FBalFB
I'd say Piers was the one making him look like a fool. The
government is going to turn on you, as if that isn't idiotic enough, and you're
going to defend yourself with an AR 15? Trillions go into the military, the
hell are you going to do with an AR 15? This is the best excuse for this
really? …
My argument is
these people need to come up with a better excuse than "I'm protecting
myself from the government" if they want to carry around AR15's. It's
absurd. You don't necesarily need assault rifles or AR15's to feel safe. The
analogy with other countries being safer proves this. I don't know any country
that that ranks higher in economy and safety that allow assault rifles to be
out and about. It's an archaic hillbilly way to do things in my opinion. If I'm
far off I'd love to hear an argument.
Debby Reagan
Ok...here's the
argument you so sorely call for...because it is my RIGHT to own one, given to me as a private right for defense by God and by the 2nd Amendment, as the intention of the framers who wrote it.
The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense."
So, this means that I have the right to own an AR15 if I want to, to be a match against a standing army. And now, before you say...where does it state that the 2nd Amendment's fundamental purpose was to serve as a check upon a standing army, you must look at the framers' discussions surrounding the creation of this amendment.
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.
And that is why I (and all other Americans who are not felons or mentally incompetent) can have and NEED an AR15 rifle, with a big magazine if we should so desire to own one! It is also why the 2nd Amendment says that this right SHALL NOT be infringed. The government has absolutely no right to infringe upon my right to own it! So, when states & federal government ban certain guns/ammo, they are violating my 2nd Amendment right, the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights was to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread. In other words...my right to own and bear arms to match a standing army is not a constitutional right, it is a PRIVATE right, which so happened to be reiterated and strengthened by an amendment to the Constitution, just so it would be absolutely clear to any future government as to what they cannot fool with.
Resources:
The 'Lectric Law Library
The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense."
So, this means that I have the right to own an AR15 if I want to, to be a match against a standing army. And now, before you say...where does it state that the 2nd Amendment's fundamental purpose was to serve as a check upon a standing army, you must look at the framers' discussions surrounding the creation of this amendment.
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.
And that is why I (and all other Americans who are not felons or mentally incompetent) can have and NEED an AR15 rifle, with a big magazine if we should so desire to own one! It is also why the 2nd Amendment says that this right SHALL NOT be infringed. The government has absolutely no right to infringe upon my right to own it! So, when states & federal government ban certain guns/ammo, they are violating my 2nd Amendment right, the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights was to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread. In other words...my right to own and bear arms to match a standing army is not a constitutional right, it is a PRIVATE right, which so happened to be reiterated and strengthened by an amendment to the Constitution, just so it would be absolutely clear to any future government as to what they cannot fool with.
Resources:
The 'Lectric Law Library
No comments:
Post a Comment