re-posted – because you never saw it.
Article the Second
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’m not against guns.
I’m against idiots with guns.
I’m not against the right for citizens to own and keep guns.
I’m against citizens owning and keeping guns like AR-15’s and AK-47’s that have only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible.
I’m not against gun ownership.
I’m against irresponsible gun ownership, such as the people who allow children to get hold of loaded weapons to the tune of 500 kids killed a year through gun accidents, not including homicide or suicide.
I don’t argue with the idea that “Guns don’t kill. People kill.”
I do argue that it’s a lot harder to kill someone with a handgun.
All that being said, let’s look at the long-standing disagreement about the interpretation of the second amendment, which reads above:
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.
For those who support the NRA and love paintball so you can play “war” like we did in 5th grade, yes, I see the words that read the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Those words seem to indicate that our founding fathers wanted average citizens to keep themselves armed and ready. But why? Just…because? Not so.
You can’t ignore the beginning, which reads A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The first half of the second amendment clearly, I repeat, clearly shows that the purpose of “the people to keep and bear arms” is to have a militia. It also clearly states that the purpose of the militia is for the security of a free state. That doesn’t mean security against the guy who you think might be a little scary looking in the Harrah’s Casino parking lot. It means security in case this “free state” is attacked by another “state.” Free or not. But we have a militia, an army, and five branches of a military. We don’t need to muster up the colonists or round up the posse any more. It’s taken care of.
If it makes you feel cool or powerful to own a gun, great, good luck. But at least keep it locked and safe. And at least get one that’s not designed to kill a small village in about four seconds.
Am I asking too much?
71 thoughts on “The Right to Bear Arms”
As a Canadian well … you must know how difficult it has been to keep my mouth shut but the points you make are valid and you are not sitting on a fence. I will not argue with the right of an American to bear arms right now. The American Rifle Association may however disagree with your points.
People should have the fundamental right to protect themselves.
I think what bothers me most about the latest round of senselessness is the fact so much ammunition was ordered without any Red Flags going up. Where does the security start and end? I would have thought that given all the initiatives that have been put in place on all citizens and visitors to the US since 9/11 that there would be a more secure feed on these types of bulk orders. (please remove your flip-flops)
What if the gunman was a terrorist that threatened US security rather than random innocent people? Would intervention have taken place? I would like to think not …
And that is the problem with the Right to Bear Arms – the Extremities are not covered and therefore the Extremists have a pathway to destruction.
I hope I don’t get blasted here. I have been holding back. Can you tell?
Am I asking too much too?
not a bit too much. you’re saying all the right things to promote a discussion. and if someone were to “blast” you for politely stating your opinion, then that person who have no place at my table.
Still not kissing you 🙂 (thanks Rich)
i’ll keep trying.
*sorry* correction – I would like to think SO (not ‘not’)
Well said, sir. Well said.
Of course you aren’t asking too much. We need to be responsible gun owners. I own them. Actually my husband does. They are locked up. I know how to use them. But they are used for hunting only. And what he’s killed we’ve used for food. We do not believe in hunting for sport. My father was a cop for 39 years. He taught me how to shoot. I’m happy he did, but I would never use a gun unless it was in self-defense. Those who hunt for sport or use guns for violence against another human or animal need to be slapped. Or better yet, shot.
i’m good with that. thanks.
I totally agree rich. It’s such an ancient mentality to always be on the defensive and it’s what’s created the mess we’re in right now.It’s the old “my dad’s bigger than your dad” routine.
The cold war may have ended between countries (not really) but it continues between individuals.There can be no winner.
I could go on for ever but I’ll just say this – We and our children are exposed to that mentality every day by examples spoon fed to us by advertising, tv, movies and the competitive school system itself Even sport has become kind of war game where winning at all costs is vital.
And just try and buy a game for teenage boys that does not involve weapons, fighting killing or at the least, the ultimate winner (‘but there’s no blood’ they say)
The system sets us up to believe in the ultimate winner but in fact, by it’s very existence, everyone loses.
sounds like you’re ready to write a post of your own.
