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.

infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

Okay, I admit I've been getting pretty punchy. The lack of sleep, political information overload and just being an arse-hole in general, has left me at the decision to stay out of this one. I have told the local voluntary fire dept. to stay back a few miles if this house should catch fire. Matter of fact, they should come up for a few days or until the smoke has stopped for a week.

Maybe the reason for my edginess is because these ten amendments, our Bill of Rights, are what the left and our Dear Leader has deemed the "negative aspects" of the Constitution. Why would that be? For God gave us rights, the states gave Congress rights and those rights are meant to stay separate of the ten we are now at.

Would Congress's positive affect on everything they touch give us reason to relinquish these liberties?
Is it that, we are children that can not be trusted with this valuable fragile treasure?
Is it that we are not as intelligent as those, we dumb asses voted to represent us?
Or is as simple as all histories tyrants have tried and failed to prove? That we are the negative influence of the world.

See I think the fact is -We the People- have something they cannot possess. Virtue and Honor, the things that come from giving and protecting. Liberty is what we have fought and died, for centuries to keep. We will not be victims. We earn our own way. We toil long hours. It has given us a thick skin. A skin that was taken from the those that try to even the field. A skin that, at birth, they were separated from. The separation caused a sense of loss that they never recovered and have warped their sense of entitlement. Well, we all had our umbilical cord cut and we were circumcised. We never became victims. We were weaned. We became adults. We stand on our own merits. We love our mother but we do not depend upon her to nourish us. These merits are ours and our forefathers knew you would want them.

These 'Positive' aspects we hold dear.

So much for staying out of it.

Thank you for your comments and insight you have given. sharky


BB-Idaho said...

We hear a great deal about the 'Founding Fathers' these days; and sometimes I wonder what they would think if we could 'beam them
up, Scotty' to present times. Since the second amendment seems clear, I always support it, even though I have no wish nor need of a firearm (had enough of that in the Army). I have seen enough in my elderly condition that makes one wonder..gang violence, domestic violence, crazed mass killers..all protected in their
'right to bear arms'. What of the writers of the constitution? We know they detested the European model of the standing army..leaned very much on militia, hence that opening phrase. They knew of flintlocks, not AR-15s, AK-47s, Uzzis etc. Would they have been life memnbers of the NRA? Would they favorably compare the Timothy McVeigh militia with that of 1789?
What would they think of concealed carry?
We really need to beam em up....

LandShark 5150 said...

Reckon my demeanor of late is turning some away. And just when this seemed to be growing. Damn the bad luck!
BB-- thanks for the comments you are welcome here. I've seen and read your comments @ Gripers. There and here your remarks are on a intelligent articulate level. This amendment is touchy on all sides. The founders thoughts would be nice to hear their approach to the thoughts you pose. Times are always changing, does that allow for the constitution to change? I don't oppose that if done thru the constitutional process.

Donald Borsch Jr. said...


I think you may be right, Sharky. Tis current entry of mine does seem to fit in nicely here today!

LandShark 5150 said...

BB - yesterday i bought the book "A patriot's history of the united states", I cracked it open an hour or so ago and ran across this --

After the Boston tea Party and the others that occured days after around Dec of 1773, Americans read, had oral debates and much like our blog banter, informal political discussions.
'And by 1775 many of the Revolutionaries began sounding like John Locke (That the only desirable government is one that protected human "life, liberty and estate":therfore it is limited and only strong enough to protect these three inalienable rights).'

So the talk of the day is much of yesterday. So why this?
Shortly after people began preparing for conflict.

'Establishing a revolutionary government and a standing army (minutemen), the militia. Each militia had aand paid for a sub-group 20-25% of it's number in reserve complete w/ arms, ammo. About this they were resolute. The citizens of Lexington taxed themself for the purpose of mounting cannons,ammunitions and for burying the dead.'
'They appoached the coming conflict with stark realism.'
'The nearly universal ownership and use of firearms as a fact bears repetition here to address the scholarship that purports Americans did not widely possess or use firearms.'
'Some critics of guns have attempted to show thru probate records that very few guns were listed among household belongings bequethed to heirs; thus, guns were not numerous, nor hunting or ownership widespread. But the fact that guns were so prevalent that they felt to not list them. On the eve of the Revolution, Massachusettes citizens were well armed, not only with small arms but, collectively, with artillery.'

