Martin Blank";p="153390 wrote:
- As a States' right to maintain a militia in the event of a tyranny in the Federal government
The problem with that interpretation is that isn't what it says. It doesn't say "...the right of the several States
to keep and bear arms...", it says "...the right of the people
and bear arms
As a right of the people to allow them to defend themselves against both a tyrannical government and against those others who would do them harm
Exactly. See below for a re-post from another thread:
Phong";p="139367 wrote:And If you think that Texans are actually going to give up their guns, your probably mistaken.
Oh yes. I was out on a boat hunting duck when I accidentally dropped my shotgun into the lake. So you see, I don't have it anymore. No problem, officer. Yes, you too. OK, have a nice day.
/me closes the door, goes to the back room, and starts loading shells.
Benjamin Franklin wrote:They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.
The founding fathers (including Franklin) believed bearing arms was "an essential liberty", so much so that they drafted an entire amendment dedicated to securing this right for any and all persons who fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States of America. Why this isn't self-evident is beyond me.
The authors of the Constitution wrote: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.
Opponents of personal liberty are quick to point out that they interpret it to mean that you have the right to bear arms only if you're in the army. However, this is not what it says, nor is it the intended meaning. Why would the writers of the Constitution bother to get into completely off-topic, silly irrelevancies, things that have nothing to do with individual citizens' freedoms, such as mentioning that it would probably be a good idea for national militaries to be armed--which basically would make them look like a bunch of retards with short attention spans?
No, this argument is apparently presented because they have no idea what a militia is to begin with. The second amendment basically says, "In order to maintain your status as a free person, you must be able to defend yourself. Whether the arms provide defense from an oppressive government--be it domestic or a foreign invader--or from would-be attackers and thieves, the upright citizens of this nation SHALL have the right to bear arms. This right shall NOT be infringed.
But that's exactly what's happening all over the US, and even more so in many other areas of the world. Are people so apathetic that they just don't care at all? Or is it that they're too lazy to bother with fighting for their rights? Or are they so incredibly naive, so trusting of their politicians and would-be kings, that they cannot fathom there being a possibility of ever having to stand up for their freedom? Or have they simply been brainwashed by a strangely coordinated word-twisting effort on the part of the world media to believe that the one's own defense is a matter best left to chance and in the hands of the easily corrupted?
It really disturbs me that people do not seem to grasp the importance of this "essential liberty". Some people try to blame cultural and personal issues on the weapons used as well. See the News: Crossbows, samurai swords to be banned (Aussies...)
thread for more discussion on that part of the topic, including actual statistics in regards to murders and violent crime that have not decreased at all.
Eric (the Deacon remix)
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922