HarrySchell
New member
The core of 2A, in the writings of the Founders, is the inalenable right of an individual to an effective self-defense, not the possession of arms.
Huh?
Read the stuff, and IMO what the Founders were concerned about is the ability and right of an individual to defend himself, community and/or country against predation from the criminals in our midst, our own government(s) and foreign threats. Without this ability, an effective not just paper ability, nothing in the Bill of Rights can be enforced. You have nothing when you cannot back up your claim to it, in blood if required.
The firearm was then and is now the most efficient means of individual self-defense. Hence, the firearm was written into 2A. The militia was written in also, as single individuals would on occasion have to band together to form an effective defense against a threat.
Note that a standing army was not established in the Constitution. However, a federal navy was established, and within a decade of our Independence was engaged in the Med fighting the Barbary pirates.
This "quirk" directly supports the view of the Founders that while they disliked the idea of a standing army and could substitute an "irregular" militia for that role as required, America depended on foreign trade, was a seafaring nation, and the only way to safeguard this fundamental part of our economy was to empower the federal level of government to maintain a navy and project force on the high seas. Individual citizens could not muster at the town square to perform such a task.
I have gone through my own evolution of thought on this as I have read more, and I would welcome any other views. Surely, 2A is very succint, but why is it there. I see owning a firearm as irrelevant to life unless you can use it properly and effectively. There is no point to telling people to own firearms without the implicit concept of using firearms in self-defense.
Kennesaw, GA celebrated its 25th year of low crime. I paraphrase, but the mayor or another town worthy said "no one messes with us because they know we all have guns". I would say that no one messes with them because they know every family has a means of effective self-defense, and there are softer targets available elsewhere. The effective means of self-defense is what deters bad people.
Cho did not go to a mall, though he spent a bit of his rant on our decadent culture and it would seem to fit his rage and disgust with that side of America. He might have encountered armed police, security or an armed citizen, too. He went someplace he could reliably expect no one to have an effective means of self-defense: a gun-free zone, set up by people who were exceptionally proud of themselves and their sophistication at doing so.
So does a coward or criminal act. Criminals don't try to mug policemen even though they carry money and credit cards. "Why not?" is pretty obvious.
Huh?
Read the stuff, and IMO what the Founders were concerned about is the ability and right of an individual to defend himself, community and/or country against predation from the criminals in our midst, our own government(s) and foreign threats. Without this ability, an effective not just paper ability, nothing in the Bill of Rights can be enforced. You have nothing when you cannot back up your claim to it, in blood if required.
The firearm was then and is now the most efficient means of individual self-defense. Hence, the firearm was written into 2A. The militia was written in also, as single individuals would on occasion have to band together to form an effective defense against a threat.
Note that a standing army was not established in the Constitution. However, a federal navy was established, and within a decade of our Independence was engaged in the Med fighting the Barbary pirates.
This "quirk" directly supports the view of the Founders that while they disliked the idea of a standing army and could substitute an "irregular" militia for that role as required, America depended on foreign trade, was a seafaring nation, and the only way to safeguard this fundamental part of our economy was to empower the federal level of government to maintain a navy and project force on the high seas. Individual citizens could not muster at the town square to perform such a task.
I have gone through my own evolution of thought on this as I have read more, and I would welcome any other views. Surely, 2A is very succint, but why is it there. I see owning a firearm as irrelevant to life unless you can use it properly and effectively. There is no point to telling people to own firearms without the implicit concept of using firearms in self-defense.
Kennesaw, GA celebrated its 25th year of low crime. I paraphrase, but the mayor or another town worthy said "no one messes with us because they know we all have guns". I would say that no one messes with them because they know every family has a means of effective self-defense, and there are softer targets available elsewhere. The effective means of self-defense is what deters bad people.
Cho did not go to a mall, though he spent a bit of his rant on our decadent culture and it would seem to fit his rage and disgust with that side of America. He might have encountered armed police, security or an armed citizen, too. He went someplace he could reliably expect no one to have an effective means of self-defense: a gun-free zone, set up by people who were exceptionally proud of themselves and their sophistication at doing so.
So does a coward or criminal act. Criminals don't try to mug policemen even though they carry money and credit cards. "Why not?" is pretty obvious.