Our founding fathers knew.....
by: Guest
Total views: 583
Word Count: 306
"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."
I believe the writers of the constitution were people who could see into the future
and what kinds of things would be tried in order to diminish ones freedoms. The second
amendment is written in a way that future opponents could NOT use an armed Military
or militia as a reason that citizens did not need to be armed. They knew that sometime
government leaders would attempt to disarm the public siting protection being provided
by government agencies. They knew this as a starting point to a totalitarian government seen over and over in Europe which they had escaped from. European governments had used the excuse repeatedly that government protection did away with the need of the people to be armed.
The second amendment acknowledges the need for a armed militia, but goes on to
state that having this is not an excuse to disarm the public.. Liberals would have you
believe that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" means those who make up the militia, not the public at large. Wrong...
If this is not so, then why would this be said?
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour."
George Washington (Address to 1st session of Congress)
Firearms in the hands of the people do seem to be what is protected in the second amendment.. They knew, didn't they?
About the Author
Semi Retired Citizen....
Rating: Not yet rated
Comments
Yep, Right ON.............
The Supreme court finds an "The Individual" has the right to bear arms for self protection.
Not only that, requiring a trigger lock is Unconstitutional as it interferes with the ability to use a gun for self protection.
Well it's about time......
Now we can see this as a RIGHT and not a privilege and start working to dismantle the Liberal red tape that has been increasingly piled on this right for decades....
As it was all along, a RIGHT just like free
speech... Infringing on ether is
unconstitutional... Now is the time to really get to work to gain this RIGHT back in its full intent...
Hallelujah, because of people like the one who wrote this article and many others, Unconstitutional laws as was set up in Washington DC was successfully challenged in the Supreme Court and won. Not only does an Individual have the RIGHT to bear arms but it was ruled that Mandatory Trigger Locks are also unconstitutional. Hooray !!!
Now the real work begins. We must tear down the liberal red tape and bureaucratic hoops a citizen has to go through to own a gun, it is no longer a privilege as liberals would have you believe, "having to qualify for gun ownership". It is like any other RIGHT. Yours for the taking, does not have to be rented, leased, earned or any other infringement.
Further law suits may reach the Supreme Court to get decisions on how much regulations are permissible on the Right to bear arms. Liberals will continue to lie to the public on the dangers of gun ownership. Liberal Media will continue to refuse to fully cover Millions of incidences of Armed Citizens who stop crime with a weapon and never fire a shot that happens every year.
Liberals cannot control you if you know the truth on how guns in the hands of citizens truly control crime help make society safer for everyone whether you carry a firearm or not as the criminal does not know if you do.
Make owning a gun illegal and he will know that you being a law biding citizen are fair game, unarmed and ripe for the picking.
The lies have started already by Washington DC politicos. Again they throw our the lie of excessive Danger of loaded guns in the home to Children, ignoring the fact that more children die playing sports at school. So here we go again. The new Washington DC requirements to register handguns, residents would have to complete an application, pass a written firearms test, provide a photo and proof of good vision, and be fingerprinted"
Is this a right or what? Lets apply these requirement to lets say Free Speech. Those wishing to express their view will need to register by completing an application and passing a test covering grammar and analytical thought submit to being photographed and showing proof of good verbalization of thought and be finger printed. Ya, like that would fly.... A right is a right, the second amendment right is not a new right as some would have you believe.. It was not just granted by the Supreme Court, it has always been right there where it has always been. Without infringement means just that, it does not have to be (as noted in another response above)earned, rented, leased as this new law certainly requires... I hope at some point individuals running Washington DC Liberal Government is sued individually for using their government position to infringe on civil rights. And it is for sure this will go to court..
A law abiding citizen has every right to bear arms at home and on his person. Only after abuse of this right should any sanctions, infringements and requirements be leveled at that person who abused the right, just as one who yells fire in a crowded room
which can kill just as surely as a gun.
--