Skip to comments.the right to KEEP...
Posted on 01/11/2013 7:15:04 AM PST by djf
To retain in ones power or possession; not to lose or part with; to preserve or retain.
Blacks Law, 2nd Edition 1910
I re-read the Heller decision a couple weeks ago.
Fortunately, neither of the following happened.
They did not, in any way, imply or conclude that the Second amendment was no longer in force.
They did not play any kind of semantic quibbling, or try to say that the words meant something different back then than what we normally believe they mean.
The Second Amendment is law of the land. And if anyone advocates taking away peoples guns WITHOUT amending the Constitution first, they are committing treason and violating their oath to uphold, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
The power to regulate commerce, vested in Congress, is the power to prescribe the rules by which it may be governed, that is, the conditions upon which it shall be conducted, to determine when it shall be free, and when subject to duties or exactions. The power also embraces within it’s control all the instrumentalities by which that commerce may be carried on, and the means by which it may be aided or encouraged.
“the right to KEEP...”
You offered a definition for half of it. How about offering a definition for the other half?
Because I am focusing on the “KEEP” part.
Keep. Not surrender to. Not abandon or give up. To retain, hold. To own and control.
There is no part of making any or even certain guns illegal that mean anything like it. There is nothing about an “assault weapons ban” or “confiscation” that mean the same. There is no part of the current agenda that does not in fact mean exactly THE OPPOSITE of the right of the people to KEEP...
The language is plain. If they want to take the guns or make certain ones illegal, they must amend the Constitution.
It is plain enough that even the most die-hard lib-tard can understand it, and also understand that a government who tries to confiscate or make illegal guns WITHOUT amending the Constitution HAS CLEARLY VIOLATED THAT CONSTITUTION...
To neuter the Left’s take on “regulate”...
A valid, perhaps superior, interpretation of the 2ndA:
The Founding Fathers disliked standing armies, and intended the general populace to provide for their own defense.
The modern Left claim that an armed populace is unnecessary because we have a standing army.
The Founding Fathers foresaw this argument, and recognized that while undesirable a standing army was inevitable and necessary.
To make clear that the existence of a standing army did NOT obviate the rights of an armed populace, they wrote the 2ndA as they did.
To wit they meant: “while a nation needs a standing army to remain secure, nonetheless citizens retain the right to own weapons of all kinds.”
Methinks this is a more sensible interpretation than the standard (and still completely valid) pro-RKBA model.
Well regulated militia -citizens capable of fighting tyranny
keep and bear -so that citizens will be well-practiced in the use of their own weapons
Necessary to a free state -to fight enemies foreign and domestic.
Citizens using their own weapons on a daily basis in their everyday lives make a formidable, “well-regulated militia” in defense of their lives, families and property against tyranny.
This is as clear as “shall not be infringed”.
Don’t complicate the obvious.
I wrote 18 words.
You lawyered it up to 76 words.
Who’s complicating what?
“The language is plain. If they want to take the guns or make certain ones illegal, they must amend the Constitution.”
Leaving aside that the RKBA predates and is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, they must amend the Constitution because it states a “right” to be protected. But you didn’t define “right” so we can’t define the “right to keep”.
If I find a gun you lost in the woods, even if I know it’s yours, I can retain it in my power or possession; not lose or part with it, and preserve or retain it. But absent anything else, I don’t have a right to do that, especially if I know it’s your personnel property.
In Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton writes:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Hamilton expected that the "militia" gather once or twice a year for inspection by officers of the state, or they cannot consider themselves to be "well-regulated." Inspection would include demonstrating that their arms are kept in good working order, and that they are proficient in its use.
One way for gun owners to turn the debate would be to suggest that the states offer "militia inspections" once or twice a year. If a state were serious about doing this, it could be practical to have a unit of a state's national guard travel from region to region and hold weekend "boot-camps" at a reserve army base for volunteers to attend. Make it a program that someone has to register and pay for. Make it fun for gun owners who want to provide a volunteer civic duty, just like how ham radio operators work with local fire departments on Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT). Make it like a convention, but with target practice, proficiency tests, seminars on gun maintenance and safety, demonstrations by vendors, and some optional physical education or unit exercise. Have a social event on Saturday night for participants to mingle and get to know one another.
I'm sure there are many bitter-clingers who would love to sign up for a weekend getaway to practice being a militia once or twice a year.
This would be a way to make the "militia" argument real and practical, not some archaic term-of-art from a time-gone-by.
Think about this, folks.
Your right to “keep” trumps any and all legislation or executive orders...