I am nearly finished reading Joyce Lee Malcolm’s book “To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo American Right”. It is a very interesting study of how this right came to be written into the 1689 English Bill of Rights (after the Glorious Revolution which overthrew James II) and it discusses how and why this heritage greatly influenced the American Founding Fathers who sought to have this right even more so explicitly written into the United States Constitution.
(a) 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The militia is regulated by those who bear arms, the citizen.
Countless comments by the Founders to that effect exist
There is a civic duty implied, such as local service as a militia, but just like a fireman can be a volunteer, his acting as a fireman does not allow him into homes without proper supervising authority and control from the local population.
A fireman cannot just enter your property just because, it is a militia regulated by the home dweller who is armed.
The militia only acts on probable causes and due process of law to extinguish a fire or react to a threat such as invasions at the border.
Government is restrained and must follow the law. Whereas Magna Carta emphasized that the law applied to both the rules and therule, with no special rule for therule, the US constitution went further in restricting the existence of rules except for those restraining government exclusively to its role of servant.
The Militia has no rights whatsoever, and participating in one does not give special extra rights others do not have. Or else the right to bear arms would be oxymoronic from a lingusitic point of view, as it would mean it is a privilege and no more a right, watering down and changing the real meaning of right.
*
Government is restrained and must follow the law. Whereas Magna Carta emphasized that the law applied to both the RULED and the RULER, with no special rule for the RULER, the US constitution went further in restricting the existence of rules except for those restraining government exclusively to its role of servant
“A well regulated Militia” was a reason given in the Constitution for people to keep and bear arms. However, it DID NOT state that was the ONLY reason!
Here’s your daughter’s paper in one sentence:
Passing a constitutional amendment stating that an army must be armed is prima facie stupid.
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”—Thomas Jefferson.
OH WAIT! He is no longer valid on University campuses. Bring on the shackles!
Here is a link to the highly suppressed Report to Congress on the 2nd Amendment. Read it and you will see why it is suppressed. Bet you cannot find a complete copy on line. I have a paper copy published in 1982, the year the report came out.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the secondamendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner”
Your willingness to facilitate a fraud is reprehensible.
2A is inalienable, it grants nothing. It simply recognizes a right inherent in citizens.
“...shall not be infringed.”
Makes for kind of a short paper, but there it is.
People who want to further limit the right to defend your life are embracing the ideas of Hobbes, that our rights stem from government and can be changed at any time. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly reject that concept. People who want to limit your natural rights do not believe that those rights are inherent to life itself. They are therefore opposed to the fundamental ideas upon which our republic and our government are based.
Read this recent legal decision rendered by a federal district court judge. While the specifics relate to the state of California banning magazines holding more than ten rounds, the judge makes some very cogent points relating to the second amendment and the right to bear arms. He specifically addresses the issues of mass murders, liberty, and the rights of people who defend their own lives with firearms.