Guns and the 2nd 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.” Second Amendment.
At the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, not one of the 13 Colonies restricted in any way the possession of firearms, or any other weapons, including cannons or bombs by the citizenry.
Thus it was only natural that the Constitution itself should contain prohibitions against the Federal Government having or exercising a power that the states did not have or exercise.
The Founders were quite aware of the role that weapons prohibition had consistently played in world history, from the dawn of civilization, and how it had always worked to the advantage of tyranny, and never to the benefit of the ordinary person, but rather weapons controls were always an aid to the suppression of all other human freedoms.
To control weaponry is to control subject people in all other matters of freedom to one degree or another, and dictators understand this very well. The only ones who don't understand this is the ordinary brainwashed everyday person.
Hitler for example made gun control a high priority and told the people over and over that the police and military had all the guns necessary to protect them, but who was going to protect them from the the police and military when they, following orders, came for them and their children?
Presently, all but six of our states have wording similar to the second Amendment in their Constitutions, while none prohibit possession entirely.
But, since the Supreme Court, under the doctrine of incorporation, has ruled that nearly every provision of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, such a ruling regarding the second Amendment is thereby both sought and anticipated by those advocating on behalf of gun rights.
As for the intention of the Founders, the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment is that it provides for the highest level of safety and security for both the individual states, and the individual citizen, the one not being thought separate from the other, and the one being not possible without the other. The idea was to not allow the Federal government to infringe upon either right in terms of controlling or prohibiting weaponry of any sort.
The thinking being that should a state or an individual, or any group of states or individuals, wish to buy and maintain at their own expense any sort or numbers of weapons, that that ownership is not, and should not be, considered any threat to the Federal Government or anyone else, but rather an asset in service to the purpose of protecting the nation and all those in it from any harm.
“Well regulated” means the Founders had a preference for militias that were well regulated, but no one had to join one to have the right to weapons. Certainly they did not intend for the National Guard to be the way we were to exercise our right to be armed, especially as it is now a branch of the Federal military. The sense of regulated was to call attention to the need for the people to organize themselves militarily to defend the nation, as a standing professional army, such as existed in Europe, was considered to be a threat to the freedom of the people.
Thus militia should be “well regulated” but NOT by the Federal Government, but rather first and foremost by its own officers and chain of command, and secondly indirectly by its close cooperation with local authorities such as the sheriff of the County, local police, and finally state authorities.
It doesn’t mean that any of these need to, or should, “control” these militias, but that common sense would indicate that all of them voluntarily cooperate to the end of protecting our people from foreign invasion, and domestic disorder.
Clearly any criminal acts by these militias or any of their members should be treated as one would any other criminal act. If anything, militias should be held to an even higher standard of conduct, morality, ethics and loyalty to law and order.
Typically, (ironic, but predictable,) it is the party of slavery that always seems to want to regulate, control, and ban gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Whats could be their motive?
Presently, all but six of our states have wording similar to the second Amendment in their Constitutions, while none prohibit possession entirely.
But, since the Supreme Court, under the doctrine of incorporation, has ruled that nearly every provision of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, such a ruling regarding the second Amendment is thereby both sought and anticipated by those advocating on behalf of gun rights.
As for the intention of the Founders, the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment is that it provides for the highest level of safety and security for both the individual states, and the individual citizen, the one not being thought separate from the other, and the one being not possible without the other. The idea was to not allow the Federal government to infringe upon either right in terms of controlling or prohibiting weaponry of any sort.
The thinking being that should a state or an individual, or any group of states or individuals, wish to buy and maintain at their own expense any sort or numbers of weapons, that that ownership is not, and should not be, considered any threat to the Federal Government or anyone else, but rather an asset in service to the purpose of protecting the nation and all those in it from any harm.
“Well regulated” means the Founders had a preference for militias that were well regulated, but no one had to join one to have the right to weapons. Certainly they did not intend for the National Guard to be the way we were to exercise our right to be armed, especially as it is now a branch of the Federal military. The sense of regulated was to call attention to the need for the people to organize themselves militarily to defend the nation, as a standing professional army, such as existed in Europe, was considered to be a threat to the freedom of the people.
Thus militia should be “well regulated” but NOT by the Federal Government, but rather first and foremost by its own officers and chain of command, and secondly indirectly by its close cooperation with local authorities such as the sheriff of the County, local police, and finally state authorities.
It doesn’t mean that any of these need to, or should, “control” these militias, but that common sense would indicate that all of them voluntarily cooperate to the end of protecting our people from foreign invasion, and domestic disorder.
Clearly any criminal acts by these militias or any of their members should be treated as one would any other criminal act. If anything, militias should be held to an even higher standard of conduct, morality, ethics and loyalty to law and order.
Typically, (ironic, but predictable,) it is the party of slavery that always seems to want to regulate, control, and ban gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Whats could be their motive?
No comments:
Post a Comment