10 Best Carpet Protector Film

Best Carpet Protector Film in 2023

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

The 2nd Amendment: A Protection of the American Way of Life

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Have you ever read more powerful words? Have you ever really let that statement sink in and think about it? Not just a knee jerk reaction?

Have you ever read more powerful words? Have you ever really let that statement sink in and think about it? Not just a knee jerk reaction?

Let's break this down and actually study this a bit. The words 'necessary to the security of a free State" means that people have the right to defend themselves and their property from a dictatorship, or tyranical power in the federal govenment. How are the other amendments in the Bill of Rights preserved? By the 2nd Amendment! The American people are free to say what they want, own property, etc... because we also have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to fight for our freedoms.

Even the most simple of mankind can understand the principles of liberty, freedoms and the right to self preservation. Sauel Huntington, co-author and signer of the Declaration of Independence, along with his involvement with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, states in his personal writing the intent of the Bill of Rights in conjunction with the Constitution. Makes it clear the intent of those documents. Liberty is a God given right which no man, Government, or organization has the right to violate. In the Articles in the Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly points to this issue as a right that is beyond reproach, and certainly is not within anyones right to violate. It really doesn't take a Law Major to understand Constitutional law. Even though many anti Constitutionalist would like us to think otherwise. It is all an attempt to remove the rights that keep each one of us safe in our enviroments, home, in public, in nature, in the legal system. In every area of life these rights are the basis for all interactions between people and Governments. Allowing us to have a way to defend ourselves from attacks whether physical, verbal or legal attacks on our person. To be able to defend ourselves from tyranical Governments, people who wish to steal, kill or destroy us or family or property. For anyone to say otherwise just goes to show thier indiviual ignorance of the issues. Become educated, then understanding will come.

The original conditions that caused the founding fathers to draft the Bill of Rights relate to being ruled by a dictator (king). The Bill of Rights reiterated the rights of an individual. Freedom of speech may be about the most important, but the PRIMARY RESPONSIBLITY of the people is to bear arms to protect their other rights. The second amendment requires the citizens to be armed and proficient with arms in order to protect themselves and the nation in times of emergency AND TO OPPOSE an oppressive government. This is absolutely and obviously required to ensure freedom of speech. History has repeatedly shown what happens when the citizens are disarmed; the government usurps freedom, rounds-up persons with non-conforming views, and controls information (eliminates freedom of speech). Nazi Germany during the '30s and '40s is a prime example. In order to enjoy freedom there is an associated responsiblity to protect freedom.

Citizens have the right and responsiblity to protect themselves. There is no reason to believe that criminals will comply with legislation that disarms the general population. Thus, such action implies that the government wants criminal activity in order to promote more reliance on government (city, county, state, national guard, military) police will occur (again refer to the Nazi example). If there is interest in reducing crime, punish the criminal, not the law-abiding population.

Thomas Jefferson said it best.

"The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to repel foreign invaders, but to assure the ability to overthrow the government if it ceases to be a government run for and by the people".

Does that sound like that our fore fathers meant that they were refering to arming the government?

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tenche Coxe, 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

In every other amendment in the Bill of Rights, nobody disputes that "the people" means individual citizens. "The people" as individuals have the right to free speech, to worship, and so on. To say that "the people" in the second amendment means something different is indefensible.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to own and carry arms. Period.

The 2nd amendment is there for 3 reasons

1) In order to protect our country from invasion. The idea of conquering 200+ million armed citizens is daunting

2) To allow the people to protect and defend themselves. Often times the police just aren't good enough or fast enough, and you can only rely on yourself for safety

3) It is the amendment to protect all of the other amendments. If our government starts to ignore the laws, it is the right of the people to scrap the government and replace it. When the people have no way of keeping their governments in check, you have tyranny. If we are not armed, we have no way of defending ourselves against those who claim to be protecting us but are in fact not.

The Founding Fathers wrote extensively on the subject-not just writing the specific amendment. They explained it as a right from God and they explained that not only is the "Militia" defined as "the people" they explained that it is more than a Right. It is a Duty of every citizen to own a firearm, be trained in how to use it, keep it in good working order, and be ready to take it up in defense of oneself, one's family + one's country. It was an individual's RESPONSIBILITY. So I feel that opponents of it are actually "poor Americans." Rather than allow the anti-gun crowd to look down their noses at pro gun people as some form of primitive, I look down my nose at them and chastise THEM for not fulfilling their obligations as true americans.

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

Samuel Adams

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams

Thomas Jefferson had many things to say (as did others) that serve to clarify the position and intent of the founding fathers as regards the Second Amendment and the right of firearm ownership.These quotes that follow are some very relevant and important ones:

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

In conclusion, a "Right" is something that cannot be bestowed, nor taken away by government.

The 2nd Amendment simply acknowledges that there is an individual right to own firearms that predates the Constitution. The language "...,the right...shall not be infringed" makes this point. The history of the Bill of Rights is all about affirming individual rights and the rights of the States, and barring, initially, the Federal Government from infringing those pre-existing rights.

The argument about the "militia" clause is disingenuous in that the militia referred to are the individual citizens of the country, aka the "unorganized militia" of American law and tradition. This institution existed as far back as the founding of the individual colonies, and still exists in American law today.

In the colony of Massachusetts, for example, every able bodied male citizen was required, as a matter of law, to have a firearm. If the individual was unable to pay for such, the colony would help him pay for it, i.e., every 'individual' was expected to be armed.

The Federal Courts during the 19th Century slapped some States down who tried to limit the possession of firearms among their people because, in the Court's mind, the State's action would deprive the Federal Government of a resource to be called upon in the case of an attack upon the country.

The entire Constitution "doesn't give rights", BUT prohibits the Government from infringing on the innate, natural rights of the people; including the ability to defend their life and property by any means.