Saturday, October 25, 2008


Contrary to what many people may believe, the Second Amendment to the Constitution does NOT guarantee you the right to wear short-sleeved shirts.

It's the right to BEAR arms, not the right to BARE arms.

Here is the text of Amendment II:

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.

This sentence has been scrutinized by many, and misunderstood by many more.

Its first phrase: A well regulated militia, has been misapplied to mean a citizen being a part of the country's regular military, such as the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, National Guard or Coast Guard.

However, the term "militia", is commonly used to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement or paramilitary service in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or being committed to a fixed term of service.

It's guys and gals like you and me.

When we were seeking release from the political bonds of Great Britain, we formed various militia (militias?), to fight them.

We were out manned, out gunned, out flanked and out trained. We could not possibly have won that war.

But we did.

Today, people scoff at the idea that regular citizens could go up against the United States government. We would be out manned, out gunned, out flanked and out trained.

But if we had to...

In fact, in the Declaration of Independence we find this sentence:

"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."

Such a thing was against British law, and we were clearly in violation of that law when we sought our independence.

Yet our founders saw that there were circumstances when the established government could go too far in its governance, requiring action on the part of the citizenry.

Such a thing seem so repulsive as to make it nearly impossible to imagine, had it not happened to us before.

But our forefathers were wise enough to provide for such an eventuality in our Constitution.

You and I have the right to keep firearms. No type of restriction is placed on what kind of fire arm we may own. No limit is suggested as to our reason for holding such fire arm(s).

The stated purpose for the recognition of that right is "...the security of a free state..."

Freedom is the ability of a people to pursue their ambitions without undue interference from the government.

When the government becomes too restrictive, it is the right of the people to try by peaceful means to change it.

If that fails, it is the right of the citizenry to take up arms against the oppressors and take the country back, forcefully, if necessary.

Such a right comes with a very heavy responsibility, the responsibility to properly weigh the matters involved and to react with prudence.

Notice this very important phrase: "...the right of the people..."

The constitution does not confer rights upon us. Rather it recognizes rights that we already have and restricts the federal government from usurping those rights.

This is given credence by the following phrase: "...shall not be infringed..."

A right given by a Constitution can be take away by that same Constitution. A right given by God cannot be taken away by any entity.

I have been trained to use an M1 rifle (one of the sorriest pieces of fire arm ever invented, but the one used in almost all of the battles of WWII). I have also been trained in the use of a 45 automatic pistol.

I don't own a gun, although I have seriously considered obtaining one recently.

Contrary to what some would teach, restricting the sale of guns of any type to law abiding citizens would not reduce crime. Criminals are called "criminals" because they do not obey the law.

When the average, law abiding citizen is prevented from owning a fire arm, the only people left in possession of them will be the police, the military and criminals.

Early in his career, Barack Obama was active in not only restricting ownership of fire arms, but in the active confiscation of fire arms.

He continues to support infringing upon the right of citizens to bear arms.

Is that the ideology of a person you want to be the president of The United States of America?


Jennifer said...

I don't own a gun either but it is not the governments decision whether or not I should own one. The only thing banning guns will do is to limit our ability to protect ourselves against the thugs owning illegal guns.

Joe said...

jennifer: 10/4

Anonymous said...

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

I think you forgot this middle part. And since each state has their own National Guard, commanded by the Governor (Sarah Palin's claim to fame as an executive), the security seems assured.

So... your whole theory is shot. So to speak.

Or do you not trust Sarah?

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

I'm proud to say I'm a responsible American gun-owner.

Joe said...

anonymous: There are some people, yourself included, who take a set of facts and, using faulty logic, draw wrong conclusions.

My "theory" is not shot, and you need to educate yourself enough to use logic to see that.

I dealt with the "free" part (I guess you skimmed over that), but the state part you see in that amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the individual states. None at all. Nada. Doesn't pretend to, and no clear thinking Constitutional attorney has ever understood it to mean individual states.

But you are probably smart enough to really know that. Aren't you?

You just really like ascribing fault when it suits your agenda...right?

I'm not saying you are one, I hardly know you, but that is the technique used by dishonest, contrarian troublemakers who have a leftist, elitist agenda.

You know, the guys who want the federal government to be able to exercise power and control over the people to keep them in line (not the job of the feds, by the way).

The whole topic of this amendment is the populace related to the state (not states), and, as the rest of the Constitution is, is restricted to what the federal government cannot do to its citizens.

Joe said...

BTW: That "Shot" thing WAS a pretty good pun.

Tapline said...

Joe, outstanding post. Most people read but don't understand what they read. You do!. Stay well....