Guns, Rights, and the Constitution
It never fails. If I am not sure what to write about, I can always just visit Facebook to see what nonsense is being spewed by bootlickers and petty tyrants trying to make excuses for political violence against innocent people. Today's discussion involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights that were supposed to restrain governmental overreach by explicitly limiting authority over specific areas of life. It . . . hasn't turned out as well as intended. Lawyers are apparently able to twist the plainest of language in order to justify whatever politicians want.
For those unfamiliar with the Constitution or Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment states the following:
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.
A few points seem to be obvious.
Rights are not created or granted by governments. They are sometimes acknowledged as pre-existing and worthy of protection against political overreach. Usually, grudging lip service is paid to such rights while bureaucrats and law enforcement simultaneously dive into violating them with gusto.
People privately owned repeating arms, muskets, rifles, and literal field artillery equal or superior to that fielded by the military threats of their day in the 18th century. How can you possibly conclude that this state of affairs should change with technology? If the first amendment applies to typewriters, radio, television, and the internet, then how could the second amendment not apply to automatic weapons and anti-armor rockets today?
Disarmament of dissidents as a precursor to violating their rights to life, liberty, property, speech, association, etc. has been a factor in politics for centuries. In April of 1775, the British moved on Lexington and Concord to seize arms held by the militia. Why would the founders assume their new government would never do the same?
From my personal copy of Webster's Condensed Dictionary, 1884 edition
"A well regulated Militia, . . ." The militia predates the government as a voluntary institution of self-regulated volunteer organizations. There is no need for political involvement in regulation, and nothing about the word "regulated" necessarily implies ". . . by the government" at any level.
"...being necessary to the security of a free State, . . ." Is the term "free state" meant in the sense of a political institution, or a condition of liberty? Why would you assume the former?
"...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, . . ." The right already exists, and belongs to the people. The preceding clauses only offer a justification for that protection.
". . . shall not be infringed." Government is not to trespass against this right in any way whatsoever. It is off-limits to federal legislation.
Don't let yellow journalism, propaganda, or "what-if" fearmongering persuade you to make any excuses for violating the liberty of others. Don't appeal to old papers signed by dead people or the sophistry of lawyers and politicians as an excuse for violence against peaceful people. Freedom may be an uncomfortable sensation, and it may have real dangers, but I'll take those risks over the guarantees of despotic abuse any day, and no one has the authority to choose otherwise on my behalf.
@jacobtothe History tends to repeat itselves, and when ive seen people disarmed usually bad things happen next to those people. Luckily where I live its probably the last place someone would try to take away my right to own and bear arms.
Posted using Partiko Android
The deep south and the mountain west are pretty good in firearm freedom, although the major coastal cities on the Pacific sure do want to change it out here. History does have a habit of rhyming, and if there is another major war and/or economic collapse, I expect totalitarianism to be presented as a solution, and dissidents to be framed as the root problem. Never mind how obvious it is that foreign interventionism, monetary manipulation, arbitrary prohibitions, etc. are the disease masquerading as the cure.
As a thought.
It is the Second Amendment, therefore, if it was amended once it can be amended again.
The next time it could say "Nobody will hold any weapons of any kind" which would be interesting.
They could amend it, but that doesn't affect the fact that rights don't come from government, or that governments don't act as representatives of the general populace. Slavery was "constitutional," but that didn't create a right to own black people because such a right cannot exist in the first place, and black people did not lose their right to freedom even if the law said otherwise.
https://www.kentforliberty.com/guns.html
You should re-post this kind of stuff here on Steemit with a link to the original post. I don't remember seeing this piece here yet.
I haven't posted my webpages here, except as comments. Maybe I will do that.
They have bastardized the entire premise of our country. For the people, by the people? Which people? The homeless? Nope! The poor? Nope!
There is a big problem with governments where the rich class people and divide us according to their whim. This division is what they use to subvert the Constitution and gain more power over our lives.
The Constitution should have ended at ' Congress shall make no law.'
Posted using Partiko Android
It's not rich vs. poor, it's the people who want to peacefully and productively interact vs. the political plunderers. The politicians sell their plunder by promising a piece of the pie to the poor, but that doesn't really pave the way to progress.
Apparently accidental alliteration is happening today. Oh, well.