Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Okay, you made me do it.

Canadians, progressives, liberals, and statists listen up.  I'll explain this once.  After this you may only expect my replies to include the most dismissive hand gesture that I can think of at the time of its reading.

The 2nd Amendment:

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.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is not a matter of my opinion or yours.  It is chronicled quite nicely in the writings of the founding fathers as they attempted to give evidence for the need of a constitution.  Its intent is clear and to confuse it is merely a function of attempting to change its meaning to fit your own sensibilities.

The amendment states an intent to preserve (not grant) the pre-existing right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.  The word "people" was used in the Bill of Rights as a careful way to exclude slaves as the word "persons" was too inclusive.  We have thankfully cleared that up through additional amendments to our founding document.  Look at the other amendments and ask yourself if the Fourth amendments "...right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and affects against unreasonable searches and seizures..." is a right for a people group or a right of an individual citizen.  Could this be more clear?

The militia element of the amendment is an attempt to state purpose.  You'll find this pattern throughout the Bill of Rights.  They state individual rights and describe their collective purpose.  None of these rights are meant to be collective or restricted to a people group.  There is not a single sentence of writing by the founding fathers throughout history (Including the Federalist Papers) that states that membership in an active militia is a requirement for keeping and bearing arms.

The 2nd Amendment is not a guarantee of the right to hunt.  This amendment has one purpose:  It is the intention of the federal government to preserve nature's right to protect life, liberty and property from anyone who would presume to take it.

So there you have it.  History sides with me, the Constitution sides with me, the founding father's own writings side with me and to believe you I must consider them all wrong and you alone correct. 

I won't charge you for this lesson.

6 comments:

Gino said...

the 2nd was meant to guarantee militias could be formed, against our own govt if need be.
with this we agree,eh?

now, with this in mind...

can the court say handguns may not apply as military weapons, but machine guns are a go?

'member, the 2nd doesnt speak of crime, or self defenses. only freedom from govt oppression to secure a free people.

robert the grump said...

I'm guessing that Gino's gun collection is even more imposing than Tracy's.

Meanwhile, I have audited Tracy with an E-meter, and find that he is Clear. Long live Xenu.

Tracy said...

Gino,

Not only do we agree but Alexander Hamilton appeared to be on our side too...Aaron Burr as well probably though I won't speak for him.

Militias appear to be encouraged within the founding document as a last resort against an abusive government. Though Hamilton spoke at length about the need to put down petty uprisings he thought that ad hoc style militias powered by the passions of people to preserve liberty were well-placed. I tend to agree.

Though I'm against the idea of standing militias whether private or government.

The court seems like they've positioned themselves to okay machine guns in a way though I suspect they'd fall short. So we'll have to keep them under the floorboards for now. ;)

Grump, I just measured your lawn with a P-Meter.

Gino said...

seriously though,tracy...

i think a strict interpretation would favor the banning of non military arms. not that i like the idea,mind you.

but, to be consistent with original intent and all, i have to give this to the grabbers.

but only if they are willing to be just as honest, and allow me assault weapons, grenades, and artillery.

Mr. Evil said...

Just wait till some southern hick militia kills Obama. You think the anti-gun nuts are out now, just wait.

Tracy said...

Actually I agree with you that the supreme court will back themselves into a corner. To say that private citizens can arm themselves to protect life liberty and property as a militia is to give them access to military weapons.

And personally, I'm not the least bit concerned with law abiding citizens owning any weapon...and just because someone will ask I may as well include atomic weapons too.

Plus just so you know, if I owned an atomic weapon, I wouldn't let you know.