How Much do People Consider 'the Original Purpose of the #Amendment' when thinking of #GunRights? #SecondAmendment #AmendmentsToTheConstitution #BillOfRights #Amend
The amendment (America's 'legal documentation' of the "Creator"-given right* to possess firearms) reads:
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.
'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' (text which the National Rifle Association conveniently leaves off of the plaque on the front-desk in its foyer) ... is that 'the condition under which citizens can have gun-ownership' (saying, 'if it's not necessary, the legislature can infringe on that right all they want') or 'the declaration of an unfortunate truth about life on Earth'?
I remember my elementary-school Social-Studies textbook–near the text that described the Second Amendment–had a picture of Redcoat (British) soldiers with guns meeting an American settler at his door ... giving students the idea that the settler needed his guns to be a force equal to the guns of the Redcoats.
I'm slowly watching (in 15- or 20-minute shifts, two-meals-a-day) a DVR of the 9/12/2019 Democratic Debate, and right now they're discussing their big 'forced buy-back plan' (not buying back all firearms, just 'the ones designed to be nothing but killing-machines' (machine guns & missile-launcher type weapons).)
I'm slowly watching (in 15- or 20-minute shifts, two-meals-a-day) a DVR of the 9/12/2019 Democratic Debate, and right now they're discussing their big 'forced buy-back plan' (not buying back all firearms, just 'the ones designed to be nothing but killing-machines' (machine guns & missile-launcher type weapons).)
And I understand the reasoning behind that–nobody needs those kinds of weapons when we've got peace in America–but America didn't gain Independence through peace. The Declaration of Independence was not written (or even signed) by the King and/or Queen of England! No, it was written in defiance of our generous (or possibly tax-greedy) lords, ladies, dukes, duchesses, queen & king!
And does the amendment above say 'it being necessary to go out hunting or to a recreational gun-range to get some rage out from time-to-time'? No, it says a Militia is necessary for a free State! And what do Militias do? They 'neutralize dangerous enemies'—killing them, if necessary
(I'm sure their administrators claim that 'killing is definitely something they try not to do—that it's something they reserve for when there's absolutely no other option'; but–as threats emerge without warning–militiamen have to be hair-trigger ready to 'neutralize the threats' the moment they emerge!)
The dems might respond, "But we have a militia—The U.S. Military!" Again, I remember the picture in my elementary-school textbook; I imagine that Tories (colonists who still supported the British monarchy) would've responded 'But we have a militia—The Redcoats!'
I guess I'm saying that citizens need to have the same access that The Military has to all the weapons The Military has—including 'all the weapons they claim we don't need' ... citizens don't get them FOR FREE (neither does the military), and citizens still need 'the necessary training to handle such weapons' (which the military provides to its members); but citizens need equal-or-greater armed force than The Military has in order to stay independent!
(If citizens don't have enough weaponry, what's to stop The Military's Commander-in-Chief from enforcing his selfish will upon the citizenry?)
'That word' (below-linked to an explanation (which I haven't read) of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) is built on an even-deeper source ... something crucial that firms the foundation upon which the our lexicon stands ...
The word “Amendment” is built on “Out + Fault, Blemish, Physical Defect (Stain, Sign, Mark)” (Rectification, Correction, Advancement, Improvement).
*In this- and in many other-Amendments, the actual rule is more-like "No Legislature can make a law against this (except by making an amendment that repeals this amendment,
Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong—that's one reason
Our Father God said "It is not good for the man to be
alone": "Because the man'll think he's right until someone else shows
Our Father God said "It is not good for the man to be
alone": "Because the man'll think he's right until someone else shows
him why he's not"—Won't you show me
if I'm right-or-wrong in the comments below?
if I'm right-or-wrong in the comments below?
Comments
Post a Comment
I appreciate your comment, and I'll probably approve it & publish it soon (give me about a week before you try to post it again when it doesn't publish immediately ... thanks)