|
|
Post by PatrickS on Jun 23, 2006 0:36:49 GMT -5
What is your concept regarding firearms?
|
|
ajacksonian
New Member
"I am not a number, I am a person."
Posts: 14
|
Post by ajacksonian on Jun 24, 2006 10:11:01 GMT -5
I broaden the concept to all personal Arms... be they actual weapons or unarmed, but lethal, ability. Cavalry in the day of Washington had pistols that were single shot and still used sabers to charge with, and effective they were, too. The Common Law works all the way back to the longbow and a requirement for those living where they were made to practice with them and be competent with them... this was necessary after Agincourt and the concept was the same, although under the Crown.
Weapons of, by and for the people as personal armaments were a basis for civilization and only started to have some askance when actual 'tablewear' appeared and guests were asked to disarm as they entered a home because 'eating knives' were available. But for protection of self, family, property and Nation, this concept stretches far back in time beyond the instantiation of Common Law and to the older Nordic underpinnings that, themselves, date back into pre-history. Men (and yes some number of women) legally kept and used arms as their right and means to defend themselves and their towns from marauders. We enshrine this conception of lawful and honorable use of weapons with the general term 'Arms', of which Amendment II guarantees for self and protection of society and which the Federal government may regularize for a National Militia or Army, based upon those of the States.
But the States, although enjoined from having other permanent armies, are permitted to have non-standing armed Citizens to protect their States. This is the Article I, Section 10 exception to the Militia language and is clearly meant to indicate that the States may have Armed Citizens to protect that State if the Federal response is not forthcoming.
Again, this conception dates far back into history via both the Norse and Greco-Roman roots, and through the Germanic roots of the Common Law. Local nobility were allowed to have some regularization of their People and have them know arms, but to only take up arms at behest of the Sovereign or in local self-defense. Thus, the local nobles could also organize the ability to gather people quickly to protect their smaller territory that was under their care, while *not* organizing such into a standing army.
In modern times, with the supposed power and ability of the Federal Government, the States have not implemented this latter and ancient Common Law right specifically allowed under Article I, Section 10. And now that we have a Federal Government that does not know how to actually keep the Nation Sovereign on its borders not adequately protect it form interlopers, the States should and, indeed, must join with its Citizenry for self-protection and then to give just complaint and askance to the Federal Government as any lesser titled noble could to the Regent when the Sovereign did not protect those lands and turned a 'blind eye' towards those moving into the Sovereign's lands.
The distribution of rights and responsibilities is equivalent, although the system of government is now that of a Republic and not one of a Kingdom or Empire. When the ruling Sovereign does not protect the lands given to lessers, it is up to those lessers to protect it and call the Sovereign to account as to why the compact between them has been broken.
That is why I go on about this so very often and disparage no one weapon type or ability over another: I give due honor to all the lethality held by Citizens that keep and bear such things and skills and denigrate none by saying one is better than another as they are all lethal in their modes and ways. And by spreading the responsibility for protection wide and deep, the People can be enjoined by their State to help them and call the Nation into accountability. This was put in there in case of another Shay's Rebellion or similar in and amongst the States and if the Federal Government was unable to respond, the States could seek their own means to do so, even to go to a Foreign Nation for help. But the ancient Common Law and older means are still valid in this day and age.
Arms for the people to protect themselves and their States.
Arms by the people, so they may hold those using them wrongly accountable to swift justice.
Arms of the people, so they may be secure of themselves, their family, their hearth and homes in the way they prefer be it long gun, pistol, bow, sword, or skilled bare hands.
Let the People decide and take up the Arms of their liking or none at all, if they prefer. And let those who do protect us All and oversee their use so that criminality does not run rampant and endanger all of Us and Our States through such use.
As it was in the past, so we are allowed to do today.
*IF* we have the courage to do so.
And when I see the breakdowns that happen from simple *natural* disasters and seeing unaccountable and uncounted foreigners roaming the land and gangs of terrorists and thugs of all stripes wantonly using arms against any and all of society... I damn well wonder why we do NOT use our modern system to bring back this capability allowed to us All.
And hold the Federal Government's feet to the fires and ask: Here are foreigners, some with weapons, we are invaded, and we need protection... Why the hell haven't YOU, the Federal Government, formed to do JUST THIS THING FIRST AND ABOVE ALL OTHER CONCERNS done this thing for us?
|
|
