“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.”
William J. Brennan, Jr. quotes
“Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions. But no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”
Bernard M. Baruch
I am a strong supporter of owning firearms for home protection, personal concealment for public protection, and recreational use like hunting and tactical training etc. But, I am a devil’s advocate and love a good debate. So let’s review the facts.
We must first start with the 2nd Amendment. It states
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.
Do not let people use it as it is commonly misused and out of context, “A right to bear arms”. It is not a right to bear arms just because I am a civilian in the U.S. It clearly states a well regulated militia for the security of a free state.
Now some of the controversy comes from people like me who try and dig into things a little deeper than necessary. What is written and approved by congress and the senate was not the same grammatical writing of what was dispersed to the states. I think this argument is total BS. But we will acknowledge it anyway.
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.
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.
So, it is clear there is a difference in punctuation. What are the meanings and what is really supposed to be emphasized? Whether the word “people” is capitalized or not, you can’t argue that the first 4 words are not in the mix. And that is where I stand. Again, a well regulated militia. So what is a militia…well there are several changes to what it is over the last 230 years. State militia’s eventually evolved into the National Guard. There is a strong movement going on now to return back to militias regulated by civilians because the guard is beginning to be an army too controlled by the federal government. Militias are for civil protection against governments, and yes that includes the United States of America. You can read more about them here on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
Let me ask how many of you belong to a well regulated militia? How many times have other states come to your town to take over? Have you ever used your gun to defend your free state? This “right” is clearly used in the wrong context.
Now let’s move on to my own personal beliefs about the rights of Americans. This amendment has been in effect and has shaped our country for too long now to just go and say civilians who do not belong to a militia can not own firearms. Too many have guns and it has shaped our lives that we as civilians can own guns. The more and more rights we are used to having that get slowly taken away will create a huge problem. The government will continue to take and take and take. That is the one thing I do not believe is right. But I do think the laws regarding firearms should be reviewed for the current lifestyle we live in. So screw the damn debate and make new legislation that is for the protection of the people against criminals. Gun laws do not stop criminals. They help them.
The debate is also over whether assault rifles should be legal. I do not think it is necessary to own an assault rifle. They should be banned. They aren’t for home protection; they are for tactical assault and should only be issued by government agencies for such. Most attacks aren’t from assault rifles except in gang/drug related instances. Most are for handguns and hunting rifles. Handguns account for 81 percent of all murders. I would hate to live in D.C and not have the ability to own a handgun in my home and let a robber come in to rape my wife and she can’t protect herself because it is illegal to own handguns in the D.C. That law was past some 32 years ago. D.C. is continuously on the top 5 murder rate cities in the country. That is not right! They should be able to have one. The law is clearly not making a dent on the crime rate there.
Gun related crimes in Texas are lower (keep in mind the size of our state and the fact we have 3 major cities with over a million in population, and one very close to it) than any other state. Most states require you to attend a class, get a certificate/license and several week background checks before you can purchase a handgun. Here in Texas all you need is a driver license. You walk into a store, they will run a 20 minute background check, you sign some forms and pay. You can literally walk out the door in 30 minutes with your gun. Does the thought of how easy it is to own a handgun in Texas deter people from committing gun related crimes wondering if this person or that person might be carrying? I think it does. Not to mention we have the highest number of concealed permits here too. Just a plug, California has more cities in the US on the top 65 list of crime rate. Is it due their gun bans and “hippie” left wing mentality? I am all for peace. I would love to have no violence but I also believe in the devil and know it is not possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Now I am not saying we should have a complete arsenal in our house for protection. If the argument is you need a gun to protect yourself then you should be able to purchase one for that. If you want to go hunt deer or shoot birds then you should be able to purchase that. Maybe even get 2 or 3 guns for different areas of your house. I think your gun should be legal, certified, numbered and registered. I do not think you need an AR-15, a 50 caliber Desert Eagle, an M-16, an SKS, a 1911 45, 4 different gauge shotguns, a 30/30, a 30/6, a Glock tactical 9mm, and a .380 scattered throughout your house for home protection. That is BS. Get your certifications, get your concealment license, take some shooting classes and have a limit on how many guns civilians are allowed to own if you want to protect yourself. If you want to hunt, get a rifle and do it. That is what I feel. Guns deter crimes though. Look at the difference between the Virginia Tech shootings and the Appalachian School of Law Shooting. It was the difference between 32 dead because nobody was prepared and 2 dead because others went to their cars and had firearms to assist.
Your 2nd Amendment isn’t to bear arms wherever you please. The amendment is if you are in a well regulated militia, your militia can provide you arms for protection of your state against governments looking to overtake your state (again this includes your own government). So stop stretching it to do whatever you please and use this right to bear arms crap. That is not what the right is, but I do think we should have the right to guns but have a limit and a use. It is time to change the laws for the people.
Here is a link to the preceedings of the Supreme Court yesterday and several great points were made. They are viewing this Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. But one justice said "I can not imagine that in those days, the father would tell the son to get his arms to go and hunt some food." The word arms is for protcetion of country. Not for protection of your house. I am on the fence here. I do not believe the amendment is valid at all. I think new legislation shoudl be written to protect the people who wish to safeguard their belongings and safehood.
Enjoy article and podcast.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16476741
No comments:
Post a Comment