Now with that said, at the time the Militia became the standing army, the sub-groups became the militias, citizens became the sub-groups. It was their duty to one another to step up in defense of country and countrymen.
Do we need such a thing as a Militia now?
I think not. We have a standing army, we have a national reserve by state. We have state police then the local police.
They did not. The citizens were the local law enforcers until the town grew large enough to put someone in that position.

But as for a the right to bear arms --
I do whole-heartedly stand behind and passionately engage in. For the very reason our forefathers did, it is my duty to stand in defense of me and mine as well as you and yours. It is my duty to take the next step in order to protect my country.
It may be that simple but there it is.

The Griper said...

not only does the wording give meaning to the Constitrution but so does tradition and this would be one where tradition is important to the understanding of the Constitution.

wwe must remember that at the time of the writing of this Constitution, a private party could own every weapon invented. and that remained true until recent history. but if one of the reasons for the second amendment is acknowledgment that the people have the right to overthrow their government then there should be no ban of ownership of any weapon made.

now, whether or not the individuals of society could bring about the overthrow of the federal government or if it must be state led would be the question? myself, i would lean towards the latter simply upon the premise that the federal government is the creation of the states not the creation of the people.

either way, since each state would have the right to regulate who could or could not be a member of the militia then this gives the state the right to regulate the ownership of weapons but not the federal government.

problem is that weaponry has advanced such that I don't think anyone would disagree that there are some weapons that the individual should not be allowed to own. nuclear weapons is the first type that comes to mind.

so, to me the question is not that the people have a right to weapons but where would be the cutoff point at the ban of them to private parties.

BB-Idaho said...

Thomas Payne wrote 'Common Sense' and it appears we agree that that commodity applies to some extent in the 2nd Amendment rights. Nuclear weapons being a top end
example. There are hobbiests who
like to throw volkswagens with giant siege engines (onagers) and those that enjoy 50 cal weaponry.
Pipe bombs and molotov cocktails seem outside the business of 'bearing arms'..and we see numerous local regs regarding
fireworks. So, yeah, it probably comes down to firepower, as the erudite Griper suggested.

Red said...

I hope you don't mind that I linked to you in my post. If so, let me know and I will remove the link. Thanks.

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

Sharkey- I too bought a patriot's history of the United States. I thought I was the only weirdo buying cheaply printed textbooks with no fancy covers or any pictures whatsoever.

Incidentally good post my man. I am approaching frustration and or burnout myself. I love my old historical posts...think they are some of my really good ones...but they are the ones that get no responses. Frustrating.

LandShark 5150 said...

Griper & BB your both right and get no arguement from me. The word "arms" has a wide spectrum to choose from, but I think that the majority, meself included, believe the small arms type. Although there are a few of the others I would like to get my pinchers on.

Red -- thank you me lady!

KOOK -- good book, tore thru it in no time. Agreed the ones you know will draw some in, pushes them right out the door. I gave up and went to this format. Easier -- everyone has an opinion. I don't consider any of them wrong, I am learning what you readers think. And your opinions along with study is helping me. Even opins that I differ from are helpful.
I had to take a break and get as far away from the political realm as possible. My own gypsy tour. Not a care in the world and absolutly no news of any kind around me. Wow -- I have a new lease on life. That ball of pissed of rage is gone. I know now that the only way (and I truely wish different)to fix this f'd up gubbermint, when duty calls, is armed revolution. Taking back the offices with people that will only be corrupted by those that don't leave, is a no win. Full speed socialism to managed socialism, is still socialism. Red side vrs blue side. It is the green side, the money exchangers, yep the fed and the banking empire. The only ones that are tuely free. History has shown what happens to this kind of tyrant, and it isn't a happy ending.

Thank you all for staying with me thru this spell. It is warm felt, sharky

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

I am not there with the armed revolution. I do not see how we could effect that, unless the military turned on our government.

But we are going ot have to do something very drastic in order to get us back on track. neither party represents us, they all wish to rule us.