Show us with any of the writings of our founding fathers, where they said that the second amendment only applied to "the
militia." I don't want some guys opinion about the intentions of the founders. They wrote their thoughts down. Read them.
There are various versions of the line pertaining to the 'right to bear arms', but only two lines punctuated differently need concern us, because one
was passed by congress and the other was ratified by the states.
The congress line:
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.
The states ratified line:
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.
We can dismiss the personal and private thoughts of the Founders as they didn't get passed by congress, nor were they ratified by any of the states.
Regardless of what they thought to themselves, it is irrelevant to the debate. There own thoughts, not being included in statements passed by congress
or ratified by the other states, carry no lawful power.
Even a cursory glance at both of the lines discerns the 'plurality' of their statements, there really isn't anything 'singular' or pertaining to the
'individual' at all. "A militia" is a group (plural), "the right of the people" pertains to a group (plural), "to keep and bear arms" (plural). You
cannot take a 'singular' context for the 'individual', from what is a 'plural' context of 'group', it's there in black and white!
There is further evidence in 'Article 1, section 8' of the constitution which codifies the power of congress "To provide for organizing,
, and disciplining, the Militia." In other words, the militia are provided with arms by those overseeing the 'organizing' and the
'disciplining' of the assembled group of men through the ratified power of congress.
In order for the right to bear arms to pertain to the individual, the line would need to state something like the following..."A well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the individual (not people) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
However, it doesn't say this, and not without good reason.
Just as it is right for the people to be 'duty bound' to be wary of the possibility of a tyrannical government, for the maintaining and defence of
social order, Federal and State governments are 'duty bound' on behalf of the people to be wary of insurrection and sedition, defending against
attempts of coup d'ét and the possibility of a tyrannical government as a result. A nation of armed individuals raises the threat of insurrection and
sedition more so than a threat of a tyrannical government. In order for a country or nation to enjoy a stable and free society, there has to be a
balance of power between the people governed by their consent, and those whom they elect to govern them.
This compromise of 'power' between the people and government is overseen by a greater power than that of arms...checks and balances. Both the senate
and congress are duty bound on behalf of the people to exercise their consented powers to check and balance the powers of the executive. To not allow
for any power grabs by the executive for its own purposes. This is where the 'people' come in and exercise their power, not through the weilding of
arms, but of pens and the vote. If neither the senate nor congress check and balance the power of the executive to the people's satisfaction, they
replace them by their votes, not by their arms. Only as a last resort, when all peaceful and democratic options have been resorted to and failed, can
it be necessary for the drawing up of militias to eject the rogue executive by force.
Individuals do not need to be armed against the threat of a tyrannical government, they have the greater power than that of the gun with the senate,
congress, and the vote to protect them, and they have the power of federal government to protect them from insurrection and sedition. The only other
claim for the individual to be armed is for defence against another individual so armed, but it is the duty and employment of federal and state
governments and their agencies to ensure a defence of the individual, his family, and his property.
Allowing the individual to be armed for his own defence, means that all individuals are able to be armed for his own defence, even if their actions
are being committed out of criminal intent. This raises the prospect of armed conflict between individuals rather than diminishes it. A person with a
criminal intent will not come unarmed because of his fear that the victim will be so armed, and rather than the victim having a gun being a deterent,
it becomes nothing more than a balancing of power. Being armed does not deter criminal intent.
edit on 20/12/12 by elysiumfire because:
edit on 20/12/12 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)