Originally posted by bustr
So then after all of these pages of ego jousting, is this case the final bell weather in the ultimate argument:
Do We the People have protected inalliable rights per the constitution vs. The governments of the United States including federal, have evolved to the condition that their own interests superced the constitutions express limitations to their evolved "rights by power to control" their subjects in the name of thier own "Entity called GOVERNMENT or Stateism"?
If this case does not rule for an individual right, then it sets formal public precedence which will be trumpeted by the media that the U.S. constitution has finally been found fluid and of no material protection to We the People and our rights of self determination and individual freedom.
"GOVERNMENT\Stateism", it's needs and rights will hensforth be the supreme arbitor of We the People's lives. And we know the media will remind us at every turn in the future that the SCOTUS ruled We the People are no longer special and just shut up and toe the line like good ignorant pesants because we were stupid enough to let them and government prove we are too stupid to have individual rights and freedoms via the supreme court.
"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."
One sentence. A singular statement. It starts by identifying it's subject "a well regulated militia." Did they mean "well regulated" as in "lets all go to the beerstore and gunstore and buy implements of destruction and drink!"?
Somehow seems doubtful.
Does "militia" mean "Jimmy Joe Billy Bob's militia of one?" Not seeing it.
How about "security of a free State?" Some say this means protecting the people from a government obviously bound to turn on them eventually. Seems motivated from fear and paranoia (imo). It certainly couldn't mean protection from invasion. Wait. Yes it can.
Now ... a lot of folk like to focus on just "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (comma) shall not be infringed" .... like it's a sentence all it's own, the comma's just a mistake and the rest of it doesn't count. That makes it "plain as day" that it's all about what they want it to be about.
Ok .... lets look at the whole
sentence again:
"A well regulated
Militia (subject of the sentence),
being necessary to the security of a free State (reason for it's existance), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (Yes a
right. "The people" is indeed a collective phrase. Once again, the words "individual, person and citizen were in common use and the authors were familiar with them), shall not be infringed (And it isn't. Anyone of sane mind and clean record can keep and bear arms. Go figure.)"
So .... though the subject refered to is "a well regulated militia" and the reason of intent is identified as "the security of a free State" the
right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed.
And the correlation being made between the second amendment and the preamble?
"We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So where in the second does it prohibit the
People of the United States (our form of government - of by and
for the People) from the
regulation (I.E. "well regulated") of the militia ....
in order to insure domestic Tranquility?
Handguns, sporting rifles with scopes, shotguns ... they're all still openly available on the market. Once, again, anyone of same mind and clean record can own one. A registered and licensed firearm protects me from criminal and state (ahem) alike just as well as an unregistered and unlicensed one. But it does make it easier to prove in a court of law that weapons I owned were used to commit a crime. Guess that doesn't worry me none. I'm not a criminal.
Some people take things way too far. Timmy McVeigh and Terry Nichols are a couple of examples. Their paranoia, anger and fear of the government "infringing their rights" drove them to terrorism. Timmy rationalized that the lives lost in the OKC bombing were no more or less significant than Iraqi lives. (An interesting statement no matter how you look at it.)
Guess that's why the "clear cut argument" of the second amendment involving more hyperbole and emotion than it really requires comes off as undermining it's own intent in my eyes.
Welp, there ya go. I expect this won't be taken any better than my amused teasing has been.
