Posted on 10/27/2011 6:58:16 AM PDT by marktwain
There is no Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment simply tells us that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Unlike the First Amendment's prohibition against Congress making laws abridging certain rights we hold dear, the Second Amendment is an outright prohibition on all branches of our federal government from infringing on our right to defend ourselves.
For a right to be infringed, it must already exist. The right to self-preservation is among the inalienable Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence. Without the right to defend life and liberty, those rights are devalued to academic dogma. The right to self-preservation, the right to defend life was not arbitrarily provided to us by fiat from a crown, a delegation of elected officials or a piece of parchment.
The right comes from God (or nature if you prefer). The mere fact that you breathe, the fact that you were given the gift of reason, providence dictates your right to flourish.
The greatest testimony to life is man's birthright to defend himself from both prince and the criminal populace. This defense is not limited to life, but history shows its application to property as well. In his essay on The Necessity of Taking Up Arms, Jefferson declared, "In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it...for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before."
Jefferson and his contemporaries understood the need to keep and bear arms. They understood that the crown could, at any time and without warning, find himself free of constraint; and whether due to greed or survival suddenly force his subjects to submit to his every whim. Without violent resistance against the abuses of government, no man can secure his family. William Pitt understood the distinctly American character; it was more enterprising, more violent, less refined than their English cousins. He said, "If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms - never - never - never. You cannot conquer America!"
In the same vein, if a thief comes to a man's house to rob or murder him, Dalton prays he "takes a stand and defend his house by force; and if he or any of his company shall kill any of them in defense of himself, his family, his goods or house, this is no felony." Men have the right to protect themselves when no one else can or will protect him.
To disarm those predisposed to freedom and liberty, those not inclined to do harm or determined to commit crimes, violates the most basic laws of humanity. Let's remember the lesson learned by Suzanna Hupp. On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Suzanna and her parents were having lunch at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen Texas. As a law-abiding citizen, she complied with state law and left her gun in her car. While she and her parents were eating, George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and then opened fire on the patrons. Both of her parents were murdered, along with twenty-one other people. But for her desire to obey the law, lives may have been saved. Texas has since changed its law, but sadly many states continue to forbid its people the right to defend themselves.
Every man must consider arms to have a rightful place in our social compact. It is not only our inalienable right, but our duty. Our failure to have the means to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our friends, and those we have not yet had a chance to befriend breaches our obligation to mankind. It is our right and our plan to live in peace, to harm no one and love life, but when someone with evil in their heart threatens to destroy that which is not theirs to rightfully attack, it is our obligation to take a stand and to defend, and to destroy if given no alternatives.
A rule, by contract or statute, denying a man his right to defend life and those among him is ground in an injustice so obscene no primitive would knowingly consent.
Today some people and businesses would rather maintain their own marrow-minded ideas that government can protect their employees and customers. These misguided souls are unable or unwilling to accept the premise that our civil servants cannot stand with us as we go about our day. The reality is, those sworn to protect and serve require time to come to our aid; and rarely is the criminal willing to delay his effort to wait for their arrival. The only outcome must be complete rejection of these restrictions, whether on the grounds of an amusement park or in a library's parking garage. Hobbs said it best "A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. No man can transfer or lay down his right to save himself from death."
Now that we have examined all that the Second Amendment is not, let's take a moment to determine what it is. The Amendment begins, "A well regulated militia." Today, the word regulated brings up images of bureaucrats, red-tape and the many alphabet agencies like the EPA, FDA and OSHA.
The term "regulate" is also found in the Constitution's Commerce Clause where, in Article One, Second Eight Congress has the power to "Regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the Several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Now it's easy to understand why those in Congress would like us to believe that the founding fathers intended the word "regulate" to mean "manipulate" or "restrict" since it would provide them with nearly infinite authority. But if the regulation of commerce were intended to mean something so vast, why would the founding fathers have bothered to mention any other power Congress may exercise. Would anyone deny Immigration laws regulate commerce? Coining money? The establishment of Post Offices and Post Roads? Of course not. It would be redundant. So why did the founding fathers discuss both the power to regulate commerce and the power to provide for and maintain a navy? Because the term "regulate", in Colonial times, did not mean to tie something down with rules. It simply meant to "make regular", or "make function". If we move this context to the Second Amendment, we find a desire by the founding fathers to have a well functioning militia. A band or assembly of free men allowed to keep, carry and train with firearms. Individually and as a team.
