What part of “people” is unclear?
Thanks to CountrySinger for his comments on the post from yesterday. The agenda of liberals to disarm the populace is clear, but what gives them the feeling that what they are doing is in any way constitutional? The answer to that is to be found in the official policy of the ACLU, cited in their 1986 policy statement:
“Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.” ~ACLU policy statement #47, 1986
This argument is rooted in the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The troublesome text reads,
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.”
The problem arises when this sentence is viewed in a vacuum. When interpreting the intent of the Framers, the other seminal documents of this nation may not be law, but they are pertinent. Remember that at the point when the Second Amendment was written there was much distrust of standing armies, and some question as to whether or not the United States should maintain one. There are other protections built into the Constitution which are designed to protect the people from the predations of an army, particularly the army of a state which had become intolerable. Let’s look at a document signed by the Framers of the Constitution, a statement of intent for this nation which, while not law, is essential to understanding what these men were creating for posterity (in this case, us.)
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Viewed in this light, it is clear that while acknowledging that a militia, or army, is necessary to the security of a free state, the people themselves reserve the right to alter or abolish the government, and institute a new one. The only way to insure that the people have this ability is to protect their rights as citizens to keep and bear the only mechanism that, under a form of government that has become destructive to the ends, (being defined as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”) will ensure their ability to “throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security.” The Framers were not stupid, and they knew that a despotic government would use any and all means necessary to continue its own function, in its own self-interest. That includes the use of any army or other armed entity under its control and owing its allegiance to said government.
Does this mean that I am advocating revolution? No, not in the least. I have not declared this government, no matter how much I may dislike some of its policies, to be despotic; but if this bill passes and becomes law, the mechanism is laid by which the people may be easily identified and disarmed and makes them easily criminalized. As an aside, who currently has to register their address? Only those who are considered dangerous to society… actually only those who are considered particularly dangerous to society, such as sexual predators and felons who are still on parole. Once a felon’s parole ends, there is no requirement to keep anyone informed of their residence. Why would any government need to keep such close tabs on anyone?
To be able to quickly move to disarm them individually.
While the current government has not risen to the level of despotism, and I see no logical reason to call for revolution on any level, the Framers clearly intended to create a nation in which the people had the ability to do that if, and when, such government did usurp their rights to the extent that it was no longer sufferable and all other methods to redress such grievances had failed. Is it possible that a particular group, having gained control of all mechanisms of government, could carry forth such an abominable agenda under our current system and create an atmosphere in which those holding that control would fear armed insurrection? Sadly, yes, and HR 45 is proof of that.
“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”
~Rep. Henry Waxman
In these United States we will not lose our liberty in one huge thunderclap of cataclysmic usurpation. No, we lose our liberty incrementally and quietly. Those who would destroy our liberty in the name of “freedom” come like a thief in the night bearing a bottle of ether with which to ensure our slumber. In this case the thief bears a title, “Congressman,” and potentially has the votes in Congress and the right President to do such a thing. This bottle of ether carries the label, “safety from senseless gun violence,” and is even named after an individual who lost their life to a criminal using a firearm. This maudlin appeal to our pity for the victim is designed to lull us into a sense that it is right and good to ensure “freedom” from “senseless gun violence” at the expense of liberty ensured by the Constitution. The final removal of this liberty is what will enable all other usurpations to be less gentle. HR 45 is the first step.
The thief would whisper in our ear, while placing the ether-soaked cloth gently over our mouths, that this is for our own good, yet it is by this means that someday a government which has become insufferable will disarm the people so that the militia may not have any trouble at all ensuring the continuation of that government. It is with the first whiffs of ether that we let any last defense against such usurpations begin to slip into the realm of dreams.
.
.
Liberty; it’s more than just freedom.
Posted on February 27th, 2009 by Andy Wahl
Filed under: Uncategorized
Why can we just leave the Constitution alone!!!!!!!
Respectfully, Mickey. That’s why we have amendments. The founding fathers knew they weren’t geniuses and made it so that changes can be made as necessary.
Everything in its context. The FF’s wanted this included to maintain an active and ready militia. They didn’t do it as a door prize for people to claim their citizenship.
NY-David
The Founding Fathers also anticipated those militias to be as their own were: locally organized, on a town or village level, by everyday citizens during a time of need.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-James Madison