Posted on 10/21/2005 3:21:50 PM PDT by Ain Soph Aur
Your points are well taken.
So, if I understand this correctly, anyone with a gun who strolls by while you are being butchered will be requested to mind his own business, you are being killed quite nicely without any help from any nosy-parker thank you very much!
Yours too. It seems obvious from the way the two phrases are joined in the amendment that the framers wanted individual citizens to be familiar with firearms and to have them handy for use on short notice. That is, in their houses or on their persons, not stacked in some centralized armory, to be issued for the duration and then returned.
Granted, that was somewhat tongue in cheek. However, this next example is not: Even more dangerous than those who are too volatile to carry a firearm, are those who are too timid to carry a firearm. Some people by their gentle nature, and may God bless them, simply are not prepared to bring deadly force to bear. Still more will hesitate before committing to the ultimate act of violent defense, and lose the opportunity. In both cases, all such a person would gain by carrying a weapon would be to avail the assailant with a better means to do them arm.
Weapons should only be carried by those who are prepared to use them, and that's a decision that each man or woman has to make for himself or herself. It would simply be insanity to take that decision from the individual.
Considering that every new citizen ~must~ take that oath, -- I'd say yes, you should think long and hard on just why it doesn't feel right to you for some reason.
And consider that our oaths of office, or of military service, say essentially the same things. 50/60 years ago draftees were forced to take that oath, and most all did so proudly.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking her for this. These characteristics are an incredible asset in her field, medicine. Her gentle nature and "do no harm" mentality don't yield positive results from behind the trigger like they do behind a stethoscope.
A compulsory oath is worthless except in the view of tyrants,and I find it repugnant.
An oath of office is different because seeking or taking an office is not compulsory.
I note this nation had no need of Pledges to a symbol until after Mr. Lincoln and the pledge was written by a proponent of centralized gov't control.
The second admendment recognizes the right of a free people to be armed, and further,by recommending to the people the existence of miltias as opposed to creating a standing army, shows the intent of the Founders to keep the central gov't in check.
Every word in the Constitution was much discussed and I think the meanings are pretty clear. But people have been twisting the meanings of the original words for over two hundred years.
You may force someone to publicly affirm something because they are fearful of your power to do them injury .That does not mean they will believe in it.
Didn't the young United States fight the War of 1812 because the King of England's officers were forcing Americans into involuntary naval service?
All others, men and women, should be part of a militia that is sufficiently organized for the President to command it as is required by Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.
The Militia Act, posted above, is a good guide.
Militia Duty need not really be onerous. It would bring back the apparently obsolete notion at we have duties towards our nation and fellow citizens. It might eliminate the loner syndrome.
I have a feeling that you're sorely lacking in historical knowledge and have no earthly idea how similar your screed reads to the words uttered by Rudolf Hess on February 25, 1934 when he led millions of Germans in an oath of loyalty. Absolutely repugnant to any American. Washington required no oaths of the citizenry. Jefferson required no oaths. I'll stand with them. Let's reserve oaths for the military where they mean something.
bump for later read...
Well, that's a good start! ;'}
INS History, Genealogy, and Education - Overview of INS History
Address:http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/articles/oview.htm
Hess? - How bizarre
In the good old days of the Greek city-states, no one who lacked his own weapons could be a citizen.
Added it to the banglist, bump for later read.
"I have two .44 Desert Eagles"
A single .50 Desert Eagle is enough for my collection. The Colt Anaconda claims the .44 cal. spot.
You ought to spring for a .50 barrel for your Eagle and see how things come alive.
Additionally,the person swearing the oath to the U.S. and renouncing his earlier oath may be considered a traitor by his former nation.
The Bible tells us not to swear oaths because we have not the power to so much as change the color of one hair on our own head.
Refusal to swear your oaths does not automatically mean the person is intending to do you harm.
I notice you failed to address the impressment question,probably because to do so conflicts with your idea of forced service. Is it that forced service for the causes you support is a good thing but forced service for causes you oppose is a bad thing?
They must post a no gun sign so that visiters know that they may be at risk.
Best explanation of "regulated" I've ever seen. Noted.
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.