...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,
4 hours ago