The United States Constitution and its Second Amendment
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
These words seem clear enough to most Americans. Most Americans that is, except those that we send to Washington, DC. What is it about being elected to public office that turns people into thieves?
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
There are some that manage to keep themselves, but unfortunately they seem to be few and far between and are becoming scarcer by the day. One obvious case in point would be the vote by members of the Supreme Court.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that a 76-year-old African-American Democrat who lives in Chicago, could own a handgun. Otis McDonald, a retired working-class guy, sued the city for taking away his right to protect himself. McDonald was straight to the point, he said his neighborhood is full of thugs who threaten his well-being and the city cannot control the situation. So he has to protect himself from harm.
But in a vote that totally disregards the Constitution of the United States, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Mr. McDonald and the American people to shove it. They stated that guns cause a lot of damage to society; therefore, if a city wants to ban them, it can. But that is a policy belief, instead of just following the law, is it not? What about, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?
Where in the Constitution does it say that if guns become a menace to society they can be banned? Where does it say in the Constitution that if four or five people, given a position where they are almost immune for reproach, can take a fundamental Natural Law, which is guaranteed in the Constitution, and throw it our because they have a different political beliefs than those of the Founding Fathers? What about, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? I ask this again.
The Founding Fathers well understood the need for individual protection. Under King George, British soldiers routinely threw Colonial families out of their homes using a bogus law called the "Quartering Act." Because of that, the founding Fathers gave us the 3rd Amendment,
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
In order to ensure that and to give Americans a way of protecting themselves against that infringement, they gave us the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect Americans. It allows them to protect themselves, their families, their friends and their property from those, ANY “THOSE”, that might seek to deny or take away any of the freedoms or security that Americans enjoy and are guaranteed.
There are four Supreme Court Justices that don’t believe in the rule of law. There are four Supreme Court Justices that don’t believe in the Constitution and there are four Supreme Court Justices that don’t believe in the traditions and freedoms of America. What if it had been five instead of four?
What if there had been just one more of these usurpers of freedom and haters of our Republic? What then? Where do we go from there? Do we just give in to their totalitarian demands and burn the Constitution and give up our freedoms? After the 2nd Amendment is abolished, how do you as an average American protect your other freedoms?
These people are already trying to force you to buy health insurance. These people are already making you work Monday, Tuesday and part of Wednesday to pay for what they want to spend the money you worked for on. Think about that, you work 2 1/2 days a week, a full 130 days a year for them. Where do they stop if we can’t defend ourselves?
And what about those that live close to our nation's borders. With a political regime in place that refuses to protect America and Americans, how can Americans protect themselves from illegals, drug smugglers, human smugglers and criminals if our government is standing firmly against Americans on this issue? There are already dead Americans because of these people in Washington. How many more dead Americans will it take until Americans say, that’s enough?
Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.
"These people are already
"These people are already trying to force you to buy health insurance. These people are already making you work Monday, Tuesday and part of Wednesday to pay for what they want to spend the money you worked for on. Think about that, you work 2 1/2 days a week, a full 130 days a year for them. Where do they stop if we can’t defend ourselves?"
Hey, here's an idea, why don't we VOTE?
I flashed on Bill Murray ". . . .but won't I go to jail if I kill all the golfers?"
I feel for the man in Chicago and think Chicago's approach was unconstitutional and the 4 justices were wrong but gun ownership isn't a "natural law" and that was one of the weakest, logically convoluted arguments I've read.
Funny, 1st thing Wyatt Earp did when he rode into town was ban guns in town and we think of him as the poster boy for the NRA. Think about it.
Natural Law and the right of self-defense
Natural Law regarding self defense. I have the right to defend myself to the point of stopping any attack against myself, my loved ones, or any other person. The very best tool to use in stopping an attack is a gun. In addition, to properly and effectively use that tool, I must become the very best I can via training and practice.
Simply put, I have the natural right to keep and bare arms and that right "shall not be infringed".
I carry a gun.
Au contraire, messieur Chuck.
It IS Natural Law.
The right to have in one's immediate possession the most efficient means to defend one's inalienable rights to Life and Liberty proceeds from those Natural Rights, otherwise those rights are rendered impotent.
And, SCOTUS has so held. Thankfully.