Uhm…… that picture is scarier than…nothing I’ve known, and it’s scary in an insidious manner. Can you take it down please. just kidding but not kidding. I can take some harsh scary shit – but this guy, with that haircut, holding that gun…. I’m frightned Rich.
you’re not the only one frightened.
ok, good, at least I know I’m not paranoid
Re: I’m against citizens owning and keeping guns like AR-15′s and AK-47’s that have only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible.
I would agree except for the fact that those who cannot defend themselves against their own countries military tend to end up being enslaved by the state.
i’m not against all weapons. just those of that level.
I don’t see that happening in the US.
It hasn’t happened yet because enough of the American people refuse to allow themselves to be disarmed. On the other hand the Japanese high command considered invading the US and decided to bomb Pearl Harbor instead when they were informed by the commander of the Japanese Navy, who had been educated in the US, that their army would face an armed American behind every blade of grass.
Didn’t know that but I appreciate the history lesson.
I’m of the opinion that if a citizen can afford an atom bomb than he has every right to own one.
I can’t agree with that. Too dangerous.
No more dangerous than our own govt. maintaining enough atom bombs to destroy the world several times over.
but reagan disarmed them. right?….yeah. sure.
There is nothing more to say. I have said this more than once. I have been told I am an idiot with a poor understanding of the English Language and an inability to properly diagram a sentence. Of course, none of these are accurate and are simply diversions.
I, like you, don’t have a particular issue with private gun ownership. I simply want responsible private gun ownership. I want responsible laws regulating private gun ownership.
I will never understand why this is too much to ask.
it’s too much to ask because the NRA and the gun industry have nothing to gain from an assault weapons ban. they fear that even one ban on one type of gun will open a door for more, and from that they only stand to lose revenue and membership.
they don’t care about people or lives lost. they care about money and their own political action committees.
I know, I get it but really each time there is a tragedy I expect someone to stand up; anyone. Each time I am disappointed. As a gun violence victim I find myself shattered by the absolute lack of compassion, empathy and humanity some show towards the victims each time something like Aurora happens. I ask, what is wrong with people?
Then I just sit and shake, literally because I know. Money talks and our lives are nothing in comparison. The idiots with guns buy into the rhetoric and we have no way of combating this level of ignorance and fear.
the gun dealers actually benefit in two ways from events like the movie theater shooting last week. first, people rush out to buy guns because they feel the need to protect themselves. second, collectors rush out to buy more guns because they fear a gun control ban and want to buy more before it’s no longer possible to buy them.
It is too much to ask because once upon a time New York required all gun owners to register their weapons. Not long after law enforcement used the lists to seize the guns.
You know, I went looking for any proof that NY used that list to seize guns from law abiding citizens. I couldn’t find a single legitimate source to support your claims. If this would have been the case I would have said, “no that isn’t right and they should be sued for their misuse and abuse.”
I would have gone a step further even and said I can fully understand why gun owners are so adamant in their protests regarding registration. But the problem is, the only sources I can find are right wing blogs, NRA blogs and other such rhetorical ravings.
And they’re not a fair or balanced organization.
Since the incident occurred in the 90’s during mayor Dinkins term one would think that someone would have refuted the claim by now. However I found no evidence that anyone has.
Now I’m not a conservative by any means, but, I do understand why the founding fathers refused to give the govt. the right to take away a citizens gun and enshrined the right to bear arms in the constitution. Because they fully understood that a nation of unarmed citizens is an enslaved nation. Indeed the American Revolution would have failed had the average citizen not been armed.
that’s true, but i don’t know if they would have been armed anyway because they all needed to hunt. or fish.
Re: And they’re not a fair or balanced organization.
Unfortunately neither are the liberals.
Everyone wants to protect their own agenda, which then puts self first and country second.
In a democratic republic the rights of the individual are paramount and not the rights of the state.
yes, and contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a democracy.
As a single girl living alone, I like that I have an option to protect myself by owning a gun. I do not, however, because I am afraid I will shoot myself or my cat. Anyway, I agree with the points you made.
