Originally Posted by Eliseus
The Second Amendment is not a grant of any right or priviledge. Rather, it is a RESTRICTION of governmental power. It restricts the government from infringing on the [already pre-existing, inalienable God-given] right to both keep (own) and BEAR arms (weapons).
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to place within the federal Constitution a prohibition on the government's ability to impede the people's right to be armed in the event of insurrection or invasion.
On April 19th, 1775, government law enforcement went to Concord to seize the militia stockpile of weapons. This was the time of Paul Revere's famous "the British are coming" ride. At Lexington Green, on April 19th, civilian militiamen opened fire on government troops who had come to disarm the people.
As a result, April 19th has for a long time been known as Patriot's Day.
Those who argue the Second Amendment protects the rights of people to engage in "sport shooting" or hunting are completely ignorant of the real purpose of "keeping and bearing arms". The Second Amendment makes no mention of hunting or sport shooting.
It says "a well regulated militia being necesary to the security of a free state..." which means that a well supplied armed citizenry is necessary to have a free country.
The founding fathers placed within the core government charter of our country the truth that an armed civilian population is NECESSARY to have a free country.
Freedom in America is not guaranteed by the existence of the US military, the threat of massive military retaliation against foreign attackers, or any such thing. Rather, FREEDOM is guaranteed (according to the Constitution) by the existence of a well equipped armed civilian population.
"Well regulated" does not mean "strangled by governmental regulations and ordinances", but means equipped. The term regulated referred to logistics and supply.
Furthermore, current federal laws regarding firearms ownership are contrary to the original intent, not to mention the plain letter, of the Constitution.
The recent Federal Appeals case in Parker vs DC proved this, when it was declared that the types of arms which are guaranteed to the people are the common military weapons of the day suitable to an individual soldier - which means individual, soldier-operated and soldier carried weapons. Which in turn means any weapon a single soldier can be outfitted with is a suitable milita weapon.
The "hunting or sporting purposes" requirement placed on import and manufacturing (as well as the 1968 ban on manufacturing of full automatic weapons) is thus unConsitutional. The older Supreme Court "Miller" case also clearly implies this.
Furthermore, the militia was not and is not the NAtional Guard. The Supreme Court as well as most State constitutions maintain that the militia is "all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 capable of bearing arms" at least (this is the Federal Militia law). Texas, for example, extends that to age 65 I believe, and most legal authorities recognise the application of milita law to women as well as men. Property owning requirements for membership in the state or federal militia have been dropped, as far as I know.
In other words, if you are an able bodied adult between 18 and 45, you are in the militia already.
|
Threaded Mode
