Skip to comments.Tiananmen square activist turned American citizen demonstrates for the Second Amendment
Posted on 01/20/2013 9:16:04 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER
A proud new citizen exercising his First Amendment rights.
If only we could muster up similar courage to take on these democrats/socialists in cw2 /p>
On a tactical note, one CBU-97 dropped on that staging area would be nice.
“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.”
Question: Who is the militia being referenced?
Answer: It is the Government, not the People. It is the federal armed forces, police and state militias.
The second amendment is supposed to guaranty the right of the People to protect themselves from tyrany out of the muzzle of a government gun.
I don't think you could be more wrong.
Here is a quote from Tench Coxe, delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789:
"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Can we agree that Coxe's statement completely contradicts yours?