Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Well Mus, I think I may have posted this before but here goes.
Believing that I know how to read and what puncuation means, and thinking that due consideration was given this in the authoring of the Bill Of Rights this is my take on it.
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.
Note the placement of the comma. We all know what a comma is, so I take to read thus ;
Since the government is going to have to have guns obviously, if it is to be a free state, the Citizen must also have guns.
I believe they chose their words carefully, as well when they chose the words "alter or abolish it" referring to the People's right to "alter or abolish" the government. Taken together, I think this means the intent was that, yes the government goes after criminals and such, and will need the power of force to do so. But I believe that it also means that Citizens are not to be deprived of their right to the means of violent "redress of their grievances", another bit of words. Out of context perhaps, but the words exist and I think I understand them clearly.
While the right of the government to quell an insurrection is also defined, I think the intent was that if they really pissed too many people off, that the power would be in the hands of the People to totally oust the government.(specifically the ability to win a revolution) I believe it was Jefferson who said that to keep things right we would need a revolution every twenty years or so. It seems we have missed quite a few.
They had given us a Republic, if only we had been able to keep it.
Personally, I think there should have been a revolution when they made it illegal to own gold. I also think they should have not infringed on the southern states rights to secede from the union. And if you think the civil war was about slavery, I don't know what to tell you. The south had very good reason, and some southern states had already abolished slavery. There were other issues and they were mostly concerning how the US government was doing business. How money and issues of taxation were handled and such. They saw it going downhill and wanted no part of it.
I could hunt you down some links, but you can most likely find them yourself just as easily. Search term "tarriff of abominations" would probably be quite fruitful.
I will close the hijack here saying : If they would have let the southern states secede, I think most of them would have rejoined the union by now. There would have been no bloodshed, well not anymore than in normal life. Slavery was getting outlawed on a state by state basis, thus the decision by Roger B. Taney known as the Dread Scott decision. That would make another good search term. Incidentally Taney was the last in a series of Secretarys of the Treasury after about three of his predecessors had been fired because they refused to follow orders. That order was to "invest" US gold in the world bank. Three had refused, Taney complied and was rewarded with a lifetime cushy job as a US judge, thus his ability to render the dreaded Dread Scott decision.
For those who don't feel like looking it up, the Dread Scott decision compelled free states to return escaped slaves to the slave states. Sounds like a nice guy doesn't he ?
Enough on the civil war, the placement of the comma in the Second stands for itself. If you can really read, that's what that means, BECAUSE . If the Constitution was written to insure our right to alter or ABOLISH the government, their own words, what do you think it means ?
Does that mean it means you have a right to have a nuclear bomb in your basement ? No, not IMO. Thing is, if we stop interpreting one way, stop interpreting another, all others. Weapons that could kill a million people in one shot did not exist, and if we take the letter of the law instead of interpreting it, that means the Second does not allow one the right to have weapons of mass destruction.
Surely they knew that advances in weaponry would come, they were not stupid. However there were probably gattling guns (sp) which would cover machine guns. That would be about as far as I can take it. I also believe that there are in order some local ordinances, barring the firing of certain weapons or certain types of ammo in populated areas. Even in those days of supposed "freedom" in many towns you checked your gun with the sherriff, to be returned when you leave. If you refuse just ride on through. But they knew that bullets could go through walls and such. If you wanted to go into their bars and hotels etc., you comply. If not you are free to go, but only to go.
It is a very complex issue, but if we stick to the lines rather than reading between the lines things can be simplified. The Second cannot be applied to a few other things, like biological weapons or chemical.
Does the Second confer the right to have the means to fight back if the cops surround your house ? Yes.
To have the means to kill many at once like a nuke or something ? No.
Again, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater the unorganized militia, you've heard of them, claim that in the Constitution there is conferred the right to fight the government by any means necessary. I believe that is a reasonable conclusion. I don't agree with most of their ideas and ideals, but on this point they are right. Shall not be infringed, alter or abolish it, take it all together reading the lines and not between the lines, this is a logical and quite reasonable conclusion.
Sometimes these groups give dissidents a bad name. McVeigh was part of one, one of the more off the wall ones. I wish there was a group that shared my idealogy and we could go out in the woods practicing shooting and stuff. But most of them are too religious and most of them are bigoted against alternative lifestyles. To me that is hypocrisy (sp). They preach rights but claim to have the right to define what those rights are, I just can't go along with that. Otherwise I'd have my cammies, canteen and who know what else.
Enough for now.
T
|
RE: Well regulated? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread