To put this whole essay another way, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would exist even if the government stated outright that it did not.
Does this mean we can own tanks and aircraft, maybe have our own armies and navies?
To put this whole essay another way, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would exist even if the government stated outright that it did not.
Very nicely put!
“...providence dictates your right to flourish.”
Too many today think they have a right to flourish. They don’t. What they have is a right to try to flourish, to do the best they can to flourish.
“...maintain their own marrow-minded ideas...”
I wonder if “marrow-minded” is the same as “bone headed”.
The author is partially correct. When written, the Bill of Rights (including the second amendment) was a limitation on the federal government only. It's ludicrous to think the Founding Fathers would impose those restrictions on all the states. After all, the states had their own constitutions.
But the author is wrong when he assumes the second amendment was written for personal protection. If it was, there was no need to mention militias.
Well reasoned, well researched and generally excellent. Wasted, of course, on those who wish to see us disarmed, helpless and enslaved. They can be persuaded only by the last argument of kings.
The short form:
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
An equipped and trained individual being necessary to the security of his 1/300,000,000th part of a free State, the right of an individual to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.
Seems most forget a citizen is a component of the nation, not a separate entity subject thereto.