- Posted January 12, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Gun control debate: Background checks
Guns Don’t Murder People, American’s With Guns Murder People
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.
In 2008, the Supreme Court Supreme issued a landmark decision officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia…
This decision is peculiar because it completely ignored the first part of the amendment; “A well regulated Militia…”
This is where the specific arguments and interpretations go off into left field when it comes to the legal and political spectrum.
Both areas of the amendment that describe people speak of groups of people, not individuals.
The 2nd amendment has no wording that describes “personal protection”. Rather it says “free State”.
The 2nd amendment has no wording that describes “guns”. Rather it says “Arms”.
The 2nd amendment has no wording that describes “hunting”.
When George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin was he acting in the interest of; “the security of a free State”? Was Zimmerman part of a; “well regulated Militia”?
Lobbyist groups have so corrupted the wording and interpretation of the 2nd amendment by threatening the careers of politicians who fear them, it no longer represents the wording, meaning, intention or spirit of the law.
Protection of the country has morphed into a societal arms race.
Interpretation based on fear in a free society is more akin to Hitler’s Germany than what those who established this nation intended.
The current interpretation allows for arms, ALL arms, for essentially ANY purpose. This includes; artillery, grenades, 50 cal. machine guns, cyanide darts, explosives, heat seeking missiles ,nukes and sharpened pencils with tips dipped in frog poison. There is virtually no limit.
Special national security laws and interpretations seek to limit this, but in practice those laws are also unconstitutional and in direct violation of the current interpretation. The government is having it both ways while trying to pacify the lobbyist groups.
Gun lobbyist groups and gun owners want black and white interpretations when it comes to guns, and specifically guns, but seek vague and ambiguous interpretation when it comes to other “Arms”. They too want it both ways.
Under the current interpretation, Timothy Mcvey was perfectly within his rights to possess the explosives he blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building with.
In the not so distance future, particle accelerator guns will be readily available to those who know how to build them, and perhaps purchase them. This armament is capable of vaporizing a school bus on impact. But it’s still a gun.
This weapon is to current guns as current guns are to the bow and arrow. The “guns” will keep getting more and more dangerous and more and more capable.
At what point do we finally come to understand the specific wording of the amendment, especially the “A well regulated Militia” part?
Perhaps when Congress is vaporized with a particle accelerator they’ll stop being afraid of the lobbyist groups and start being afraid of American’s with particle accelerator guns?
It’s only a matter of time until that day arrives.