Skip to comments.The Gun Thing, Part II: Hunting
Posted on 01/05/2013 7:21:53 PM PST by hiho hiho
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It was assumed by the Founding Fathers that most people hunted, that hunting was as natural a thing as breathing. For most people, if you didnt hunt, you didnt eat. So when liberals say something You dont need a military rifle to hunt deer, always remember to put it in the context of the First Amendment to see how stupid it is. Its roughly the same as saying: You dont need a printing press to have conversation over dinner.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting in the same way the First Amendment is not about dinner conversation.
The press component of the First Amendment is about the freedom of the people to publish things in the mass media, especially things that are critical of the government.
2A is about - and lets get this very, very clear - its about the freedom of the people not to be tyrannized by the government because they are unarmed. Not only is it not about hunting, not only is not about depriving average citizens of military-style weapons it is very precisely to secure their access to military-style weapons, so that they have a sporting chance at meeting force with force.
Its true most of us cant afford tanks and missiles, even if it were legal to purchase them, but just because thats the case doesnt mean were to be deprived of small arms. If small arms in the hands of a large number of people were of no consequence, then you wouldnt see dictators and juntas all over the world and throughout history making citizen disarmament one of the first things they do when they seize power.
Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.
The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms - what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?
The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.
Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.
In the old days up to around WW-I times and for a while thereafter, there was a tradition of local militia drilling on the common, the town green, or the county fairgrounds. It gave people an opportunity to remain somewhat familiar with military duty; it helped to keep them from becoming too rusty. It demonstrated the proper practices and discipline *for all to see.*
It is a shame that most communities and counties and states got out of that practice.
All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.
Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.
After the Shaolin temple was destroyed, surviving monks scattered and took refuge with many secret societies that were like Chinese trade guilds that held a lot of power in a country with lawlessness and corruption rampant, and some of these societies became what they call Triads or the Tong, and they have never been truly compromised over hundreds of years unlike the Yakuza or Mafia. Some are involved in criminal activity, some not, but many of the surviving Triads originated as these powerful guilds that hid these martial monks and then began to train secret armies of their own.
It is said that a monk who was a Tiger kung fu master took shelter with a Beggars' guild...there was actually a guild for beggars, gypsies, street performers and day laborers...and he began teaching them Tiger kung fu. They adapted his style into a very effective, practical, and vicious style that sometimes was called Beggar's style, and Beggars came to be associated with some strong arm tactics and extortion if things didn't go their way. They were often Robin Hoods to the poor, but like a ruffian gang to everybody else. Anyway, it's said another martial monk from the Beggar's guild influenced martial arts in certain mountain temples in Japan, which resulted in Taijitsu, the unarmed combat techniques of the ninja.
Might be worthwhile to study the ideas of some of these rebels whose secret societies existed in plain sight and yet neither the Qing, nor the Nationalists nor the Red Chinese have ever been able to penetrate them successfully...and by the way they've existed in America since the 1800's, but the cops pretty much leave them alone. Whatever people may say about them, they've been successful and they're pretty d*mn*d good at surviving and keeping their security. Maybe conservative rebels should think about organizing in an adoptive fashion.
The hand sign the rebels used, which is now a martial arts salute. In addition, it used to be that if your belt knot was on the left, it meant you were a non-combatant or support staff, if it was on the right, you were a fighter or soldier, if in the center, you were a commander, leader or teacher.