What are Our Needs? is that the same as Our Rights?

Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789
Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789 (Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives)

 

 

 

As we debate the issue of what the 2nd Amendment really means, and who it really applies to, we are also debating the rights associated with 9 other amendments that also form th Bill of Rights.

 

Here is a nice link to the Bill of Rights Institute, which not only give a text of the Bill of Rights but, some information about the rational for the Bill itself..

 

Here is a portion that has given so many people a lot of confusion…

 

Amendment II

 

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.

 

Now, this is where some of the confusion came from…  For years the militia part was interpreted to mean the amendment applied to the federal government, and not the individual citizen.  They took the “well regulated militia” to mean the Military, even though most of our founding fathers did not seem to envision a standing army.

 

So, what is a militia?  Look here for a good definition of a Militia.  The courts have held, recently, that the 2nd amendment really did apply to the states, and the people.  It would be kind of hard to explain how one amendment would only apply to the federal government while the other nine applied to the “the people” mentioned in the 2nd…

 

We are really lucky that the Federalist did not get their way.  They were sure that our rights were obvious and that we did not need to delineate them in the Constitution.  We have a Bill of Rights written into the Constitution and we are still arguing about what they mean…  So what do you think would have happened if we did NOT have the Bill of Rights?  The Antifederalist wanted a list of rights, the federalist did not, they compromised and gave us a short list, with the understanding that any close decisions was to be decided on behalf of the Citizen.

 

Ok.. Most people will tell you that we have the right to bear arms, some reluctantly.  Some people will tell you that we do not need high capacity magazines, or semi-automatic weapons (for the liberal news people who might be reading this the semi-automatic means that it only fires one shot each time you pull the trigger, and the name is not interchangeable with automatic weapon), or even the right to carry (again for you liberal news people that means to carry).

 

No, I don’t need a 30 round magazine.  Most of the time I don’t even need a firearm but, needing and having are two different things…  I don’t normally need a fire extinguisher, but sometime I might, so it would be nice to have one on hand.  The question, which so many of the rabbit want to ignore, is not about if we need to bear arms the fact is ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

 

in·fringe from reference.com

 

/ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

 

verb (used with object)

1.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.verb (used without object)
2.to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

 

Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2  + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

 

If you, or anyone, wants to limit our rights to what we need then you will have to see the constitution as just another piece of papers….  which can be ignored at will..

 

Without people who believe in it the U.S. Constitution it is just an old piece of parchment  to be thrown out when it becomes inconvenient. such as when it is no longer NEEDED..

 

We have choices..  We always have choices.  One is that we can abide by the Constitution, another is we can ignore it, kind of like the “gun” control people seem to want, or we can change it..

 

The first two do not seem like viable options, since a number of people are determined to ignore it, so that leaves us with the idea of change..  Yes, the constitution has been changed in the past.  We have added more amendments, and done away with at least one, remember prohibition?

 

Then again, does anyone remember the Articles of Confederation?  It brought the states together but, did not give the central government the power to make the states behave.  So they decided to “revise” the Articles of Confederation to give the central government more power, and to make bills easier to pass.

 

Thus it was, in just a few years” replaced.  Never voted out, the new Constitution was just voted in..  Would we really want to risk that?

 

Lets go back to the idea of NEEDS..  What do we really need..  and if we don’t need something who will decide if we need it..  I know we already have people who will infringe on the 2nd Amendment by saying you can’t have more than a certain number of rounds in a magazine, it is NOT A CLIP,

 

We have been told that you don’t need to tell lies about other people(slander or libel), unless you are a politician, or yell “fire” in a crowed theater unless there really is a fire.

 

Just think of the “Bill of Rights” and consider how many of them you really “NEED” on a given day..  For those of you who don’t get arrested, for example, you won’t “NEED” the right to have a lawyer present, or the “right to remain silent”.  There are a number of “rights” that we have and yet don’t need on a daily basis so, who is going to decide which of the “rights” you “need” and when you need them….  Will there be a secret court, such as the now famous FISA court, where they will decide if you even “need” a trial by your peers, or will they just pronounce you guilty, and the first thing you hear about it is when they take you to serve your sentence?

 

One last thought for the day:  for those of you who say that our founding father’s did not anticipate high capacity magazine, or even weapon that could fire more than one shot, I say, look at how the world has changed, since then and understand that they did not anticipate the internet, the phone system, telegrams, and many other wonders we have.  Wonders that the Supreme Court has been called upon to apply our rights to.  What if it had been decided that, since they had only envisioned the mail, that he telegraph, your phone, your cell phone, or the internet did not come under those items protected by the Constitution.  Any of those things could then be open without probable cause, and you would have no electronic privacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: