Right to Bear Arms Plank
"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."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- The Second and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
At no point would I vote for limits of any sort on the right to bear arms as a federal congressman. There is simply no authorization in the Constitution that delegates this power from the people and the states to United States Congress. States and localities can decide details for themselves based on state constitutions, local preferences, and the U.S. constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
As for my personal view, I have spent several years of my life in China, which bans guns, and this changed how I personally view this issue. There are four exceptions to China's rule, and the first three naturally belong to the State. The power to use force against citizens is retained by the armed forces, the police, and the banks' security personnel who transfer the paper currency.
China's fourth exception is, of course, the criminal class, and they are not disposed to leaving victims alive since the penalties (if caught) are severe. I believe Americans should always be very wary of efforts, especially good-intentioned ones, to regulate the right to own guns and bear arms. One should always remember that unscrupulous individuals, just like criminals in China and everywhere else for that matter, will always avoid and find ways to violate the legislation as they commit theft and assaults.
I believe the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights life, liberty, and justly acquired property against aggression. I also respect the natural rights of those who do not bear arms, and the rights of individuals to forbid the presence of arms in their homes or privately-owned places of business or worship. I am against prior federal acts to control gun ownership as the consequences are often unintended.
Let me be clear and speak plainly. The Second Amendment is NOT about shooting game or even defending your home. It is not even about retaliating when assaulted by criminals; these are all protected de facto. Read it again: "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."
The Second Amendment protects your natural right to freedom from tyranny by using force. It matters not if the tyrants come from our own government.
August 25, 2009
4 Comments
JakeTowne
Just a repost of a comment that I dont want to lose from a supporter in the original post here. http://towneforcongress.com/economy/right-to-bear-arms-plank
I say we ban the private ownership of explosive ordanance. Other than that, sky's the limit. Here goes a thought. I'm gonna break this down, Red Fox explaining the Pledge of Alleigance style. Let me know what you all think:
"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" Regulated means "to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc" (dictionary.com). In other words, if you have a militia, it must follow rules for militas, whether those rules come from the local, state or federal government.
"Milita," Milita being generally defined and understood to mean "...a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service." (wikipedia.org)
"being necessary " meaning "being essential, indispensable, or requisite," meaning, in no uncertain terms, you NEED militias.
"to the security" meaning "freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety."
"of a free State" meaning that the state--"a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation."-- in which this militia shall exist shall owe homage to no higher power than itself, and shall not be ruled by any other power except itself.
"the right" meaning "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral" In the case of the United States, our right to bear arms is legal and just.
"of the people" The people, individual citizens of the Untied States. Not organizations or a collective. Individual persons.
"to keep and bear" To own or be in possession of and "to hold or carry"
"Arms" Weapons. This can mean anything from a simple handgun to an Abrams tank.
"shall not be" Will not, under any circumstances. You really can't make it any clearer.
"infringed." Meaning "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress." No law shall contradict or transgress this law.
The way I believe this statement is to be read is: "Militias that follow the rules for militias are necessary to protect us and insure our safety, therefore, since militias are made up of ordinary citizens, their ability to own and carry weapons of any sort cannot be interefered with."
The militia statement is the opposition's greatest hinge. By using the correct definition of militia, you can easily outline the error in thier thinking. Let us not forget that average, unpaid citizens took up arms against the British occupation and were essential to winning the war for Independence.
-Jordan.
Verum
Arms, as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary is...
"Anything that a man wears for his defense, or cast at or strike at another. This term, as it is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in it's military sense."
I don't recall, ever, seeing the US Army half a world away using Guns/Arms approved by the BATFE, ever. I'm insulted daily that my government, on my behalf, says to me which weapons I may or may-not possess for my defense. What good is the 2nd Amendment if my government owns the very weapons to make mine worthless?
Isn't it wonderful that we the people are allowed to own revolvers and shotguns, when the government at it's own declaration, and willful disreguard of law, can ram a flame-throwing-tank through my front door? (Observe Waco TX, 1993)
The 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, 1986 Huges Amendment, NICS are all, without question and doubt, unconstitutional. The Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) would be useless if we had no BATFE to begin with.
What foreign country (or local government) in it's right/twisted mind would attack a small town of even 20,000 people each armed machine-guns, rocket launchers, and every other terrible implement of war? Observe the Swiss model. Every household by default has at least one machine-gun, and no one invades their land. A person can mount his machine-gun one his bicycle and ride to the range, and look at the crime there. Virtually none to speak of.
The Right to defend yourself is a right that predates the invention of government. Therefore how can government take what it did not give? It can't, it does not have the authority, and it never did.
The joke is over, Gun Control is a failure. I want my rights back, NOW!
Anonymous
Gun Owners of America.com!