Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Posted on 07/05/2017 8:40:44 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
The Second Amendment states: “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.”
It is the much-maligned Second Amendment which secures and makes possible all of the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This undoubtedly explains why the Amendment is under constant attack by those who lust after power and control. It is also the only part of the Bill of Rights that defines a specific purpose in its introductory clause.
David Deming writes in the April 2016 issue of American Thinker that the Second Amendment was intended by the Founding Fathers to serve as a safeguard against tyranny. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist Paper #29 that “ if the government ever tried to oppress the people with a standing army, that army would be countered by a “large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.”
Remember what kicked off the Revolutionary War? It was the British attempt to seize cannon and powder held by the militia at Concord. The rapid and deadly response by the American people made war inevitable.
During the early days of our nation, Americans came to fear and hate the British use of a standing army, which was a permanent force of professional soldiers. Americans favored the idea of part-time citizen soldiers; a militia whose members came from the communities in which they lived and served. It was believed that these militia members would be much less likely to oppress the very neighbors they knew on a more intimate basis in their day-to-day lives. But unfortunately, these same local militias would be...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
Good article - many who attack the 2nd claim it was up to the government to institute/run a militia instead of it being comprised of citizens who had a penchant for preserving liberty. That meme fits handily with their “If the government says it ain’t allowed, it ain’t allowed - so lay down and bare your neck for our boot”.
“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…”
George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington
It’s important to read notes on the making of the Constitution and its amendments, and what those who created it wrote about it later. Something the Left doesn’t want anyone to read.
Bingo!
So do we all agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right for self protection even before the social contract of the people exchanging some of their individual freedom for common protections provided by government? And if this is true and the Second Amendment codifies this right to bear arms under the Bill of Rights that apply to all citizens no matter where they reside why are individual states allowed to restrict this Constitutional right from one state to another? Suppose one state legislated free speech under the First Amendment but another didn’t? Under what States Rights authority is a state allowed to restrict free speech when others don’t? If the Constitution is a limiting document that says “the rights and responsibilities outlined here are agreed to by all of the signatory states while all else is reserved by the states” again, why do states claim to have jurisdiction on gun rights guaranteed by the superior Bill of Rights?
I think this is evident by the "keep" portion of "keep and bear arms" of the 2nd amendment. The alternative would have been to lock the arms in a local armory, to be dispersed to the people only in times of imminent danger.
-PJ
I have a different interpretation actually. To be a free state and have a militia, the state would need a pool of armed citizens to draw from. With a population of citizens that was not armed, that would be quite impossible. Therefor, the need to have citizens having the right to keep and bear arms would be essential. In other words, how could a state have a well regulated militia if a call to arms was from unarmed citizens.
I do not know where this false idea comes from. We have surrendered no freedoms (please show me where I am wrong). We have delegated "powers" not "rights/freedoms" to the State.
Tyrannical government tries to convince us that the "common good" requires that we "give up some rights." Nonsense and a demonstrably false proposition.
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times (do the search), that the State has no obligation to provide any individual with protection. It is reprehensible when States ban the keeping and bearing arms and then abrogate any responsibility in protecting its disarmed "subjects". see California and other liberal held hell holes.
We are armed citizens capable of supplying our own protection and can do a much better job than the State who is at best "minutes away" when "seconds are critical".
How would you define a “social contract” that doesn’t involve individuals, in some manner, agreeing not to go vigilante when wronged by another in favor of a third party representative of the law to adjudicate the event? Are you saying that there is no social contract wherein natural law rights are not sublimated to prevent anarchy? Are not powers dependent upon rights? I think we are on the same page but arguing semantics.
Peace.
The natural right of self defense is applicable in the face of a deadly threat. "Social contract" is an implementation of righting the wrong. (e.g. you stole my stuff, I go to court to get it back rather than come over to your house to get it). I still have the right to the property, but the issue is how I get it back.
It my sister gets kidnapped, serially raped by a gang of murderous cretans, I may go after her myself and kill every bastard involved in the crime who will probably resent me exerting my familial right to regain and protect my sister. So bit it.
The proper function of law is to protect those rights.
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.