A right is a right. If a right is infringed upon, that does not mean it is not longer a right. That just makes it an infringed right. The right to keep and bear arms is a right, just as free speech. The Second Amendment forbids the infrigement of this right. Why?
It should have been enough for the Second Amendment to just say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In hindsight, we all wish that is all it said. But the authors of the Bill of Rights didn't concieve of their words being deconstructed to mean the opposite of what they meant when they wrote "A well regulated militia...blah blah blah..."
But why did they say all that stuff? I believe the reason for saying all that stuff about a "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" was to make it understood that it is in the best interest of a free state not to infringe upon this particular right, as it is necessary for its security. It was the experience driven, political doctrine of our Founding Fathers, that having a standing army, controlled by a king or emperor, limited that country's defensed to those who were trained to use weapons of war. In Europe, for instance, warriors were of a particular class of people. A European country's defense depended soley on a standing army of trained soldiers, which was limited to those who were trained in the use personal arms. After that line of defense falls, the country was open to complete control of it's foreign invaders, as nobody else in that country was trained to use weapons. The model of defense our founding fathers invisioned was one where all able bodies males (the militia) would posses arms and know how to use them. The word's "well regulated" to the modern mind insinuates government control. This suits the statists who wish to disarm the people. But the words "well regulated" really means that the militia would be proficient with the use of personal arms, and have arms that are in standard use and up to date. This militia, comprised of the people, in possession of up to date weapons, and with the knowledge of their use, would be a formidible opponent for any invader or domestic threat. Therefore, if the right to keep and bear arms was infringed, that well regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state, would not exist, as there would be few people who had any proficency in the use of arms because they do not posses them. Plus, as it was stated in this thread numberous times already, that it protected the people from possible tyrants, as the people would have the ability to stand up to tyranny. Our Founding Fathers did not think of the U.S. as being above the possibility of falling into tyranny. In fact, most believed it was inevitable, and that's why the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
Also, keep in mind that the Second Amendment in no way makes "the right to keep and bear arms contingent upon the existance of "a well regulated militia". It is a stated right the people. It is merely in the best interest of a free state not to infringe upon this right for the sake of it's security. Any other position is statist at it's core.
It should have been enough for the Second Amendment to just say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In hindsight, we all wish that is all it said. But the authors of the Bill of Rights didn't concieve of their words being deconstructed to mean the opposite of what they meant when they wrote "A well regulated militia...blah blah blah..."
But why did they say all that stuff? I believe the reason for saying all that stuff about a "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" was to make it understood that it is in the best interest of a free state not to infringe upon this particular right, as it is necessary for its security. It was the experience driven, political doctrine of our Founding Fathers, that having a standing army, controlled by a king or emperor, limited that country's defensed to those who were trained to use weapons of war. In Europe, for instance, warriors were of a particular class of people. A European country's defense depended soley on a standing army of trained soldiers, which was limited to those who were trained in the use personal arms. After that line of defense falls, the country was open to complete control of it's foreign invaders, as nobody else in that country was trained to use weapons. The model of defense our founding fathers invisioned was one where all able bodies males (the militia) would posses arms and know how to use them. The word's "well regulated" to the modern mind insinuates government control. This suits the statists who wish to disarm the people. But the words "well regulated" really means that the militia would be proficient with the use of personal arms, and have arms that are in standard use and up to date. This militia, comprised of the people, in possession of up to date weapons, and with the knowledge of their use, would be a formidible opponent for any invader or domestic threat. Therefore, if the right to keep and bear arms was infringed, that well regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state, would not exist, as there would be few people who had any proficency in the use of arms because they do not posses them. Plus, as it was stated in this thread numberous times already, that it protected the people from possible tyrants, as the people would have the ability to stand up to tyranny. Our Founding Fathers did not think of the U.S. as being above the possibility of falling into tyranny. In fact, most believed it was inevitable, and that's why the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
Also, keep in mind that the Second Amendment in no way makes "the right to keep and bear arms contingent upon the existance of "a well regulated militia". It is a stated right the people. It is merely in the best interest of a free state not to infringe upon this right for the sake of it's security. Any other position is statist at it's core.
