I have followed this post with interest, and at times even had a bit of a brain fry. I do not intend to off rail,
divert, or otherwise distract from the discussion going on here, but I couldn't resist putting in my thoughts on
something that seems to me, so elementary. Debate is good, educational and beneficial to all. However there is no
need to debate for some, I for one, as it all seems very clear and simple. The 2A is a right, not a granted
permission. I am not a historian nor do I do a lot of research on the the early writings such as the Federalist
Papers, etc. However, as I stated it is to me this simple:
1. A bunch of people got fed up with tyranny.
2. They started anew
3. They considered what was left behind
4. They considered what they felt were God given rights and enumerted (listed) them
5. They outlined what the government is and established a system of balances
6. DID NOT want a repeat of what they left behind!
7. Set forth measures that would help assure their desires
8. Realized that government could get out of hand and set forth a way to keep that in check - the 2A.
This was done with much thought, prayer, insight and reflection by a group of God-fearing (read respecting)
individuals. When they set down our system of government, it was not intended to be a lord over us, but a servant to
us. That is one of the things that was left behind and reflected upon.
The 2nd ammendment, guaranteeing the right to bear arms. This one requires just a little bit of thinking. If the
government is an entity, it is not a “people”. The second amendment states “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 whom is this right guaranteed? The people.
The term "God given rights" is an interesting phrase. Presume for just a moment that there is no government of any
kind. No laws, no guiding authority of any kind. Now in that framing, place yourself in this situation: Person A
desires to have a specific item. Person B has such item. Person A decides to remove it from the possession of Person
B. What do you think Person B is going to do? Allow this to happen? Probably not. Where did Person B get the idea
that he had the authority to protect possession of the item? Answer: The ingrained sense that it is theirs. That is
that "God given right".
I know that there are more than a few folks on here that could and would debate me into a corner on various topics.
I am so thouroughly convinced of the spirit and intent of the 2A based on what I have said, that I feel no need to
prove that it is a right, of which is ingrained in us. That it is a God given right that deserves plenty of watchful
eyes.
Again my appologies if I divert things, that was not my intent. Some will probably notice that I am not a studied
historian. Again... it is a simple thing.