Sunday, December 10, 2006

Ever Wonder Why We Have the 2nd Amendment...

...you know the one that says our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that there will be a well regulated militia. It is not saying that we have the right to keep and bear arms in order to form militias, it is saying that said right will not be infringed in order for us to be able to form militias for the security of a free state. Get that, in other words it means the right to keep and bear arms was there for us regardless of the 2nd amendment, but that said, the 2nd amendment specifically insures us that said right cannot be infringed by our government (like they ever paid attention to it). Now the solicitor general of DC (District of Columbia), a politician who is not federal and not even part of one of the 50 states in our great nation, wants to have that right stripped from the people of all 50 states by saying it is a right that applies only to militias. If that was so it would not specifically state in the 2nd Amendment that it was a right of the people. Read it see if I am right or not:

"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."

Then read this article: D.C. Argues Gun Rights Only For Militias found at this link:
http://www.wfsb.com/politics/10485690/detail.html and see if the solicitor general of DC is out of his mind as I suppose he must be.

Well, regardless of what I believe, the solicitor general of DC should read the news. Look to Asia in the Pacific region. Look to the country of Fiji. Look to the coup that just took place there. Read this article, Fijians divided over coup outlook @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6209620.stm and say: 'Hey, wow, sounds a lot like a nice guy who took over because he wants to promote tolerance for other groups'. Of course, as the opening lines point out: "Fiji's coup leader Commodore Frank Bainimarama sees himself as the great protector of his country's multiculturalism."

Note it does not say that the rest of his countrymen see him that way, that is as a nice guy. As it turns out, maybe that is because he is not so nice. Go to this article and have a look: Post-coup Fiji warns dissenters @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6166779.stm. You see the majority of people oppose him. Those who are brave enough to speak out against him are brought into the police stations for "questioning".

"When we hear or it is reported that some individual is attempting to make some statement that we see as inciting or could create problems, we will call the individuals in and speak to them," said Maj Neumi Leweni, a military spokesman.

You see multiculturism is okay only if you agree with his brand of it. If they do not agree with him, they are sought out. Then if they do not agree to go to the police station for questioning when ordered to do so, they are persuaded by other means. Imagine that happening here in the United States of America. Hmm, do these types of tactics sound familiar? Let's see, in recent history it could be like people being forced to allow police to enter their homes in New Orleans, after hurricane Katrina, so police could search for legal firearms to confiscate them, or being kidnapped in Israel by Palestinian terrorists because you profess another religion than Islam, or it could be like what used to happen under Saddam Hussein - you spoke against him and you vanished, or it could be like what happened in Pinochet's Chile same as with Saddam, or it could be like what happened in Nazi Germany, like when children ratted out their own parents to the Gestapo if they disagreed with Hitler. It happens again and again around the world but not here in the USA - so why not? Look to Fiji and ask why.

The people there, in Fiji, who had been under a democratic form of government are now under a military dictatorship. Suddenly, overnight as a matter of fact, they no longer have the right to assemble, even if they did they would no longer have the right to free speech once assembled. You can bet the same goes for freedom of the press, it has disappeared. Do you know what right may have prevented this from befalling Fijians, what right may have prevented this military overthrow of the justly elected government? Yes, that's the one, the one that is written about in our own Constitution's 2nd Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms by the people. The Fijians were not armed as are American citizens in the USA. There was nothing to prevent a military overthrow of the government, of the people.

The military in this country while greatly out gunning the public with military hardware still would not ever likely try a coup if only because there are so many of the people who are armed. Our Founding Fathers were wise men indeed. They made certain that after they had enumerated several rights of the people in the 1st Amendment, they then enumerated some others in the 2nd Amendment - those rights that would keep us a secure and free nation. The solicitor general of DC should eat a copy of the U.S. Constitution and choke on it as far as I am concerned, because as I see him he is a traitor to his own government, and an ass at that.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right we enjoy with or without the second amendment, our right to form militias is likewise, our right not to have either of those rights taken away from us is the one written into the 2nd amendment. It makes the right to keep and bear arms the most secure right we have, yet politicians just don't get it; or should I say do not want to get it probably if only because it is the right that keeps them best in their places as servants of the people, it keeps us living in a secure and free state, and it prevents them from becoming tyrants and from taking that all away from us.

All the best,
Glenn B

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

link for american history please read some of it
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/index.shtml

you make no mention of the Declaration of Independence. the troubles the colonies had with the UK which the colony founders left for civil and religious freedom from the land they removed themselves from. the great risk they took by leaving which was quite easily death, traveling to a strange land across a sea to go to a land fill with unknown.

articles of confederation another good source and document pre-existing to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. which had article 6 stating

VI.
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

Declaration of Independence
July 4, 1776
The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united* States of America.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- 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. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

Glenn Bartley said...

So in essence these documents would tend to support the claim that the 2nd Amendment was written to support a secure free state, wouldn't they?

All the best,
Glenn B