Defending Doing Nothing ... AND ... Offering Thoughts And Prayers

Vanity | 10/5/17 | self

[zencycler]

Will the citizens living in any town or city in the US ever need to take up arms to defend themselves?

Probably not, just as you'll probably never need to drive your car at 100 miles per hour because you're being chased by someone who is trying to drive you off the road - and yet it's nice to know your car could go that fast ... just in case.

Now imagine for the moment that you lived somewhere that the local residents were in a fight for their life against an invading force, and that the resources of the national guard or US military were not available, either because of a cyber or atmospheric EMT attack had rendered all communications inoperable, or because under some future despotic government that arose in the US, they WERE the hostile invading force that posed a threat to your life and liberty.

So what would happen then?

I suppose the leaders in your area would organize a meeting and ask that everyone who owned arms form a group that they'd lead to defend their community from this threat.

And do you know what name the founders would have given to such a group? That's right, a "well organized militia".

You see, a "militia" never was the name for a government force - the word for that is "military". A militia is a name for citizen soldiers, available at a moments notice, made up of everyday people who own weapons. So you should bear that in mind when you read the words of the 2nd Amendment:

"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 it's not about hunting, and it's not even about being able to protect your home against thieves - it's about being able to defend your inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if the government formed to secure those rights is either unable to perform that function, or has itself become an entity aligned against those rights, hence the oath of office is to defend the Constitution against all enemies - foreign or domestic.

That's why citizens need to have access to more than just handguns. Even though, in most cases, a handgun is enough, you can hardly use them to repel an invading force armed with assault rifles. And that's why the argument about the 2nd Amendment being written when these weapons didn't exist is fallacious, because the whole point of the Amendment is to ensure citizens are able to match the arms of an invading force with whatever is in use at the time.

And obviously there is a serious downside to that, in the cost of human lives, as we have recently witnessed - just as there is the same downside to having cars on the road that can drive at speeds far in excess of the legal limit, causing many deaths on our highways every year when drivers abuse that capacity. But that's a downside and a trade off that many people accept, because we want to have access to that extra speed - and that extra weaponry - just in the unlikely case we may need it sometime.

So yes, I send my "thoughts and prayers" to those who were killed by such weapons recently, and also for the reasons stated above, I strongly defend both the sincerity AND the consistency of those "thoughts and prayers" when I add that, with regard to any infringements on the right to bear arms in response to that, my vote is to ... do nothing.

[SolidRedState]

Very well written.

[Daveinyork]

Last week, I got a call from the security company that a motion detector in my office building had triggered. The security company checked out the building, and declared it a false alarm. Still, I went through the building with my handgun drawn and ready, hoping that I would not need it, not knowing if I could pull the trigger with a human being in my sights, (I never served in the military or law enforcement), hoping that if there was an intruder, that pointing a weapon at him would send him packing, or hold him until the police arrived, but glad I had the weapon in case I needed it, and relieved that I did not.

[zencycler]

Thanks - I just posted this to my FB also, and am curious to see how my many lefty friends and family react.

But hey, I’ve had to tolerate all their anti-gun, anti-Trump postings, so now they’ll have to put up with my retort!

[Terry Mross]

The Walking Dead should have had one anti gun liberal get eaten in every episode.

[JimRed]

"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 first part acknowledges the need for and desirability of a militia; the second part acknowledges the God-given right. Nowhere does it limit the RKBA to a militia, as the leftists try to imply.

[tomkat]

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

SOURCE