The Second Amendment of the Constitution 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.”
Now I am just a plain old country boy, so I cannot read legalese nor am I privy to the thought processes of an elitist activist judiciary. Therefore, I must read the words just as they are written and form an understanding of just what I have read.
To me, the Second Amendment plainly states that the right of the people, that is, us American citizens, to bear (own, hold, keep, use, etc.) arms shall not be infringed. Let me see . . . the dictionary defines infringe as “to violate the rights of anyone.” Our right to bear arms is not to be violated.
As for the “well regulated Militia”, the United States Code (Title 10 Subtitle A Chapter 13 Section 311) states:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
- (b) The classes of the militia are –
- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
The Law of the Land says that all male citizens aged 17 through 45 are a part of the Militia. Those who formally sign up for the National Guard or Naval Militia are a part of the organized militia and the remainder are a part of the unorganized Militia.
As politically incorrect as the Militia may be, all males are a part of it when they are between the ages of 17 and 45. That means that ultra left wing men are members of the hated Militia.
Now. The well regulated Militia, of which all males 17-45 are a part, is necessary to the security of our free state. It is very funny, but I see nothing in this amendment or in Title 10 that mentions hunting!
Liberals (socialists really) are always spouting about how they don’t mind someone owning a hunting rifle, but no one needs a handgun or an assault weapon. HELLO! The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about maintaining the security of a free state. And the Bill of Rights is not about needs, it is about rights.
As far as I am concerned, a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own any weapon he or she wants and can afford. If Billy-Bob wants to keep a Sherman Tank and he has the bucks to buy one, he should be allowed to own it under the Constitution. Any restriction of any weapon is Unconstitutional.
I will quote one of our founding fathers. Noah Webster wrote in AD 1787:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
This is the reason for an armed citizenry. It is to prevent the loss of freedom and to prevent unjust laws from being executed. The reason there are those in Government, the UN, and other places who want to outlaw private ownership or arms is that they know that it would be much easier to subdue an unarmed populace than an armed one.
When the Bolsheviks succeeded in disarming the citizenry, Russia fell to Marxism. When Hitler succeeded in disarming the citizens of Germany, the Third Reich abuses began.
Both the UK and Australia have banned the private ownership of arms. The government went door to door confiscating the personal property of law-abiding citizens.
We MUST NOT allow that to happen in the USA.
Since adoption of Florida’s Concealed Carry Law in 1987, the murder rate has been reduced by 21%
In states with more restrictive gun laws:
The violent crime rate is 26% higher than in states with less restrictive gun laws
The Homicide Rate is 49% higher than in states with less restrictive gun laws
The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the than in states with less restrictive gun laws
The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher than in states with less restrictive gun laws
99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain “studies” that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection.
99.998% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in a murder in any given year.
99.96% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in any crime in a given year.
ADDENDUM. This information was added to this study on May 22, 2004. It is very enlightening.
In England, handguns were banned in 1997. Since then crime is up 29%, robbery has increased 24%, and murders are up 27%. Prior to the ban, armed robberies had decreased by 50%, but after the ban, they skyrocketed to the 1993 rates.
The Aussies banned guns in 1996. Since the ban, violent crime is up by 32%, and armed robbery has risen 45%.
The U.S. has not banned most weapons and 32 states have concealed carry laws. Crime in England and Australia has risen at twice the rate of the United States in the past few years.
Canada has embarked on a gun registration campaign, and despite the costs of the system skyrocketing 100,000% (yes, a hundred thousand percent, that is, it is a thousand times more costly than promised), crime is still rising and, according to the Canadian Government, not a single crime has been prevented by the registration.
We don’t need gun control, we need crime and criminal control.
When I wrote this article, I had no idea that what went on in the UK and Australia would occur here in the USA. But it did! Immediately after Hurricane Katrina passed through New Orleans, the police went door to door throughout the city confiscating privately owned firearms. This was an unconstitutional gun grab by the left wing authorities in New Orleans.
No matter how good a reason officials the may have had, the theft of legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens cannot be justified. When lawlessness was on the increase in New Orleans, the authorities confiscated all firearms. It was not smart to take the firearms of law abiding citizens; that prevented them from protecting themselves in a period of lawlessness when neither the police nor the military could protect them.
The injury suffered by those whose firearms were stolen by the authorities was further insulted when Mayor Nagin and the city officials refused to return the guns to their owners. Even after a court order, they still refused. This was an act of lawlessness on the part of city officials.
Since the authorities refused to obey the law, they were not doing the job God ordained government to do. Paul said that the duty of government officials is to help you as long as you obey the law. Officials are only to punish law breakers. See Romans 13:1-7. Thus the officials in New Orleans went against God’s requirement for government.
And now, in February 2013, the government is at it again, trying to further reduce access to guns and attempting to set up the beginning of what will be gun confiscation int the future. We must not let that happen. The Second Amendment must not be unconstitutionally circumvented by liberal politicians.
© 4/24/2004, Mark Oaks. All rights reserved