Constitution, Due Process & The Second Amendment

President Thomas Jefferson addressed all matters of considering the Constitution as being best considered in the light of the intent of its authors.

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed." [Please specially note that the term "trying" was used as in "boiling down" something (eg Whale blubber or the Constitution) to obtain what the actors wish (eg Whale oil or perverse decisions by judges "making law from the bench"; About which please see the novel Moby Dick.]

Two of the comments of the Founders include (As shared by other, like, patriots):

A. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"; "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"; “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. LET THEM TAKE ARMS.” "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (President Thomas Jefferson)

B. “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Their swords and  EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE INSTRUMENT OF THE SOLDIER ARE THE BIRTHRIGHT OF AN AMERICAN.…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”(Emphasis added); “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms (Tench Coxe; Member of The Continental Congress and, later, constitutional scholar and author). [Emphasis added]

[“Tyrants” include street criminals, those waging Jihad, politicians attacking The Bill Of Rights (Especially Articles I, II, IV, V and X) and other criminals.]

Mr. Tench Coxe's remarks, about military-grade, weapons is specially applicable to the AR-15 and like weapons.

The "AR-15" is short-hand for all semi-automatic-only long arms with magazines holding more than eight-rounds. That (Such) weapons have be decried as "weapons of war" by opponents of the fullest exercise by citizens of "the right to keep and bear arms" (Without "infringement). Although I do not own such a firearm, I will accept that application---And approve of it on the basis of the following points.

1. The "AR-15" is the ideal weapon to resist the war-like attacks of home-and-business invaders, those waging Jihad and other dangerous thugs as: It  is much more accurate at the usual self-defense distances of 30-feet or less than are hand-guns; Its light weight and recoil make it more suitable for women and trained youths to use in the home/business defense of self and innocent others; And, its "round" will tumble when hitting walls or criminals---And, not go through them to kill or injure other persons at great distances as do, for example, the "30-30" round so common in hunting rifles.
2. Large magazines allow the usually-needed three rounds to "put down" some thug and for the (According to reports on home invasions) multiple such critters.

3. As Islamic-Terrorists are now waging war (With both guns and bombs) in the USA, that such war-weapon allows citizens (During the usual too-long wait for effective police action) to have a "war weapon" which allows them some chance of defeating those orthodox Muslims waging Islam's commanded "perpetual war" (Jihad) against those "unbelievers" who are 99% of our fellow citizens.
4. Possession of large numbers of such weapons by law-abiding and presumed sane citizens provides a safeguard against government tyranny as rightly feared by the Founders.

Supporters of “reasonable” conditions for gun ownership fail to exactly address the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment---As written by those Founders who were masters of the English language---And knew,also exactly, what “shall not” and “infringed” meant. That lack of considering that clause specially applies to judges and those politicians (Especially in such places as grossly anti-gun Chicago with its growing-and-gross record of illegal shootings). [In other words, I do not find any provision in the Constitution for "reasonable conditions", as would allow infringement, except by "due process of law" as applied to each-and-every, individual, citizen.]

It appears that The Bill Of Rights also requires (Except in time-of-war?) “Due Process Of Law” to take away those rights as it provides. As to the Second Amendment, it appears that there must be no “infringement” except by a court-of-law (Where a jury trial may be demanded) finding that each challenged citizen is too criminal or too dangerously mentally ill to exercise the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Members of the Democratic (sic) Party have taken the lead in attempts to “infringe” on our rights under the Second Amendment (And other provisions of The Bill Of Rights).

What is greatly ignored is that members of that Party, “Registered Democrats” (The Orlando Muslim-Massacre-Monster may have been such) and client-beneficiaries of that Party's policies have made-up the vast majority of those involved in the USA's mass or notorious, unlawful, shootings. (As far as I know, no members of the NRA have been the criminals inflicting such shootings.)

If Democrats (Or any, if any, others) wish to restrict the “right to keep and bear arms”, they should submit an amendment to the Constitution which requires the approval of our democratically elected Members of The Congress and of many State Legislatures. That Party's efforts attempts to bypass that democracy-based process, required by the Constitution and the time needed to make such a critical decision .

The Democrat's insistence on “instant gratification” (And such “temper tantrums” as very recently demonstrated in the chamber of the House of Representatives”) can best be described as infantile.

Those persons also will not admit to the facts that:

1. Armed targets of criminal attacks are less likely to be murdered/maimed than unarmed “sheep”;
2. Many more persons are saved from death or injury by the use (Often “mere” display) of guns than are unlawfully killed or injured by firearms;
3. The primary, world wide, “terrorism by gun” is inflicted by those orthodox Muslims obeying Islam's unalterable command to wage “perpetual war” (ie Jihad) against “unbelievers” (ie 99% of our fellow citizens); And,
4. Most of the unlawful shootings in the USA are by Blacks---To the extent that removal of those acts-and-actors from “The Statistics” would yield a USA violence rate about average for other developed nations.