Thanks miss. Welcome back.
As a gun owner myself, I completely COMPLETELY agree with you on this.
I find it silly that people are calling for more legislation and laws for gun ownership when the end goal is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Since when have criminals cared about laws?
Although I choose not to own a gun, I would not infringe on your right to make your own choice.
Well, I’m right with you, but we have a problem – DC vs Heller (2008). Of all the cases regarding guns that have come before the court in the history of the court, I think Heller was the first case when the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. Seems like a good example of judicial activism to me – thus this ruling will make it difficult for the people to make a decision.
I forgot this ….. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Someone on another site mentioned that same decision but I didn’t know the details. Thanks.
I’m Australian and after the Port Arthur massacre our government banned guns unless they were properly registered for a specific purpose – i.e. farmers needing a gun for use on the farm or professional hunters and the like.
We still get the odd shooting by criminal elements but it isn’t indiscriminate slaughter of innocents who just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. And we aren’t being murdered in our beds by intruders.
If anyone can own a gun then anyone can shoot it, including nutters who have a grudge against the world. And those nutters don’t even have to be good shots. Those automatic weapons don’t require skill, just a finger on the trigger.
I believe everyone should have the right to kill themselves if they choose to do so but they should not have to right to take a lot of strangers with them.
Yes. I dont mind people taking themselves out. Just do it alone.
I agree with your sentiments, but of course you are proposing a common-sense approach to politics, which we all know is pipe dream. Why it is infinitely easier to acquire a gun license than it is a drivers license will never make sense to me.
In my state you can have a gun license at 10 years old.
A big “Amen!” to all that. Well done.
This is exactly why I nominated you for the One Lovely Blog Award – because you make me ‘think’ – thanks Rich 🙂
well that’s a super nice thing for you to do. thank you very much.
You’re welcome Rich 🙂
Hi! I have just nominated you for a Very Inspiring Blogger Award http://theworldofalexanderthegreat.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/very-inspiring-blogger-award/
I would be honoured if you accept!
I agree with your well expressed opinion!
And I salute you.
no reason to salute me, but i accept.
We interrupt this political debate to bring you more awards…they’ll be waiting for your return http://wp.me/p2r2lH-8N. xoxo
You have added 1 more dimensions to your already 3 dimensional self. Mucho appreciado señorita.
De Nada senor….xoxo
Haven’t been near computer in a week. We’ll catch up soon.
Looking forward…..hope all is well
Your slacking! Not even a reblog in about a week!!! Miss you!
You’re 100% right. Sold house. Moved stuff in storage. Bought house. Moving stuff out of storage. All in two weeks. Giving myself a gift of a beach weekend. But I adore that you’d notice. Thanks.
i’ve read the transcript of the bill hicks routine on the second amendment, but i can’t seem to find even a voice recording of it…though i assume you’ve come across it?
and i can’t wait to find out which nun you have on your new street….i mean nut….
I have nominated you for an award please pop by http://paulaacton.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/so-its-sunday/ and collect it when you get chance
Actually, I’d rather ban pistols than AR-15s because pistols are easier to conceal and use for crimes. Indeed, 98% of gun deaths are from NON-assault-rifles.
And two-semi-automatic pistols can finish off more people than assault rifles. The Virginia Tech killer had two semi-automatics.
Assault rifles aren’t killing as many people as possible. That would a machine gun. Assault rifles sold in the US are not automatic but single-fire.
Their main purpose is to protect one’s home from thugs and to protect one’s community from a potentially oppressive government.
Do you totally believe and trust in the government?
This country’s freedom was won by violence and will have to be protected by violence.. If the government comes after you, do you want a pistol or an assault rifle?
Government comes with lawyers, not guns.
Your reply is a tad paranoid and misinformed. Turn off FOX news for a while.
No, you’re not asking too much, I think. This is a very good point. I never knew about that first part of the passage. I wonder how many Americans do.
In Australia, our gun laws are very more restricted to gun clubs and are not common among the people. We’re not gun nuts here. It’s a shame America’s so ridiculous with their guns that it’s embarrassing.