The usual suspects are out to usurp the original intent of the Constitution, once again. They have decided that "regulated" doesn't mean what the founders meant, but what they mean it to mean. The federal government has, once again, determined that nothing is possible unless the government has its hands in the cookie jar.
Then, to make matters worse, ignorant idiots in regards to the Constitution, and our God-given rights, like Al Sharpton, butchers it all even worse trying to give examples regarding things they have no clue about.
For example, the first two paragraphs of a recent Daily Caller article reads:
Following a public policy meeting of African-American leaders, National Urban League president Marc Morial and National Action Network president Al Sharpton called for a new national assault weapons ban, saying the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be regulated.
“The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not absolute. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” said Morial when asked by TheDC if he supports California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein’s assault weapon ban bill.
Morial misses the whole point. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are absolute, when applied to the federal government. If local government wishes to have laws, as prescribed by the people, that is one thing, but those issues are none of the federal government's business. In reference to his freedom of speech quip, he's right, the "right" of freedom of speech does not mean someone should yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but where he is missing it is that then is a situation that should be handled by local authorities and local laws. In other words, if a State, or municipality, wants to have a law making it illegal to scream "fire" in a theater, they have that authority. But the federal government does not.
As for the comment about "assault weapons," of which their definition includes labeling firearms that are not technically assault weapons into the big ol' bowl of assault weapons, once again, it is none of the federal government's business - and since the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable We The People to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, should we not have as much fire power as the federal government?
The primary confusion, however, in regards to the Second Amendment rests in the very first words of the clause. It begins, "A well-regulated militia." But that does not mean a "controlled by government" militia. In fact, if you go to the original definition of "regulated," you realize that the knuckleheads like Sharpton, and his fellow idiot leftist democrats, aren't even close to what was originally intended.
There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms. In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted. In the Second Amendment, the federal government is told it "shall" not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.
The Second Amendment begins with a call for "A well regulated militia." A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word "regulated." The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.
We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today's political atmosphere. The word “regulated,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. Remember, one of the things Martha Washington was well known for was that she darned socks for the militia because many didn't have socks to keep their feet warm in the cold winter months of the Revolutionary War. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.
The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.
The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them. A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.
But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative? What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the British army from gaining access to Concord?
Concord was the home of our largest munitions depot. Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord. So, it can be said that the final straw - what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England - was when they came for our guns.
The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves, and it won't be the last.
Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.
We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here. All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The Tenth Amendment supports the States' rights regarding this issue, and the Second Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.
This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however. Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people. They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue. But in today's political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the Second Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights? They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.
My response to that query is always the same: "So don't let them." Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights. With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.
Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.
The reason that the Second Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.
The whole point of the right to keep and bear arms is so that we have an armed militia to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
But why, I am often asked, is it so important to have a right to keep and bear arms in this civilized society? You don't really believe that the federal government in America could become tyrannical, do you?
You have a right to keep and bear arms, as the Second Amendment says, because it is "necessary to the security of a free State." Here, the word "State" does not mean "civil government" as assumed, but instead refers to the individual States. So, the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of your State, be it Virginia, Maryland, New York, California, or wherever. And the word "necessary" is a pretty definitive term. So our gun rights are "necessary" to the security of a free State. From whom? Invaders? Don't we have the organized military forces for protecting our States from foreign invaders?
If we don't need to be armed to protect our states from foreign invasion, then why was it so important to the Founding Fathers to ensure that Americans remained armed?
Who does that leave as a potential enemy that the founders felt it "necessary" to arm the citizens to protect their States?
I believe the language is as such to remind us that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to protect the States against a tyrannical central government, should one rise at the federal level.
The amendment was written specifically with the federal government in mind, which explains why it ends with the words "shall not be infringed." That means that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted in any way by the federal government. That would make all federal gun regulations unconstitutional.
I once heard a woman on a radio program say, "We don't need a militia, we aren't fighting the British anymore."
Tyranny takes many forms, and the British was only one example.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights.
Once again, with freedom comes responsibility.
In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.
The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important too. The whole point of the Second Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.
They say it is for our safety. They say they want to restrict firearms just a little more for our security.
Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."
The militia still exists, but we have been silent because we have had no need to organize, but I believe that we still have a need for an unorganized citizen militia, and that it may organize once again if the tyrants in Washington decide to monkey with the Second Amendment, and use force to take our guns.
Now, our homes are Concord, and the federal government is rapidly approaching Lexington Green. The question is, are we still passionate about liberty, or are we going to give in, and give up?
The Declaration of Independence ends as follows:
'
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Earlier, near the beginning of the same document, it reads, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
How would the right to alter or abolish the government, should it become a tyranny, be possible if the people were not armed?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sharpton on 2nd Amendment: "People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country" - Daily Caller
Former Supreme Court Justice: Second Amendment Must Be Changed - Wall Street Cheat Sheet
No comments:
Post a Comment