About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Erotica
Fringe
Society
Politics
Anarchism
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Corporatarchy - Rule by the Corporations
Economic Documents
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Foreign Military & Intelligence Agencies
Green Planet
International Banking / Money Laundering
Libertarianism
National Security Agency (NSA)
Police State
Political Documents
Political Spew
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
The Nixon Project
The World Beyond the U.S.A.
U.S. Military
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

Analysis of the 2nd Ammendment by the NRA

Note: The following article has been reprinted with permission granted by NRAction, a publication of the National Rifle Association. Please feel free to pass this article on.

"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."

-- The Second Amendment To The Constitution of the United States of America

What It Meant Then

Boston, 1768. The British colonies in New England are prospering, due to the independent spirit and work ethic of the people here. Great sailing ships cruise into Boston Harbor, evidence of the wealth of world trade now generated from America's shores.

Colonial cities like Boston are swelling; new towns are springing up and commerce is exploding because of the imaginative ways of these strange, rowdy, blunt, outspoken American whom cultured Europeans view with distaste. Yet the Old World gentry is quite willing to shove its cultural disdain aside in the name of expanding commerce.

The energy pouring out of America is filling the English coffers. But still, the nobility of England is loath to relinquish its power over the lives of these upstarts.

The know the absolute domination of a people cannot be achieved without psychological and physical controls. These include the social shackles Europe has imposed upon its citizenry for centuries. It has meant wealth, leisure, and happiness for a handful -- oppression and despair for millions. The English monarchs sense a growing mood of self-reliance and self-determination in the distant colonies, and it both frightens and infuriates them. The nobles react as they have always reacted.

Crush this swelling idealism among New England's commoners, they say, before it can be embodied by some sort of revolutionary action. Show these tasteless ruffians that independence is above their station. The colonists are born to serve the King, and the bayonets of our soldiers will remind them...

The word arrives upon New England's wild and windswept shores. Disarm the American upstarts, for the presence of personal arms makes them feel independent. Take away their firearms and put the people of Boston back in their place. Then impose martial law, because they need to be reminded they do not have a voice, the mind and the will of the masses must be manipulated by a single authority. This riffraff must be shown it is not capable of thinking and acting for itself. And if the Americans resist, bring them to England to be tried as traitors. They insult the proper authorities by speaking out about alleged injustices. These Americans are little more than savages-how dare they even consider the privileges of station and birth?

So it was in Boston, a city still young and so full of vision and of spirit, that the British General Gage in 1775 came to quiet the unrest and suppress the people. He determined to drive out any notion of personal liberty, and he did it by attempting to disarm all of Boston's citizenry.

But there was a new fire burning in Boston, an invisible fire that illuminated each man and woman's individual worth. The colonists had grown exhilarated over this strange new feeling. More than just discovering a new land, they had felt the touch of freedom.

The people of Boston were not about to lay down their guns in obedience to the King. Their forefathers had done so many times, and had gone to their graves in the throes of an unshakable despair.

But this surge of lust for personal liberty was a new thing. It filled the colonists with courage and energy. And most of all, it let them see clearly. If the Americans stood their ground now, generations to come would know a sense of self-worth and pride. And no sneering lord or nobleman or the henchmen thereof would come knocking, demanding they give up their guns.

The people of Boston squared their shoulders and stood their ground. The first Continental Congress listed the attempted disarming of Boston in the declaration of causes for taking up arms. The British were incensed by this insurrection, and they marched to put it down. At Concord Bridge they met everyday Americans tightly gripping their personal firearms. The sound of freedom rang out in a series of sharp reports and tyranny slumped to its knees.

WHAT IT MEANS NOW

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is sharp with clarity, yet plagued by debate. The wording is direct: "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 in- fringed." The intention of the Second Amendment is also clear and direct.

In 1789, during the meeting of America's first Congress, James Madison proposed a Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment. The people's right to keep and bear arms grew out of the bitter memory of the Crown's attempt to disarm the colonists. At that time, the militia consisted of everyday citizens and their personal firearms.

Opponents of the Second Amendment say the doctrine is old-fashioned and unnecessary in a modern world filled with professional soldiers. Unfortunately, tyranny has not yet become old-fashioned, whether it is the tyranny of violent crime or the tyranny of power and greed infringing upon the constitutional rights of the common citizenry. The authors of the Constitution repeatedly reminded us to stand guard against tyranny in any form if we value freedom.

