Posted on 07/26/2012 8:10:57 AM PDT by marktwain
The problem with all of the Second Amendment discussion is that very few people are willing to address this issue directly and accurately. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to and ability to conduct an armed revol…ution. The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government.
Even if one agrees with the “Militia limitation” on the Second Amendment, the Militias to which the Amendment refers were State Militias which would have been used to fight the federal government.
When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infrigment on the purposes of the Second Amendment. If we want to have an honest discussion about the issue of gun control, then let’s frame the discussion correctly, “Should the people have the right to keep and bear arms that could be used to violently overthrown the central government”.
Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government solidiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms.
If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue.
Why do cops have guns?
Why do money couriers have guns?
Why do government agents have guns?
TO PROTECT THEMSELVES!
Why do the Secret Service have guns?
TO PROTECT POTUS!
WHY NOT US?
I have guns for three things.
1. To protect myself and my family.
2. To defend Liberty.
3. To defy tyranny.
If someone doesn’t like it, too bad.
I’m glad to see this posted.
My husband made the same observation the other day. If the purpose of the armed citizenry is to protect ourselves from an out of control government, then the citizens have the right to keep and bear the same kind of arms that would be used against them.
Haha. As a former Navy pilot who works at a nearby air base, he has the perfect place to store his jet.
Even if the the Second Amendment were to be repealed, it would not take away our rights to bear arms as the amendment does not in itself grant that right, it merely recognizes a God given right.
In the Declaration of Independence it is specifically stated that we have “Certain Unalienable Rights And Among These Are Life,Liberty,And The Pursuit Of Happiness”.We DO have the right of Self-Defense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Horse Hockey! A well regulated Militia is American citizens guarding against tyranny.
Charley Reese put it very well in his column of which I quote a part:
The Orlando Sentinel
Commentary Section
July 19, 1998
“When Confronted By a Criminal, You’re Back on the U.S. Frontier”
By Charley Reese
The easiest way to resolve, in your own mind, the gun-control debate is to take this little test.
1. Do you believe that you have a right to live?
2. Do you believe that your spouse and children have a right to live?
3. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, do you think that you have a right to defend yourself?
That’s the objective, yes-or-no part of the quiz. Now here is one final essay question:
How will you defend yourself and your family if you are confronted by an armed intruder or intruders?
Bingo. Any diversion from that thought is an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment. It's not about hunting. It's not about sport shooting. It's not about protection, although protection from a tyrannical govt goes hand in hand
We are the militia. Judging from the amount of corruption in elections, violence and destruction from the centralist foot soldiers, like Occupy and other radical groups, it more important for citizens to be armed now than ever before.
In all fairness, limiting the 2nd Amendment to just the ability to overthrow the government is incorrect, purely based on the times. In context:
For most American Colonists, then Americans, Europeans were indeed a threat, but not the only threat, perhaps not even the worst threat. This honor would go to the northern and southern Indian tribes.
The northern tribes were affiliated with and supported by the French, and the southern tribes by the Spanish. While these European powers provided the Indians with, at the time, modern gun technology, the tribes provided sheer numbers as a threat to early Americans.
Even before the Revolution, colonists and their then British allies had fought some bitter, no quarter wars with several tribes. These were often vicious affairs, even by modern standards, especially the French and Indian War and Pontiac’s Rebellion.
This threat remained the case well into the 19th Century, until Andrew Jackson’s ‘Indian Removal Act of 1830’ (which amounted to “ethnic cleansing”), deported most southeastern Indian tribes to West of the Mississippi.
Second, while farming and animal husbandry were essential to most rural Americans, hunting for game was also needed to provide enough food to eat. So for protection from Indians and large animals like big cats and bears, as well as for food, guns were essential.
Were the government to confiscate their guns, it would put them out of business, and they would have to flee. Washington’s Whiskey Tax and the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion showed them how vulnerable they were to national government power. So they needed guns not especially to overthrow the government, but just to prevent it from oppression.
Third, while there were Sheriffs to enforce the law, they mostly operated in large cities. Most enforcement was provided by the civilian militias, effectively any man with a gun. So any limits on guns would have allowed criminals to operate freely.
The bottom line is that they had very good reasons to constitutionalize gun rights, and many of those reasons, and perhaps some new ones, still exist today.
The "militia" referred to all able-bodied males capable of fighting.
The militia were not only for fighting against the federal government, if necessary, but for defending family and community against any foe, foreign or domestic.
Regarding the left and their concern for all of us:
For at least a year, we’ve been getting updates from Chicago about the wholesale slaughter taking place there, with the innocent and guilty alike dying and bleeding on the streets, mainly on the South Side.
Heard anyone calling for gun control?
Then one day in Vanillaville, Whitebread County, Colorado, a bunch of white people get killed and wounded and suddenly all the bleats coming from the compassionate left are calling for gun control NOW!
Such is the concern on the left for minorities. It certainly puts the Zimmerman-Martin flap in its proper perspective.
Its comments like this that make me feel completely at home here and know we’re not lost as a nation or people!!! Thats right, the BOR is an (partial) enumeration of rights we possess inherently as human beings granted by God alone. :) Thanks for posting that!!!!
I hope Michael Savage reads this thread. He is out to lunch on this particular subject. Last night he said that the thought that we the people could ever take on FedGov™ was preposterous. No, he is a preposterous old man sometimes.
bump
Let’s be honest about guns — anyone that tries to take my guns away will be shot, be they local crooks or national crooks.
One more comment here...these rights aren’t only ours but the generations to come. They are ours to exercise and defend as custodians. I think its the later thats most precious b/c its our great gift to future generations.
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.