Ending the Confusion - Understanding the 2nd Amendment

Oatka

New member
While this subject has been chewed to death, this one gives it a little twist.I never thought of tying in the "archaic" 3rd Amendment.
http://www.etherzone.com/

ENDING THE CONFUSION - UNDERSTANDING THE 2ND AMENDMENT

By: Hiker Sam

For those people who think the 2nd Amendment is about hunting rather than citizens protecting themselves from the government, refer them to the very next (3rd Amendment) of the Constitution: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Soldiers. G Men with guns. The only guns in our houses will be OUR guns as
allowed/required in the 2nd Amendment. Not government guns. Our guns in, government guns and the guys carrying them, out. Simple. Our guns protect freedom. Government guns are used to take away freedom. Fact of life. Not to be discussed any further.

Soldiers and militias are discussed in the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, not hunters. The up front concern is about the balance of RAW POWER between the citizens and their government. No one was worried about bagging the limit on ducks. Hell, it was your land, you could shoot however many animals you wanted. Even your dog if you got a little cranky.

The next (4th) Amendment begins, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses...against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Of course, those searches and seizures would be done by the government.

This ordering of Amendments was no accident. The Founding Fathers said, to have a great country you do these things and in this order:

1. Our government (as WE define it) can't stop its citizens from saying and printing whatever they want, getting together any where and any time they want and it won't ever mess with citizens religious beliefs;

2. To make sure government doesn't try to renege on rule number one, citizens will have guns...and so will their individual States (militias) in case the feds get any funny ideas. This rule is so solid it can't even be INFRINGED;

3. Soldiers (armed G Men) are never welcome in our homes. Don't ever think about pulling that crap, even if there is an invasion. As for soldiers who enter our homes, see Amendment 2. We'll fill them so full of lead they'll be able to use their ______s for pencils. Soldiers are ARMED so they can kill people. So are we. Sounds ugly, but it's better than going back to the days of Big Government.

4. And besides soldiers, no other government agent can come into our homes unless a judge says so. If they don't have a warrant, we get to use cop and soldier killing bullets because rule numbers 2 and 3 say we can.

And so on. It is so carefully ordered. Next is if the government tries to put us away, the 5th and 6th Amendments kick in.

Register guns? You have to come into our houses to do that right. And, as discussed above, that might get dicey. Only a judge issuing a warrant can do that and only if one of us breaks a valid law. No law can take away a Constitutional right.

You want to talk entitlements? OK, I say that the government is under a greater obligation to give free guns to citizens than free drugs. Rule number 2 says our right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. INFRINGED. If the minimum wage isn't high enough for me to buy a reliable gun, I should be issued one. After that, we can talk prescription drugs.

You don't ARM yourself to go hunting. You ARM yourself for protection. In this country, Armies and citizens arm themselves. That way, the era of Big Government never rears its ugly head.

Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone


Edited one inappropriate word - TBM

[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited August 08, 2000).]
 
Who has 500 Billion I can borrow?? I want to buy a few major networks, and run pro-2nd stuff 24/7.

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
hube1236, et al. I guess it's OK as long as you give attribution and include the copyright notice.

Have at it gentlemen.

(Apologies TBM, it slid right by me.)
 
"The BOR is not a buffet" - I can't remember who said that, but it's pretty appropriate. They're all inter-related.


GoArthur,

I've had a strange thought rattling around in my head along the lines of "borrowing a cup of bullets from the NG."

Namely, why do we have signs all over the place directing us to National Gaurd Armories? If "we" aren't part of the militia, why have signs along the freeway pointing us to the nearest cache of fully automatic weapons? Especially when its widely known that some of the most notorious outlaws in history have supplied themselves from NG armories.
 
Remember: if someone doesn't WANT to understand, they won't. That's why they interpret "people" as "state" in one sentence, and interpret "people" as "people" in the whole rest of the Constitution, and don't see the obvious glaring absurd inconsistency as a problem - they don't want to.
 
Back
Top