Trump surrogate Ben Carson, very clearly to me, seems to accept that the 2nd amendment and the reasons for it are suitable discussion topics for politicians, and more horrifyingly, accepts the possibility of changing it........
“Well, I think that the people who were you know protesting certainly feel that they are absolutely one hundred percent right, but of course the people on the other side feel that they’re a hundred percent right too. And that’s why we need to get back to a point of having civil discussions. Let’s put on the table: what is the reason for the Second Amendment? And is there a reason that we need to change those things right now? And let’s put the data on the table and let’s talk about it like intelligent people, rather than getting in our respective corners and hurling insults.”
Good grief, you'd better go out and buy some more guns and ammo while you still can. Here Ben Carson indicates how many varmint rifles each household will be allowed if he were president.
3 comments:
"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."
Is the National Guard the "well regulated Militia"? The peacetime (non-Federailzed) mission belongs to the governor of the States. Could this have been a check and balance against the Federal government and hence the reason for the 2nd amendment?
Somewhere along the way The National Guard became eligible for Federailization (in times of war?) to augment the (standing) active components of the armed forces. If this was a change to the law and not in the original, could this have transitioned the national guard from a check and balance to the federal forces spurring the conversation we now have over who should own/have guns?
I think citizens should be able to own guns. I don't believe we should feel the need or be encouraged to carry a weapon at all times. This should not be the wild, Wild West. Chuckleheads who abuse this right should be dealt with once and severely.
Two points:
Yes, I believe the Militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment is the state's way of defending themselves against federal bullying. State's rights were big back then. Remember the Senate originally represented the states interests, not the interests of the people in the states.
The Bill of Rights limits the federal government in how it deals with individuals. They refer to individuals not the states, except for one phrase in the 10th. This is why I think individuals have the right to be armed, and being armed is not limited to a national guard-type militia that represents the people.
That said, short of me committing a felony, it's kind a moot point as no federal goon will ever disarm me.
I forgot to add that the militia of back then consisted of regular people who had arms in their homes and if/when the feds or other threats came, everybody was able to defend themselves either individually or collectively. There was no "national guard", when the town bell rang, you dropped your pitch fork, grabbed your gun, and ran to fight.
The people themselves were and are the "militia".
Besides, defending the states against the feds isn't in the states' current national guard charter, unless I'm gravely mistaken. As practiced today, the national guard that anti-gun people refer to as the modern "militia" of the 2nd amendment, have a federal responsibility in war time. Other than disaster relief, they don't really have a state function. Am I wrong?
Post a Comment