Continuing, "Being necessary to the Security of a free State." How would a well-functioning militia be necessary to the Security of a free state? It wasn't long before the ink dried on the parchment containing the Declaration when that very same well-functioning militia prevented the finest musketmen in the world from capturing the arsenal in Concord. Adam Smith paints an emotional picture of the political landscape of the time, "Men of Republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous of liberty. The standing army of Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic. The standing army of Cromwell turned the long parliament out of doors." There was distrust, in some cases pure hatred directed towards a standing army; and the only thing that could stand between a standing army and a free state was the well-functioning militia. We continue "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." We have now gone full circle back to our initial premise, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms existed prior to the Constitution and is superior to it.
And so we have it. A well functioning group of citizens generally comprised of every adult male required to own a firearm to assist in maintaining a secure, free state. The fear of the standing army was so strong, the right was not to be infringed.
Now it is unlikely that we will ever be called into serve as militiamen, so why does this inalienable right extend to our concealed handguns? Again, the answer is best found in history. It wasn't until 1845 when the first police force was formed on American soil. And then it was the police that were unarmed. It was the prevailing wisdom that should a police officer require a firearm, they would enlist the services of an armed citizen. While we attribute the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as one of Jefferson's inalienable rights, the British Jurist Sir William Blackstone refers the right to bear arms for self-preservation and defense as a primary law of nature that cannot be compromised by the law of society.
So you see, there is no Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment stands to protect a right that was already there.
Thanks....I had to LOL at your post above, heck of a description!
I’ll take your advice!
I’ll give him that. Honed my views.
...but a sharpening stone should be used with care, and put away when done lest the blade be ground down to nothing or others be unduly damaged. And when the stone becomes warped from overuse, it should be discarded - as should rp redux.
Also from the Post 38 you cite:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?”
Just making sure I didn’t miss something.
You’re a smart fellow; you’ll figure it out.
Yes, Mr. White, it is more effective ... unless the opponent refuses to admit being wrong, instead forever leaping off to some other imagined flaw and flailing thereon. We’ve been thru this many times together, and many a FReeper and moderator has agreed you’ve gotta go.
Thanks, mods!
FWIW...
“Robert Paulsen” was the antihero protagonist of _Fight_Club_, who operated an anarchistic organization.
“Mr. White” was an antihero protagonist of _Reservoir_Dogs_, who operated a criminal organization.
Other pseudonymns used by this character followed the same pattern.
Ooops!
He had one other ID from _Fight_Club_, (shortly after his banning as robertpaulsen) but I don’t recall what it was.
Just an observation...
Sorry about that dark wing, meant the ping for the other darkwing104
The Founders were very careful about their phrasing, so going to a linguistics expert to parse out the meaning of the amendment is certainly a useful exercise - especially for those who keep tossing that militia word at us.
Funny, any time you lose an argument you take on a self-righteous “I’m smarter than you, I’m tired of you, I’m not wasting any more time on you” when it’s you that hasn’t justified squat.And yes, not long after that handle was banned, he popped up with another name reflecting another notable movie anarchist's flunky.I suppose it fits someone whose chosen handle, backed up by links on his profile page, is a fictional character whose primary claims to fame is having (A) been emasculated, and (B) died doing something stupid. (Yes, folks, the name “Robert Paulsen”, reinforced by the audio link on his profile page, refer to a not particularly respectable character in the movie “Fight Club” - fitting for someone whose MO on FR is to pick all the fights he can.)
>Does this mean we can own tanks and aircraft, maybe have our own armies and navies?
Yes.
You should also look up the phrases “letters of mark” and “letters of reprisal.”
>>”How did ya like that Kelo decision?”
>
>How do I “like” it? I don’t understand.
>
>Oh, wait a minute. I get it. You think unpopular Supreme Court decisions are wrong and the decisions you agree with are correct.
>
>Well. That’s certainly an interesting interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Juvenile, but interesting.
No, Kelo is a patently obvious BAD decision; in it the court allowed as “for the public use” requirement of the 5th amendment to be filled by a PROJECTION of increased tax revenues.
This means that all the government has to do to justify taking someone’s property is to project that it will have some positive impact on revenue via taxation... as a not-so-stretched example, a government agent could take a little old lady’s classic Cadillac that she only uses on Sundays because they project that the public will benefit via the increase taxes of the vehicle being used more often than once a week and they could do it based just on the fuel-tax.
Outstanding. 10th Amendment FTW!
Why only basic armament?
I want an M4A1 with ACOG and M203 launcher.
And I want to carry it on the NYC subway.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the [parade permit laws] under consideration do not have this effect.Presser v . Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Sweet
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.