[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Did I send you this???????
THE REAL HONEST-TO-GOD PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
"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"
-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
"This declaration of rights, as I take it, is
intended to secure the people against the mal-
administration of government."
Massachusetts Delagate to the Constitutional
August 17, 1789
Rock on, baby. It might be difficult to convince
Buford T. Public of this fact, but the Second Amendment
was never intended to allow him to keep rapid fire
assualt rifles in his trailer so he could shoot every
crack-addicted baby-raper that dares to set foot onto the
30 square yards Buford calls his own. No matter how much
good ol' Buford may consider that a public service.
No, the Second Amendment is much deeper than that.
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the
Anti-Federalists (the ones who thought that the Articles
of Confederation, the joke under which our government was
running at the time, were just fine, thank you, and any
attempt at making a strong federal government would lead
to tyranny) were against a permanent army because from
their experience, it was much easier for a tyrant (or a
tyrannical political party) to get control of a
government when it has the support of the military. A
permanent army would be able to keep an unarmed
population under control with relative ease. To the
Anti-Federalists, an unarmed population was virtually a
guarantee of tyranny.
Even the Federalists, the ones who saw that Britian
and Spain were laughing their asses off at our Articles
of Confederation, and would continue to do so until we
developed a real manly government, never wanted a big
army. They advocated only that army that was necessary
to prevent other countries and wild Indians from invading
us. Their chief fear was that a large peacetime army,
standing around with nothing to do, will draw us into war
just to justify their existance. (Can you say "JFK-Oliver
Stone-Military-Industrial-Complex Theory"?) The
Federalists accepted the necessity of a permanent army,
but they and the Anti-Federalists made certain that
Congress had to debate the needs and requirements of this
army every two years.
During the dealmaking of the Constitutional
Convention, the Anti-Federalists more or less won on the
issue of national defense. The new nation would not have
an army during peacetime; it was up to the citizens to
protect themselves from other governments and from their
Why is this important nowadays? We already have a
permanent military, and if they can't protect us from
invasion, there's not a lot that good old Buford and his
Uzis can do. Military hardware is just too powerful.
Likewise, exchanging gunfire with the military as a way
of expressing your distaste for what you feel is tyranny
is just going to make Janet Reno pissed at you. You know
how she gets.
So if we can't fight, let's hide. Hide our records,
our writings, our past and our future. Not from each
other, baby, (that makes no sense) but from the
government. There's nothing that says that you have to
make it easy for the government to read your mail and tap
The key issue behind any interpretation of the
Second Amendment is not "Does Buford have the right to
own another grenade launcher?", but rather "Do we as
citizens have the right to defend ourselves against our