Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Second 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.
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.
Every so often, a tragedy happens of some kind, involving a gun. When it does, we see the usual parade of anti-gun activists emerge yet again, calling for more restrictive gun laws, or outright bans on certain guns. It's as predictable as the sunrise. I can't help but think each time this happens, there are a certain number of people who were supportive of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, who change their minds to some degree. We see this manifest today, when a supposed 'gun-rights' person says they can "see the point in getting rid of automatic assault rifles, etc." To me, this illustrates why radical lefties should never be "agreed" with. It leads to further Leftism. Anti-gun people are not going to be satisfied until every American is disarmed. We need to always remember that, when they are making their emotive pleas to "stop the madness" or whatever. It's all about incrementally divorcing us from our 2nd Amendment rights.
Our founding fathers made this our second most fundamental right as free people. This right, as our others, is inalienable... means you can't take it away because it is endowed as a birthright. It is NO ONES to take. Still, that doesn't dissuade those who want to take this right away. At some point, people who thought they knew and understood the 2nd Amendment, said... meh... okay, maybe we can have some "regulation" of guns and ownership, because they DID use the word "regulated" in there... and that means we can "regulate" guns and gun ownership, but that is not what is meant at all. "A well regulated militia" essentially means "A well-outfitted militia." A militia in which regular maintaining of effectiveness and efficiency is kept diligently. We must remember, in 1776, the states had enemies all around them, the Spanish and Indians in Florida, the French lurking around in the Louisiana territory, the Indians over the Appalachian Mountains... America was not a secure and safe place. We also couldn't respond with military jets out of Washington in a matter of minutes or hours, it took months to move armies into place or send help to people under siege, so it was vital that states maintained a well-regulated armed force, to defend themselves.
Even more than this, there was a deeper sentiment involved. Remember, in 1776 we were severing ties with a King who repressed our rights and rendered us helpless against his armies. Our people had come from tyrannic rule to a country where they could realize freedom and independence. In establishing the new government, the founders were compelled to add some component by which the people would ALWAYS have the ability to rise up and take control of the government, if the government ever became tyrannical. They wanted to ensure this never happened again, so they incorporated the individual right to bear arms, in order that we might defend our other inalienable rights from tyranny. So we have a double purpose for the second amendment, and it was established as the most important right behind freedom to speak, worship, and assemble.
Enter the 20th Century Moderates, and their willingness to entertain the Leftist notions. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment, do we find the governments right to decide what weapons are appropriate, and which can not be allowed. It says our right to bear arms can not be infringed. A "properly regulated militia" should be able to have whatever current weaponry is available, without governmental restriction. In fact, not only that, but it's frankly not any of the government's business, they have no right to KNOW what weaponry we have. Again, something that simply isn't in the 2nd Amendment, the right for government to keep track of who has what weapons. In matters of military strategy, this knowledge is paramount to victory and success, so why would we assume the people are to sacrifice this information to the government? The 2nd doesn't say you have the right to bear arms so long as everyone knows what arms you bear. It says nothing about government registration of firearms, yet we somehow managed to let anti-gun people talk us into that. Were they satisfied? OF COURSE NOT! They want to eliminate all guns for everyone! Incrementalism!
Moderates will holler... "You don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer!" ...But the 2nd Amendment was not created so hunters could hunt. Both hunting and target range shooting, are nice benefits to having the 2nd Amendment, they are not the reason for it. Of course, in 1776, a lot of people DID hunt, they supported themselves by hunting. The gun was seen as a most essential tool in pioneer days, and one would think it's almost something the founding fathers might have simply overlooked, when establishing our inalienable rights. We don't have the specified right to keep and bear hammers, axes and saws. But our 2nd most important right, is to keep and bear arms. That is because the purpose for this right was far more reaching than simply sportsmanship or recreational use. Moderates entertaining the Leftist notions, has somehow shifted the argument to a place it was never intended to be.
Our right to bear arms is inalienable. It is not even permitted by the 2nd amendment for government to know what kind or how many we have.
It's blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
