View Single Post
Old 10-02-2017, 09:05 PM   #28
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,782
Here is a concise and precise explanation for the purpose of the Second Amendment. It explains the meaning and derivation and purpose of a well regulated militia. It explains the absolute rights of the people to own arms. It is Google's most referred to article on the purpose of the Second Amendment.

The purpose of a right to keep and bear arms was expressly and completely to enable the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. There was no need to define what type of weapons were required to do so because, obviously, in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the people would have to possess whatever weapons, "arms", would enable them to do so. Obviously, hand guns, limited magazines, hunting rifles, AR 15's, wouldn't do the trick against a government today that has far more deadly weapons.

Because of the horrors of mass killings, there is a desire by many to overlook the actual purpose of the Second Amendment. There is always the attempt to "interpret" the Amendment to mean some right that is far more limited in scope than the expansive right to arms that the Amendment gives to the people. That, surely, the Founders, not knowing what kind of weapons exist today, would not have given the people the right to own them. There is no evidence that such is true. Quite the contrary, their fear of tyranny, of government disarming the citizens, the absolute guaranty they gave the people to defend themselves against tyranny, the evidence is that they actually did intend for the people to own whatever weapons necessary to preserve their freedom. And the militia referred to in the Amendment is not some national guard type of regiment. The militia is all the people.

We are also warned that an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms would lead to a bunch of people owning tanks, and fighter planes, and battleships, and nuclear weapons. On the one hand, if a tyrannical government has such weapons, what would a people need to fight them. On the other hand, how would any citizen even be able to buy any of those things if the government has control of their production, even if anyone other than the government actually wanted to buy some. And who would sell such weapons to private citizens without government permission.

In actuality, those who feel there must be some middle ground, that there must be some more "reasonable" interpretation, really would rather that the Amendment didn't exist. And they, it appears, do not think there is any reason to fear government. And many, if not most, who feel that way, don't really believe government should be limited. After all, we elect our governments. And, so, what's the point even of having or constantly referring to the Constitution. It is constantly getting in the way of government doing what needs to be done. If there were no such thing as the Constitution, the frightening gun "problem" would have been solved long ago.

Sometimes the greatest danger is total trust in those who profess to be your servants or your guardian angels.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-02-2017 at 09:20 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote