"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."
This is the second amendment to the Constitution.
As you can see, it is not wordy, nor does it go into in-depth detail.
The details are available, for anyone who cares to look. The Founding Fathers were verbose men, and not only did they use words, they refused to mince those words. They meant what they meant.
There are letters.
There are recorded (on paper) debates.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
What is a free state?
What must a state be free of or from?
A free state is one where its citizens makes its laws, makes its decisions, and decides on the details of everyday living.
A free state is NOT a police state.
A free state is not a subject to a nation. It is a part of one, by consent of the citizens.
What is security, in a free state?
Being able to live a life is a good start.
Family, home, job, friends, income, knowledge, and the ability to come and go freely sound as if they may it that description.
I'll leave "well-regulated" alone. That has been, and continues to be the most debated part of the amendment.
Regulated in what ways? By laws? By common practices? By individuals' rights?
Who is to say? Who says who gets to say?
It has always been a contentious point, and I believe that is why those words were deliberately chosen and placed at the front of the amendment.
The last words are "shall not be infringed."
Infringement.
Regulated.
Are these words opposites? Are they synonyms? How? Why?
The heart of the issue, in the center of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
This is also the heart of the controversy.
I am not a gun person.
I think having guns in every home and every vehicle is (if you will) overkill. I don't think they are necessary in daily life, and I do think they are dangerous to daily life.
I am, however, a believer in the Constitution, and in the intents of the Bill Of Rights.
The times we are living in are proving the wisdom of our Freedom Founding Fathers in creating this amendment, and the clever wording they used.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that no government can overpower them. So that no organized troops may overwhelm them.
The right of the state with its well-regulated militia, so that no national government can overpower them. So that no national troops can overwhelm them.
These are the rights that are not to be infringed upon, both at the local state government level, and also for individuals.
But individuals don't need assault weapons, you may say.
Do police need those? Why?
You can bet, if the city police or the national guard marches down my street shooting at my homes, businesses, neighbors, and children, I want myself or my defenders to be equally if not better armed than they are.
That is the intent of the amendment. That government must not be better armed than the citizenry.
How will you defend yourself against the assault weapons?
How will you defend against the National Guard?
Where the hell are the Constitutional STATE militias meant to defend their neighbors and friends?
This is the second amendment to the Constitution.
As you can see, it is not wordy, nor does it go into in-depth detail.
The details are available, for anyone who cares to look. The Founding Fathers were verbose men, and not only did they use words, they refused to mince those words. They meant what they meant.
There are letters.
There are recorded (on paper) debates.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
What is a free state?
What must a state be free of or from?
A free state is one where its citizens makes its laws, makes its decisions, and decides on the details of everyday living.
A free state is NOT a police state.
A free state is not a subject to a nation. It is a part of one, by consent of the citizens.
What is security, in a free state?
Being able to live a life is a good start.
Family, home, job, friends, income, knowledge, and the ability to come and go freely sound as if they may it that description.
I'll leave "well-regulated" alone. That has been, and continues to be the most debated part of the amendment.
Regulated in what ways? By laws? By common practices? By individuals' rights?
Who is to say? Who says who gets to say?
It has always been a contentious point, and I believe that is why those words were deliberately chosen and placed at the front of the amendment.
The last words are "shall not be infringed."
Infringement.
Regulated.
Are these words opposites? Are they synonyms? How? Why?
The heart of the issue, in the center of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
This is also the heart of the controversy.
I am not a gun person.
I think having guns in every home and every vehicle is (if you will) overkill. I don't think they are necessary in daily life, and I do think they are dangerous to daily life.
I am, however, a believer in the Constitution, and in the intents of the Bill Of Rights.
The times we are living in are proving the wisdom of our Freedom Founding Fathers in creating this amendment, and the clever wording they used.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that no government can overpower them. So that no organized troops may overwhelm them.
The right of the state with its well-regulated militia, so that no national government can overpower them. So that no national troops can overwhelm them.
These are the rights that are not to be infringed upon, both at the local state government level, and also for individuals.
But individuals don't need assault weapons, you may say.
Do police need those? Why?
You can bet, if the city police or the national guard marches down my street shooting at my homes, businesses, neighbors, and children, I want myself or my defenders to be equally if not better armed than they are.
That is the intent of the amendment. That government must not be better armed than the citizenry.
How will you defend yourself against the assault weapons?
How will you defend against the National Guard?
Where the hell are the Constitutional STATE militias meant to defend their neighbors and friends?
No comments:
Post a Comment