horge
Member
I'm not an American.
I am however, largely the product of American colonialism,
and it is with no trifling affection that I regard the United States;
It is neither with minor concern that I observe recent trends in your country,
else I would not presume to post my thoughts here.
Bear with me, if you will.
"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."
To this foreigner, the Second Amendment is clearly framed to preserve
a necessary, well regulated militia. It refers to a separate natural
"right to keep and bear arms".
The Constitutional Amendments seem to me, primarily a list of limits imposed
on your Federal Government, to preserve freedoms and freedom.
The Second Amendment is notable in that it not only exalts the
people's ability to collectively take up arms in defense of freedom,
but by default calls on the people to maintain said ability.
It is thus a citizen's duty to keep and bear, because that preserves
what the Second Amendment seeks to preserve: readiness.
US vs. Miller resulted in the dubious analysis that a sawed-off shotgun was
not a suitable weapon for use by a militia, and therefore was not protected
by the Second Amendment. I feel the Court was incompetent to form any
opinion on what constitutes a weapon that "has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia".
It was incompetent because the nature and needs of war change rapidly.
Since one cannot predict what weapons the future will bring, nor what
war will be like in days to come, it is foolish to set into stone
what types of weapons are or aren't suitable for militia use.
A lot has changed since the 1700's, and troops no longer face off by forming
ordered lines. If war were to visit the native soil of the United States,
there would likely be some very ugly house-to-house fighting,
in multistory structures and very tight spaces involving many innocents,
encouraging the use of short firearms and even handguns.
Shortened shotguns. Handguns. Battle rifles. Crew-served weapons.
Ownership of such weapons and maintaining proficiency in their use qualifies
as necessary towards individual readiness to fight in a militia.
There will still be conventional battles, usually on foreign shores.
That is what a professional Armed Forces are for.
However, in the modern age, the enemy is increasingly a coward.
The enemy hides among civilians, and targets them,
violating all accepted conventions of war.
The enemy will be insidious, avoiding direct conflict with your military
and law enforcement, while attacking the foundations of America.
Terrorism is now recognizable as an act of war.
At what point does foreign-state sponsored crime constitute an act of war?
At what point does foreign-state sponsored illegal immigration constitute an invasion?
If/when unconventional aggressions reach a critical level, there may well
be fighting on US soil. Serious fighting that may preclude rapidly bringing
the full weight of your vaunted military to bear upon it.
Recent history has suggested how even the most powerful military on the planet
can be stretched too thin; how the most powerful nation on the planet
can be too slow to respond to massive calamity. The military, like disaster relief,
is a branch of centralized bureaucracy. Law enforcement is a more local
organ, but is often not sized to meet massive conflict.
In the towns and villages, in the boroughs, districts and slums,
the common people -and only the common people- are near enough
and numerous enough to make a difference immediately.
They must be ready to organize and take up arms at a moment's notice,
in defense of all that they hold dear --freedom most of all.
By propounding endlessly on a right to keep and bear arms, as
essentially a selfish/personal liberty, Americans may be missing the point
of the Second Amendment. .
Again, there is an independent "right to keep and bear", otherwise
the Second Amendment would not have referred to it.
The Second Amendment howevermentions a "right to keep and bear arms",
(and warns the Federal government not to mess with that right)
because the Second Amendment is also a call to Americans
--all Americans-- to maintain their readiness.
A readiness to provide and take up arms in organized defense of flag;
to take up arms in organized defense of freedom.
If your country's Constitution exalts and calls for such readiness,
then look about: does the word 'abandonment' come to mind?
Deeply concerned,
horge
I am however, largely the product of American colonialism,
and it is with no trifling affection that I regard the United States;
It is neither with minor concern that I observe recent trends in your country,
else I would not presume to post my thoughts here.
Bear with me, if you will.
"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."
To this foreigner, the Second Amendment is clearly framed to preserve
a necessary, well regulated militia. It refers to a separate natural
"right to keep and bear arms".
The Constitutional Amendments seem to me, primarily a list of limits imposed
on your Federal Government, to preserve freedoms and freedom.
The Second Amendment is notable in that it not only exalts the
people's ability to collectively take up arms in defense of freedom,
but by default calls on the people to maintain said ability.
It is thus a citizen's duty to keep and bear, because that preserves
what the Second Amendment seeks to preserve: readiness.
US vs. Miller resulted in the dubious analysis that a sawed-off shotgun was
not a suitable weapon for use by a militia, and therefore was not protected
by the Second Amendment. I feel the Court was incompetent to form any
opinion on what constitutes a weapon that "has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia".
It was incompetent because the nature and needs of war change rapidly.
Since one cannot predict what weapons the future will bring, nor what
war will be like in days to come, it is foolish to set into stone
what types of weapons are or aren't suitable for militia use.
A lot has changed since the 1700's, and troops no longer face off by forming
ordered lines. If war were to visit the native soil of the United States,
there would likely be some very ugly house-to-house fighting,
in multistory structures and very tight spaces involving many innocents,
encouraging the use of short firearms and even handguns.
Shortened shotguns. Handguns. Battle rifles. Crew-served weapons.
Ownership of such weapons and maintaining proficiency in their use qualifies
as necessary towards individual readiness to fight in a militia.
There will still be conventional battles, usually on foreign shores.
That is what a professional Armed Forces are for.
However, in the modern age, the enemy is increasingly a coward.
The enemy hides among civilians, and targets them,
violating all accepted conventions of war.
The enemy will be insidious, avoiding direct conflict with your military
and law enforcement, while attacking the foundations of America.
Terrorism is now recognizable as an act of war.
At what point does foreign-state sponsored crime constitute an act of war?
At what point does foreign-state sponsored illegal immigration constitute an invasion?
If/when unconventional aggressions reach a critical level, there may well
be fighting on US soil. Serious fighting that may preclude rapidly bringing
the full weight of your vaunted military to bear upon it.
Recent history has suggested how even the most powerful military on the planet
can be stretched too thin; how the most powerful nation on the planet
can be too slow to respond to massive calamity. The military, like disaster relief,
is a branch of centralized bureaucracy. Law enforcement is a more local
organ, but is often not sized to meet massive conflict.
In the towns and villages, in the boroughs, districts and slums,
the common people -and only the common people- are near enough
and numerous enough to make a difference immediately.
They must be ready to organize and take up arms at a moment's notice,
in defense of all that they hold dear --freedom most of all.
By propounding endlessly on a right to keep and bear arms, as
essentially a selfish/personal liberty, Americans may be missing the point
of the Second Amendment. .
Again, there is an independent "right to keep and bear", otherwise
the Second Amendment would not have referred to it.
The Second Amendment howevermentions a "right to keep and bear arms",
(and warns the Federal government not to mess with that right)
because the Second Amendment is also a call to Americans
--all Americans-- to maintain their readiness.
A readiness to provide and take up arms in organized defense of flag;
to take up arms in organized defense of freedom.
If your country's Constitution exalts and calls for such readiness,
then look about: does the word 'abandonment' come to mind?
Deeply concerned,
horge
Last edited:
