Skip to comments.Revenge of the O-Team (Ollie North on 2nd Amendment)
Posted on 01/10/2013 7:22:35 PM PST by jazusamo
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.
WASHINGTON Full disclosure right upfront: I'm a proud life member of the National Rifle Association. I am on the NRA's board of directors and serve as chairman of the organization's Military and Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have owned and used firearms most of my life, and I can read. Unlike some in Washington, I don't believe that the 27 words above the Second Amendment of our Constitution have anything to do with "gun rights." Guns don't have rights. I do. So do you.
Fifty-two years ago, like tens of millions before and since, I raised my right hand and took an oath of enlistment in our armed forces, pledging to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I promised I would "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Notably, the words promise loyalty not to a political party or a particular individual but to the Constitution, which enshrines our liberties and the limits and responsibilities of those who govern us like no other foundational document on earth.
Unfortunately, in the aftermath of recent carnage in a Colorado movie theater and a rampage at an elementary school in Connecticut, some now insist that "We the People" must accept some alterations in how we interpret the "archaic" language contained in our Constitution. On Jan. 9, after a meeting with "gun safety advocates" and "victims groups," Vice President Joe Biden head of the "White House task force on gun violence" said the Obama administration is "determined to take action" and then added: "The president is going to act. There are executive orders,...
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
Mao Tse Tung “Problems of War and Strategy,” Nov 6 1938
1. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The 2nd part must be in order for the 1st part to be accomplished.
An armed populace must exist in order for a free state to be KEPT free and secure by its armed populace.
Many act oh-so-embarrassed when gun advocates say that gun ownership is about preserving our free nation from anyone...even our own government. They simply show their ignorance.
Because that's exactly what the 2nd amendment itself says.
"An armed populace must exist in order for a free state to be KEPT free and secure by its armed populace."
With all due respect, Hitler never uttered that statement. For our side to maintain its credibility we must strive for complete accuracy.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
The other day I was talking on the phone to a relative about the 2nd Amendment and he said we really don't need assault type weapons because they're not for hunting.
I said the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's about the people protecting themselves from a tyranical government and it got him to thinking. I'm going to follow up.
Exactly; but a point you can add (or start with) to open eyes is that ALL of the first 10 amendments are about the people protecting themselves from the things tyrannical governments, throughout history, always do to ensure they can be tyrannical.
Ayers, O, etc. aren’t the first to think of these ways to enslave people; they’re just the latest. Each group of thugs just invents new terms for the same stuff.
Thanks for your service to our country and the NRA to preserve freedom, liberty and 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.”
This is the version of the Second Amendment (aka Article II of The Bill of Rights) passed by the Senate and signed by Thomas Jefferson, and it omits the two additional commas after “militia” and “arms”...
The first clause is prefatory; it is the second that is the operative clause...
The prefatory clause informs why it is desirable to guarantee and preserve the right...But it is the operative clause that defines the right...The “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is what shall not be infringed...
“Shall” equals compulsion, and it is the state that is restrained...
“Shall not be infringed” means the right must not be touched, again by the state...The state shall have nothing whatsoever to say about the right, nor how the people choose to exercise it...
The state thru its lawfully sworn officers is restricted to apprehending, prosecuting and punishing those convicted in a trial by jury of abusing this right by commission of a crime...Murder is/was once a capital crime...
Obama and Co do not believe they are restricted by a Constitution...Nor do they have any regard for the difference between “may” and “can”...
They will try to do whatever they think they can get away with...If Congress and SCOTUS allow un-Constitutional acts, then “shall not” becomes irrelevant...
Amen, well said.
No truer words ever spoken and it'll be worse in his second term.
A. "Militia" is not, and was not the equivalent of the National Guard. As I understand it, the militia is a group of volunteer individual civilians organized to defend the populace. The State or National Guard are not volunteers in the same sense. The State and National Guard are part-time, professional soldiers.
B. With regard to the tired argument that the right to bear arms is a right for the State to form a militia, consider that the word People is used three other times in the Bill of Rights.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<\i>
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.<\i>
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.<\i>
The rights described in the Bill of rights are not a right of the States (which would not have been necessary), they are rights if the individuals.
That is the best interpretation of the 2nd Amendment I’ve ever seen - thank you.
Though it’s appalling that we should have to explain this to anybody, we do.
If the 2nd Amendment was only referring to a militia that was under government control, then the Amendment makes absolutely no sense - it is completely superfluous.
Why ? Of course any militia under government control would have arms ! I think the kids say duh in this case. A government-controlled militia, by definition, would have to bear arms. It does not require an Amendment to the Constitution to make clear that a government-controlled militia should actually arm itself.
In the case of the citizenry having the right to bear arms, what of the question - does everyone keep themselves armed all the time, or do they wait until they are called up, and only then can they bear arms ? It makes sense, as an answer to that question, to have the 2nd Amendment. It makes it clear in referring to the right of the people to keep and bear arms - as opposed to being a right of the militia that is earlier referenced in the sentence. With the militia reference right there, it’s obvious that if the 2nd Amendment was describing only the right of the “militia” to bear arms, it would not contain the phrase “right of the people”, but “right of the militia”.
Also, it does not say “Congress shall pass no law”, the phrase “shall not be infringed” is used, meaning that it’s a fundamental right that not even the States can transgress or violate, much like freedom of speech or religion or the press. How many States have laws restricting who can practice a religion, who can speak freely or who can start a newspaper ?
Its amazing to me how so many supposedly intelligent people can twist and contort such a simple sentence to suit their own purposes.
So why don’t we adopt a system like that here?
Great post and thread. Thank you for all the pings.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) says, "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states ...
And, current US Code, at 10 USC 311 says, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
That gun grabbers imply that "militia" is tantamount to the army, or national guard, or similar government-organized institution, tells me that the gun-grabbers are liars of the lowest type.
Thanks for your excellent post!
Saving this to read the cases later.
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.