Skip to comments.Response to Sun News SoundOff (LC, NM - Sun News)
Posted on 04/13/2009 8:14:37 AM PDT by OneWingedShark
Regarding the 07 Apr 09 Sound Off! comment: In one week, mass shootings have killed over 30 people. The shooters are well-armed. Automatic weapons and assault rifles need to be taken out of gun show and retail sales. There is not right to own an assault rifle in the Constitution.
Hm, lets take this apart and see how truthful this statement is. The 2ND Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows: 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.
So, obviously there is a connection to the militia here. What exactly is the militia? The New Mexico Constitution defines it in Article 18: ARTICLE XVIII Militia Sec. 1. [Composition, name and commander in chief of militia.] The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the "national guard of New Mexico," of which the governor shall be the commander in chief. Sec. 2. [Organization, discipline and equipment of militia.] The legislature shall provide for the organization, discipline and equipment of the militia, which shall conform as nearly as practicable to the organization, discipline and equipment of the regular army of the United States, and shall provide for the maintenance thereof.
So, it is patently obvious, from sections 1 & 2, that there is a right to be equipped with the same assault weapons that the US Army has. Moreover, while the second part of the 2ND Amendment of the US Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. our state Constitution says, in article 2: Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
As you can see, the States acknowledgment of the Right to bear arms is even more liberal than the US Constitutions: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense this includes prohibiting the possession of weapons based on style or functionality (further emphasized by forbidding cities & counties from regulating weapons).
Next time you want to say something regarding Constitutionality, please read the pertinent sections of the pertinent documents.
Specialist Edward Fish New Mexico Army National Guard
You might like my reply here. (I wanted to post my response online in case the Editors decided against running my rebuttal.)
Based on then-recent history, the Founders feared a strong central government with a standing army. Yet the new Federal government clearly had the power to assemble and maintain one. How, then, to ensure that the Federal government could not abuse that power to dominate the States? Read Federalist Paper 29. The concept was that the several States needed and would have and control well-trained militias that would secure the States abiility to resist any plots by the Federal government to impose any improper control over them. Or, to put it more succinctly:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...
However, the Founders also recognized that in a way this merely kicked the can down the road. Now the State was able to defend itself against the Federal government. But how, then, would the populace be able to defend itself against the militia? Why, simple:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You are correct. However, I didn’t want to drag up “outdated” historical evidence and decided to use the current state and federal constitutions, the two complement each other well enough to make the burden of proof on someone arguing against the right to keep and bear arms via both regulation and the idea that the common people are not the militia... or that the militia shouldn’t be as well-equipped as the US Army.
The Constitutions do a good job of speaking for themselves.As is evidenced by how little I actually had to say in order to build my counter-argument to this guy. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.