Thursday June 30, 2016
Jump to content
The Second Amendment says, "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 question of whether the first few words, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," make the right to bear arms a collective one or an individual one has been settled by the Supreme Court by going to original sources and learning what our forefathers meant. The Supreme Court found it to be an individual right, so we can skip that discussion.
What does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" mean?
It means that each of us has the the right to own and bear arms. The 14th Amendment applies that right, and the rule against infringement upon it, (all first 9 amendments, in fact) to state and local governments as well.
Regarding the right to BUY a gun, that says, as clearly as it can be said, that:
Neither federal, state, nor local governments can infringe upon your right to buy a gun.
Is it an infringement on your right if the State of New York writes a law that says you can only OWN a gun if the State of New York feels you need one?
Obviously. The same is for any other level of government. We'll come back to that in a moment.
What about "arms?" What does the word mean?
At the time the Constitution was written it meant any arms. Any standard dictionary will tell you that "arms" means: "weapons and ammunition; armaments."
Notice that there is no limitation. Notice also that our forefathers did not intend to place an limitation on what we could own. Cannon? Sure. Anything else? Sure. That is plainly true because for hundreds of years no restrictions were placed on the ownership of any kind of arms, none whatsoever.
What about an A-bomb? Good question. We sure as hey don't want anyone owning one, do we? And what about the other question we said we would come back to? "Is it an infringement on your right if the State of New York writes a law that says you can only have a gun if the State of New York feels you need one?"
Suppose we want to change the 2nd Amendment. Can we do it? Sure. We can write another amendment, run it through Congress, and get it approved by the states.
Another way is write a law which we feel falls WITHIN what would have been the original intent of the Constitution. When we do that, and the law is challenged, as it may be, the Supreme Court looks at the original intent of the law and either strikes it down or permits it to stand. Under this logical, and Constitutionally sound, method such things as the sale of nuclear weapons to individuals have been banned.
What we CAN'T do is try to go around the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution for that matter, when we know full well that we are going against its original intent.
So why do anti-gun people keep trying to do that?
Because they know full well that they can't take away guns legally, so they try to do it illegally.
And why do they not tell the truth about things like school shootings? Why do they not tell us that requiring background checks will not make schools, streets, or your home any safer? Why do they not tell us that the most respected, and non-partisan, agencies in our nation all say the same things?
Because they use our emotions against us, using propaganda to do things they know full well they cannot legally do, but keep on trying to do.
The problem is, you see, that some people do not like guns. They just do not like them. That is their right. God bless them, I would fight for that right just as I fight for anyone else's right to his beliefs.
But their are other people, elitists who believe that this nation should be ruled by an aristocracy, by those who are "special," those who "know best." Those people harness the dislike of guns held by some people to talk them into stripping away the rights we were all born with, the "inalienable rights" of which Tom Jefferson spoke in the Declaration of Independence.
Remember? "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"
Basically, the right to own and bear arms is included in our Bills of Rights to protect those three most basic, most precious rights.
You have a right to protect your life; that may require a weapon, and it is one reason you have a right to own arms.
You have a right to liberty, and our founding fathers made it very clear when they wrote the 2nd Amendment that your protection from an elitist government which would take away that right required that you be armed; they made that very clear in newspaper articles which explained--at the time!--that was one reason the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.
In the term "pursuit of happiness" the word "pursuit" was used by our founding fathers to mean the same thing as "occupation" (such as pursuing medicine, law, or car repair). It meant engaging in something, not chasing a rainbow. And it, of course, says very clearly that you have an absolute right to choose what you will do with your life. An elitist, aristocratic government, one which feels it should make life choices for you, in inimical to that right to choose your own path, and the only sure way to retain that right, as our forefathers made perfectly clear when they said what the Second Amendment is all about, is to be armed.
One more subject needs to be addressed: The use by some people in the mainstream media of half truths, lies, and emotion to control what we think and do. Most journalists refuse to abuse their positions, but there are some who will stoop as low as they need to go to plant ideas in our heads, whip us into a frenzy, and use us for their own purposes.
I will close this with a comment made by the most respected law enforcement agency on this planet, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It tells us how much credence we should put on statements made by the mainstream media at times when an emotional event such as the recent Boston bombings or the tragic shootings in Connecticut occur.
From, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation Report on the school shooter: A threat assessment perspective."
"Study done by the FBI Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) and the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC)."
"Misinformation About School Shootings"
"Though school shootings are extensively covered in the news media, the information available in news reports is not necessarily complete, accurate, or balanced. News coverage is inherently hasty and often relies on sources who themselves have incomplete or inaccurate information. And journalists ordinarily do not have access to police and other investigative reports that may contain highly significant but confidential information about a school shooting incident or about the background, previous activities, and traits of the student or students who carried out the shooting."
"To the extent that academics, researchers, and other specialists writing in professional publications base their articles on news accounts or other public sources, these too should be viewed with some reservations since they will also lack critical information available only in confidential school or law enforcement files."
I hope this clears the air a little.
Posting comments requires a free account