' . . . but in a manner to be prescribed by law.'

Friday, I discussed an excellent point made by a fellow gun rights blogger and oppressed Illinoisan. His point (very briefly) was that if one compares the language of the First and Second Amendments, a stronger case could seemingly be made for applying the Second Amendment to not only the federal government, but to the states as well, than could be made for doing so with the First. That, of course, is not how things currently stand, as aspects of the First Amendment are incorporated, but the Second Amendment (to the extent that it's recognized at all) is applied only to the federal government.

Now, DW has made an equally astute observation regarding a comparison between the Second and Third Amendments.

What I find terribly interesting about this Amendment are the words "but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

It seems that this oft-forgotten Amendment carries in its text a provision specifying that limitations can be applied to the right by lawmakers.

The First and Second Amendments, in contrast, carry no such provision. I think this is an embarrassment to those that would like to pass laws infringing upon our rights.

The point here is that the citizen disarmament advocates (those who have finally found themselves unable to maintain the fiction that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, but instead relates only to some mythical "collective right") claim that the Second Amendment does not bar the government from imposing "reasonable restrictions" on that right--said restrictions always understood to be a matter of public safety ("For the children!" of course).

The problem with such "logic" is that the Third Amendment would seem to demonstrate that when the Founding Fathers wished to allow "reasonable restrictions," they damned well said so. They wanted to make a provision that would permit the government to, in time of need, mandate that private citizens quarter troops in their homes, so they put that provision right in the amendment (". . . but in a manner to be prescribed by law.").

The Second Amendment, on the other hand, contains no such caveat. Quite the opposite, in fact--as illustrated by the unequivocal statement that the right in question " . . . shall not be infringed."

The only reasonable conclusion is that "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment are just as much a myth as the "collective rights" interpretation. "Reasonable restrictions" make exactly as much sense as "reasonable tyranny"--which might make sense to Giuliani, but would, I hope, be seen as an offensive oxymoron by those of us who consider ourselves the custodians of a nation borne of a resolve that demanded "give me liberty or give me death!" "Reasonable restrictions" are no more sensible than "reasonable government usurpation of citizen authority," and no more acceptable.

Stick your "reasonable restrictions" where the sun don't shine, or give me death! Alright--I'm clearly no Patrick Henry, but you get the idea.

Be sure to read DW's piece (here's the link, again)--I'm basically just repeating it, but less eloquently (and more verbosely--how did I manage that combination?).