| The second amendment was intended as a "protection" for "We the People", a right to have protection from "all" enemies, both foreign and domestic, even the federal government. For in reality the Federal Government is not some self sustaining entity, it is "WE THE PEOPLE". No one has to make a pretense of gun ownership being limited to "sporting" qualifiers...etc. We have the constitutionally mandated right to "self" protect our, LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, as long as this right does not infringe upon another's right to the SAME. Simply owning a gun, is not a violation of these constitutional rights, what is a violation is the "Federal" government trying to place limits upon our right to self preservation, period. The right of the People, shall not be infringed. Clear, Simple, and Profound. The people are Us, common, ordinary people, and a Militia is made of People, therefore they are one and the same. Any one that reads anything else into this is doing so in a semantical fashion with the purpose being subversion of the peoples rights.
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the Power of a Strong central government and stop it from becoming to controlling. These 10 amendments were not intended to take power away from the people but protect the Feds from doing so.
The only purpose of the Federal Government is one of keeping and maintaining a strong Military and providing infrastructure transportation and trade between the States to allow a sense of unity, it is not the duty of the Feds to wet nurse the people that live within each individual state, it is the responsibility of each state to take care of its people. Thus each has its own constitution and has the right to make their own laws, that may contain anything that the people wish them to, as long as it does not come into conflict with the rights provided in the constitution. That is what the 10th amendment used to say, before the "communist" began "interpreting" with words that are "omitted" from the writings of the constitution. A judge does not have the constitutional right to circumvent the words of the constitution when these words change the meaning of intent of the constitution. The only way to change the constitution is via constitutional amendment, not by the supposed power of "JUDICIAL REVIEW". That concept is one of social communism, just like the concept of building a wall to separate the Church and State. If you want to see a constitution where these words actually exist and say these exact words, just look in the USSR constitution, not ours. Logan |