It stands to reason that those who now question the relevance of the Second Amendment must also question the worth of the Constitution as a whole. If they cannot accept the individual right of a private citizen to keep and bear arms, most likely they have misgivings about a free and independent society.

Freedom-loving Americans will continue to fight to keep our Constitution rights. Among these Americans are some of the finest minds to be found in the Nation. Following are excerpts from the words and writings of several of liberty's most outspoken defenders. The subject: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


Dr. Stephen Halbrook, author of The Second Amendment: That Every Man Be Armed, a comprehensive examination of the Second Amendment and its ramifications:

"The Second Amendment is a constitutional right, a fundamental freedom for all people who are law-abiding. It is not outdated by the creation of our national guard. The national guard is a state and federally-sponsored institution -- in fact, its final loyalty is to the federal government, no to the individual states. It is a select militia consisting of a small portion of the population. Our founding fathers warned us against select militias. By using the term, "well regulated militia," they made reference to all able-bodied Americans.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide a safeguard against tyranny -- both domestic tyranny and that of foreign powers. As long as the Second Amendment remains part of the Constitution, the all law-abiding Americans are guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms."


New York Supreme Court Justice David Boehm, constitutional scholar:

"I feel there's no question the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee law-abiding Americans the right to possess firearms. Look at the language in the Bill of Rights: whereas the majority of the rights listed seem to be stated in the negative, "thou shall not," the Second Amendment is the only one stated in the affirmative.

I can understand people having a visceral feeling about firearms, and they have the right to have those feelings. Yet their feelings shouldn't infringe upon my right to have a gun. Besides, gun ownership, in my opinion, doesn't impose the danger that firearms critics charge. I don't believe possession of a firearm correlates with violent crime. We have some 50,000 legal firearm permit holders here in a single county where I live. If there was a direct link between firearms and violence, then this place should have long since been the scene of carnage. This simply is not the case."


Orrin Hatch, United States Senator from Utah, and Bill of Rights advocate:

"America is a unique country with unique citizens. The foundation of our country's greatness is the individual freedom on which our Constitution is based, and which it continues to protect. To seek to remove or limit any of these basic freedoms is to make our country less than it should be. When our ancestors forged a land conceived in liberty, they did so with musket and rifle. When they acted to protect their free institutions and to establish their identity as a free nation, they did so as armed men. We must respect our Constitution, including the Second Amendment. I don't know of any group of people more law-abiding and more capable of defending our country than those who also defend our right to bear arms."


David T. Hardy, author of the book Origins and Development of the Second Amendment:

Like its younger cousin, the right to trial by jury, the right to keep and bear arms can first be seen as a duty to keep and bear arms. But when, sometime in the twelfth century, the English were required to serve on juries and ferret out criminals, they had already been required for a dozen or more generations to own and use arms. It is hardly surprising that these universal duties became a way of life and a mainstay of their political consensus, and in turn became, when such things began to be debated, a right."


J. Warren Cassidy, executive vice president, National Rifle Association of America.

"Do I feel the Second Amendment is presently in jeopardy? Yes, if you mean that people are attempting to water down its meaning, or see it changed to reflect something different than what our founding fathers intended. There will always be individuals unable to live by the common-sense rules found within the Bill of Rights. It is up to you and me to keep these people in check.

It is also terribly important that we lead our young people back to the Constitution. Our youth must have the opportunity to read the Constitution, and also the Bill of Rights. They must understand how their constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of choice has been eroded. We should help our youth have a better grasp of history. Society has changed, with its shift from rural to urban populations. Yet the basic principles of the Constitution remain. We must adhere to them if we wish to preserve a free and independent America."


Those who have difficulty accepting the Second Amendment also have difficulty accepting the premise that all men are created equal. They feel the Bill of Rights is out of date. What they mean is that freedom and justice for all is no longer valid... except for just a few. And they have taken it upon themselves to choose the few.

 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
Flying with a gun? MAYBE =/
Feinstein At It Again...
Night Ops
Gun Stores
I've got that itch again...
Momma, why did the police bring us pizza?
Sabotaging a gun
obtaining a sniper rifle casing
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS