press is constrained—through censorship, intimidation, or corporate monopolies—the public loses its primary mechanism for checking governmental overreach. An empowered press is therefore a cornerstone of liberty, ensuring that tyranny cannot flourish unnoticed.
4. Freedom of Speech: Guarding the Marketplace of Ideas
Freedom of speech protects the right to express opinions, even unpopular or dissenting ones, without fear of government retaliation. Its importance lies in several key ways:
Prevents Government Censorship: By limiting the state’s ability to silence criticism, speech freedom keeps elected officials honest.
Encourages Democratic Participation: Citizens can advocate for change, organize movements, and challenge policies openly.
Fosters Social Progress: Historically, marginalized groups have relied on free speech to demand civil rights, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ protections.
Without robust speech protections, the other rights discussed—bodily autonomy, religious liberty, press freedom—could be easily curtailed. Free expression is the thread that weaves together the tapestry of liberty.
5. How DEI Makes These Freedoms Work in Practice
Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not abstract buzzwords; they are practical mechanisms that ensure the constitutional guarantees reach every person.
Diversity brings a multiplicity of perspectives into policymaking, media, and workplaces, preventing homogenous thinking that can blind societies to systemic injustices.
Equity addresses historic and structural disadvantages, ensuring that marginalized groups receive the resources they need to enjoy the same freedoms as others.
Inclusion creates environments where all voices are heard, respected, and valued—essential for a vibrant public discourse.
When DEI is embedded in institutions—from schools to courts to corporations—it reinforces the very rights that protect liberty. For example, inclusive curricula that teach about gender identity and religious pluralism normalize bodily autonomy and religious freedom, making them less likely to be politicized or restricted.
Conclusion
Liberty and justice for all cannot exist in a vacuum. They require a societal framework that celebrates diversity, guarantees equitable treatment, and actively includes every individual. Bodily autonomy safeguards the personal sphere; religious freedom and the separation of church and state protect belief; a free press shines light on abuse; and free speech ensures that ideas can circulate without fear.
Together, these principles form an interdependent ecosystem. Undermining any one element weakens the whole, jeopardizing the promise that every person—regardless of gender, faith, race, or background—can truly enjoy liberty and justice. Building and defending DEI is therefore not merely a moral choice; it is a constitutional imperative for preserving the freedoms that define a democratic society.