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.
shall not be infringed.
This is an Orthodox American. He was the militia. That was his gun. This amendment was written to protect and ensure his rights. He understood the meaning and the reason for this amendment. Nothing has changed except for the technological improvements to the gun. The threats it protected him against are still as real in 2013 as they were in 1776. He would be very leery of a government that aspires to legislate away his rights to arm and defend himself as he chooses fit while at the same time arming themselves more and more, at tax payer expense. Very leery. As should we.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I hope everyone has a great weekend.
I don't have strong feelings on guns one way or the other, as you know, but I have a huge fundamental aversion to revoking the rights of the American people. Little by little, our government has eroded our rights to enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Measures such as the Patriot Act failed to balance the needs of national security with the rights of the individual, and the outcome has been that we are under greater surveillance, and have less freedom to speak without repercussion, than ever before. Whether one personally condones the ownership of guns or not (I could care less), they are obligated to protect the fundamental tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - in this case, preserving access to guns for those that wish to arm themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing that I think the anti-gun argument completely bypasses is the fact that the only people injured by more stringent gun laws are those who choose to follow the law in the first place. Having had some former involvement in law enforcement, I can tell you that most violent crime involving guns is perpetrated by people that own unregistered firearms that they obtained on the street. How will restricting ownership stop the black/gray market proliferation of these weapons? That's an answer no one has been able to provide to my satisfaction.
Okay - I'll bite. What most seem to overlook is the first sentence of this amendment. At a time when every able bodied man was ready to grab his flint musket, run into the night, and possibly fight a foreign invader upon our shores. They wanted to ensure every citizen was able to defend their country because we didn't have a standing army, navy, air force, national guard or coast guard. It was up to every volunteer to stand up for the country in a time of need. I don't believe they had a concept of evolving technologies and more than we can conceive of the weapons of destruction that might exist in 200 years. We don't have minutemen, we don't have militias to defend our communities, what we have is a weapon anyone for any reason can take life with a flick of their finger. Many are intelligent responsible weapon owners, like yourself, that understand the ramifications of using a gun. For many, mental health aside, act with impulse, emotion and other means that do not forsee the grave result - no reseting - dead is dead.
ReplyDelete