PDA

View Full Version : Original Intent #5 (Second Amendment)



wolfstrike
05-08-2017, 08:56 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Out of all the Amendments that were put together, this Amendment was #2 , isn't that an indication of importance?

Why did states have militias?
Each state was nearly it's own country.
States weren't expected to trust other states.
The founders envisioned a country and it's states where an army wasn't there to push people around.
The militia was a temporary army.
The founders did not want a standing army. To a small extent they recanted and created a navy, but this was to be off-shore.

Nearly every male of the age of 17 and older was expected to participate in his state's defense. In most cases the militia man brought his own guns.
Who was there to enact gun control?
One group of citizens demanding another group be disarmed?
A local sheriff trying to collect guns from a population if 2000?
There were no federal police forces.
Even when local police forces were created they were greatly out numbered and out gunned by the public.

The founders were well aware of the weapon disarmament history of England and Europe, but in America the idea was nearly inconceivable.
You had people living in the wilderness and years to come of expansion.
How many people needed guns just to eat?

The founders were quick and short about the rules, no laws banning militias, no laws banning guns.

* Modern historians try to say the Second Amendment only applies at a federal level.
The "militia" is a state entity , "the people" are the common citizens.

* Modern historians try to claim weapon technology has surpassed the scope of the Amendment.
When the Amendment was created , it was perfectly legal for a private citizen to own cannons, a few were wealthy enough to do-so.

* The fact is, gun ownership is protected in case all else fails and the government itself becomes a threat to the public

The way the law is written, the government, state or federal, really has no authority over any kind of weapon.

Owning a weapon is not a crime, committing a crime is a crime.

I think the population of a state can write laws against themselves in dealing with explosives, but it would take a large majority, competent pro-Second Amendment law writers, and clear restrictions that would most likely be temporary.


...not just rogue politicians working toward a disarmed public.



Our second president John Adams used to bring his gun to elementary school to go hunting afterwards.
Maybe the reason why kids want to shoot people is not because gun ownership is legal, but due to other social neglect.


Gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
No gun grabbing politician or police force is protected by the Constitution