Posted on 12/23/2017 12:02:00 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
It didn't take much detective work to figure out. Every form of repressive govt has ALWAYS disarmed the citizenry!
Yes, it is the only Amendment to the United States Constitution that uses the phrase “Shall Not Be Infringed”.
That phrase is not even used to protect the Constitutional Right to Free Speech.
Yes. It is very difficult for our government to,get rid of rights its supposed to preserve for us in one easy swoop, like othe countries can do with just a change in leadership.
Of course many will try. And keep trying.
The states/fed model works pretty well compared to other setups.
“Specifically, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 codified what was regarded as a natural right to self-defense.”
I wonder what happened to THEIR Bill of Rights that got them so far weened off of guns? But there is an obvious warning (if the last 70 years hasn’t been enough of a warning) - those God-given rights CAN be reduced/taken away by evil people in government.
With regard to countries with looser regulations, any number of countries in Africa and the Mid-East come to mind, with everyone running around with AK-47s and such.
YES!
https://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/9/Iraq-15-nations-with-the-highest-gun-ownership.html
Iraq is #7 in gun ownership. The site says weapons are supposed to be registered, but most probably aren’t.
The USA is highest in ownership. Excerpt:
“While the U.S. houses less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the country has approximately 35-50 percent of civilian-owned guns worldwide, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.”
We’re unique in one more way, that ties into this discussion and the NEED for the second amendment. Unlike most every other nation on earth, we do not share a common ethnicity. Even in places often torn by tribal or sectarian violence, there is more racial commonality than the US has.
People will tell you this doesn’t matter, but it does. Our system is designed to empower the individual above the group or “identity”... The second amendment lets that idea work.
The idea that a freeman has a right to be armed goes back further. The Anglo-Saxons, like many tribes in the Volkerwanderung,believed in a nation in arms, and that the right to carry weapons was a distinction enjoyed by a freeman.
The Anglo-Saxon Fyrd, or militia was based on this idea. Even in the time if Henry VIII, all freeman were required to own abd be proficient with, a longbow.
Good points about the history of the militia.
And in the amendment, ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well trained’ — not— ‘over-legislated’ (thus the ‘shall not be infringed).
That’s not registry. Those records aren’t kept for as long as you seem to think. There is no federal database for arms ownership.
Since the passing of the Brady Law, the reasons for denying permission to acquire a weapon have gone from restricting "felons and drug users and mental patients" to adding anyone convicted of a misdemeanor that would be a felony today and anyone accused of domestic abuse.
The reason "universal background checks" are the Holy Grail of liberal gun control is because they can restrict any sale, they can make the net tighter.
Infringement, right?
Mis-stated is more accurate. The concept (of our founding fathers) is correctly stated that the US is the exception in world history as a self-governing people with a constitution and governed under the rule of law. This is in contrast to the kings and tyrants of Europe and throughout history. Of course, the language and concept of American exceptionalism has changed over time, but that is due to ignorance about our country and institutions.
“There is no federal database for arms ownership”
Don’t bet on that. The ATF have been working on circumventing that by several methods. It may not be official and may not be complete, but you can bet a database exists.
I always argued that in defending the second amendment one should base their argument on the right of self defense. The right of self defense is the most basic right of all life and yet is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The express reason for raising a militia is not exclusive and a militia could be assembled for the purpose of self defense.
Does ANY other country restrict gun possession equal or less than the US?
Switzerland used to be less restrictive than the U.S. (from 1934 to 1998) In 1998 they bowed to European Union pressure and instituted controls that make them more restrictive than the U.S. in most areas, a little less restrictive in some.
Costa Rica used to be less restrictive than the U.S. They become more restrictive in the late 1970’s, as I recall.
The African countries lacking western influence don’t have laws enforced, sometimes not even written, and near zero infrastructure, not to mention much of the population unable to read. No clean water, no sewer system, no electricity.””...”.....”
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.