Consistent usage throughout the Bill of Rights
?The People? Protected By The Second Amendment Are The Same People Protected Throughout The Bill Of Rights.There's not much to comment on here. The people are the people. The usage is consistent. The usual argument from collectivists is that the States were prohibited from maintaining a standing army without consent of Congress, and yet permitted to form one in emergencies, but without a right to keep and bear arms, where would they get the arms on short notice to arm their army? Under this theory the 2nd Amendment would protect the right of the states to maintain an armory. That theory is lacking, however, in several areas. It does not account for the right to bear arms; such a phrasing implies individuality. States are not said to bear arms; they would field an army. Bearing arms is an activity performed by a person, not a state. And, of course, if the Framers had meant to say state they would have said state. If the people's right to arms is healthy and respected, there is no need for the State to maintain its' own armory; for the people will come when called to service with their own arms. An armory would be necessary for a State seeking to maintain a standing army, of course, but the Constitution is strongly prejudiced against such a creature. We maintain one today only after bitter lessons learned from two World Wars. And if the 2nd Amendment is to be read to protect a right of the States to maintain armies, it would be in direct conflict with the sections of the Constitution that requires the States to have the permission of Congress (or an emergency, such as an invasion) to do so. Several of the Founders are on record as stating that the Bill of Rights does not conflict with any of the powers stated earlier in the document; that is, the federal government was not granted any power to regulate speech, or the press, or to institute a state religion, or to restrict the arms available to the people. But if the 2nd protects a State's right to form an army, it would be in conflict with the powers already granted to the federal government. Since the Framers don't think it was, it must mean something else. Return to the table of contents. |
Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/7131
No trackbacks have been posted so far.
No comments have been posted so far.



