Monday, October 1, 2012

The Right to Bear Arms II

Dear Readers,

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." Edward Abbey

Remember the post I wrote this spring asking for your opinion on the right to bear arms? At the time, I was struggling to define what I thought about this issue. While growing up, I had been repeatedly told that, for safeties sake, only the military should have access to the high-powered weaponry such as automatic firearms, fighter jets, battleships, and the like.

I remember a discussion we had in my constitutional law class's forum about where to draw the weaponry line between citizens and military. The end conclusion was that if a weapon could be easily used to create mass-murder, then it should be military only.

This upbringing made it difficult to attempt to approach this subject with an open and less-biased mind. But, at the same time I was trying to convince myself of the opinion that I will express below because I knew from applying political principals to similar issues what the real answer to this would be. During this summer, I thought and discussed a lot about the right to bear arms, which further reinforced my new thoughts on the subject. Let's see if I can do this justice.

The 2nd Amendment:
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.

To see the real meaning of this, we have to do some dissection. First: what is the meaning of "militia"?
Senator Richard Lee in 1788: "Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms." Contrary to recent supreme court cases, the milita is everybody, not excluding those capable of bearing arms in a large scale conflict (soldiers).

Now, onto the next part, "...being necessary to the security of a free state"

A free state is the purpose of the second amendment. Many argue, by the mistaken assumption that the term "militia" specifies only those in the military profession, that this part is speaking exclusively of defense from other countries.

Although they are correct in part, there is more here than meets the eye.

Once again, Richard Lee comes to assist me:
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

...and Thomas Jefferson had his back:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

...who brought Joseph Story along:
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

According to Thomas Jefferson (in the quote above) the main purpose of having the public bear arms is to "protect themselves against tyranny in government", not other countries.

If you were being observant, you should know where I'm going. If the reason why we have the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from our own government, then how can the government make some weapons off-limits to civilians? We need to have legal access to the same weapons and weapon-systems that the military and law enforcement has, because we need to have the power to overthrow the government if it turns tyrannical (actually, if we had the same firepower as the government, they wouldn't even try to exploit their power).

When the founding fathers wrote and ratified the amendment, there were no weapons off-limits to non-military folks. They never said that civilians couldn't have warships or heavy artillery, just because those are weapons who only use lies in it's ability to kill people and make war.

*Deep breath* There, that's all for now. The point I hope I have made is that the american people should have access to the same firepower as the military has.

Go ahead and start a debate in the comment section, but don't forget to share this on your social media.

Your writer,
Caleb

5 comments:

  1. The look on my face will be most memorable when someone decides to claim that we shouldn't secure our actual safety by bearing arms because it's not safe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GUN CONTROL - The ability to control an firearm and hit the desired target!!!
    All for it!

    TCR

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rather ironic, isn't it, Duke. Agreed TCR. ;D

    ReplyDelete
  4. Greetings! Were you able to make all the settings of your domain by yourself or you turned to professionals to get some help?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FreedomOfThinking,

      Well, first of all, I am a professional!

      It was easy to do. I purchased the domain name from name.com then set it up per Bloggers directions on the settings page.

      Delete

I'm Caleb Grove

Yep, that's me. I'm a 17 year old web unicorn and own OnRamp Web Design. My skill base is quite broad, though my real focus lies in UX and UI design for the web. When it comes to designs, I'm a perfectionist, scooting 1 pixel at a time.

My main blog captures all my web-related thoughts that exceed 140 characters. Anson S is my personal blog, where I pander in politics and religion. You can tweet me on Twitter at @SirCalebGrove, circle me on , or friend me on Facebook.

About this site

This is my playground. CalebGrove.com harnesses the power of HTML5 and CSS3. It was built using my web design weapon of choice, Freeway Pro, using a inline flexible system. Responsiveness was hand-coded. The blogs are hosted by Blogger, whose template code was generated by the Blogger actions. Website hosted by GJX Hosting. Creativity provided a disturbed mind, and not much else.

No unicorns where harmed in the making of this website, except through caffeine overdose.