Have you ever heard/read someone ask that or why people want
strong weapons in their possession ? Why they resist the government from
tracking ownership ? I mean, if you just want the right to hunt, what is the
big deal ?
Do you really
think they needed to constitutionalize the right to hunt game with their
muskets ?
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly
been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of
rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance,
enable the people to resist and triumph over them” so said Justice Joseph Story
in his commentaries on the Constitution in 1833; Commentaries that his contemporary
Justice John Marshall (who participated in the Constitutional Convention in
1791) said “It is a comprehensive and an accurate commentary on our
Constitution, formed in the spirit of the original text.”
The Founders knew the history in the Colonies and in England
where the government would attempt to remove weapons in order to pacify the
people. They were well acquainted with the philosopher John Locke and his views
on natural law and the right to resist tyranny with force if the government
acted against the interests of the citizens. They of course acted so themselves
and wanted to preserve this essential and fundamental right for all time by
putting it in the Constitution.
This is why we have the Second Amendment today—not simply
for self-defense and personal use (like hunting) which are secondary purposes.
Let me be clear I am not advocating rebellion. I believe I
am a free man today and am grateful for it. As the Founders knew however that
may not always be the case so I reserve the right, my natural God given right,
to resist tyranny.
May it never be needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment