Posted on 04/05/2018 6:12:42 PM PDT by Kaslin
Let's begin with the simplest of observations. Our United States Constitution serves two distinct purposes.
The first is to explicitly enumerate the powers and procedures of our nation's central government, which was defined as the three distinct bodies (which, by the way, two thirds of the high school students currently lecturing us about the Second Amendment cannot name) – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with levels of authority descending in that precise order.
The second is to explicitly enumerate the limitations of that central government's power, which is the sole reason why our Bill of Rights exists. The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1791 without the addition of these first ten amendments. Therefore, our Constitution would not exist without the limitations to our central government's authority described therein.
Some miss this simplest of understandings.
Take Brett Arends, who, in 2016 after the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, committed to a different argument at Market Watch. He argues that the Second Amendment does not describe a "limitation" of the federal government's authority, as is commonly understood of each of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. Rather:
The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It's not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into a saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government.
His argument as to the veracity of this statement is among the more laughable things you'll ever read. He cites Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, cherry-picking choice phrases from the essay, filling in the gaps with his own thoughts. For example, Arend writes:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Any American that is not a convicted felon.
Huh?
The Constitution specifically provides for the federal government taking over the "Militia." (Article I, section 8, clause 15; Article II, section 2, clause 1).
Negative, it’s for “We the people”. Never forget it.
An apropos line from a great document(I’ll let you figure out what it is):
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
There are few examples of “settled law” better supported and well established than the “right of the people to bear arms”, and that “no law infringing on that right” can be legislated.
These facts should illuminate the unconstitutional nature of the agenda of the leftist Democrats for all time. Anything else is a lesson in the depths of mendacity the left is capable of.
Brilliant, and to the point. Nice.
nope. Heller.
So every amendment is about individual rights except the second and the tenth? Doesn’t make sense. They thought the first most important thing was to be able to say what you want, believe what you want, and petition the government and the second most important thing was recreation and hunting and an army to be armed? Did any government ever need a law that says the army can be armed?
I always saw it as a qualifier, because the state has a military, the individual needs defense against it.
For those who think that the right to bear arms is a relic of the past, well...
The idea of representatives from each state going off to a distant location to represent their local communities...
is also a relic of the past.
People were sent to that distant central location, because of how difficult it was for each state and district to make the trip on horse or horse-and-buggy.
We now have very fast transportation, which can deliver a representative in a matter of hours to wherever that “distant” location was in the past. Thus, no need to have the central representative bodies (house of representatives, senate).
Plus, we also have very quick ways of communicating to that central/federal government, since the invention of the telephone and TV and now the internet. We don’t need reps representing “the people” in a national federal government, since the people, via their respective state governments and districts, can get things done themselves, directly.
The laws within the constitution and bill or rights can stay, but, let’s get rid of the federal government relic, except the president and cabinet and necessary functions.
So, let’s get rid of Nancy, and Schumer and the whole idea of federal representation, since, we no longer need them. After all, those representatives are supposed to communicate the needs of the states and communities.
Here is a much better headline for such an article: The Second Amendment is Not Just for the Militia.
hahaha. I haven’t seen that before. LMAO
As I understand the militia part was that, in the event of an invasion, people could organize themselves under the leadership of capable leaders and fight to repel the invasion. However, the Second Amendment, and private letters of the Forefathers, were clear that they were deliberately vague about whom might take away one’s rights, because they were cognizant of local threats and government.
But, I am Canadian, so what do I know?
That has been the fervent wish of the Left for many years.
It all depends on who the militia is. If the militia is the citizenry-at-large, then it applies to them.
The powers that be have to cease this disarmament narrative before it goes beyond the point of no return....do it soon.
They mean to have their way and will not care who gets hurt.
God.....I hate what they are doing to this country and what will be in store for us all.
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.