Guns,.... Again.

A thread in off-topic got this one started.

What the term militia stood for in the Bill of Rights was only turned into a debate in the recent past. The Supreme Court had always backed the individual right up and until the late 1920's (remember Prohibition and what THAT caused).

In fact the supreme court routinely denied ANY legislation that restricted what kinds of firearms a private citizen could own due to the language of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't until revisionists started to reinterpret the meaning that it became clouded.

Anytime something begins to be reinterpreted because of an agenda being in place should always raise suspicion and alarm.

I point out that most of these revisionists would say that militia stands for the National Guard:

[b]About the National Guard[/b]  (from the national Guards website)

"The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.

Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight."

The National Guard had always been a term to describe volunteers from citizens who would come forth with their own weapons and materials. They were never under obligation to do so. It wasn't until 1903 that the NG became an organized force that was basically just a subserviant section of the US Military. The fact that they are now considered part and parcel of the standing army would place them outisde of the protections of the 2nd Amendment. The constitution provides for the militias to be outfitted and given supply and support by the standing army. It only gives the Government the authority to supply and train NOT to restrict.

The ability for us to protect ourselves against those who would otherwise be tasked with protecting us is a fundemental right to gaurantee freedom.

When someone asks "what purpose do these kinds of weapons serve" the honest answer is: So if for some reason our Government ever becomes oppresive to the point of victimization of it's people and the citizens seek to exercise the right to remove said government, a task  which becomes impossible by any other means other than by force, I would at least have a fighting chance instead of sitting on my thumb while I was being "displaced for re-education".

People hesitate to say this out loud because they are afraid it paints them as a reactionary or paranoid. As a police officer, I carry a gun. Not becasue I'm a paranoid reactionary, but because history has proven that it is in the realm of possibilty that I may have to defend myself against attack.

History also has proven that governments eventually turn into oppresive bodies disinterested in the needs of it's people and more interested in their own gain at the expense of those they are otherwise tasked with serving.

Go ahead and bury your head in the hope that the people you grant authority over you will never do you harm. History, teaches us differently.

The United States has been near the ragged edge of having a tree in need of pruning several times. In a previous blog I mentioned that forced sterilization and euthenasia for certain undesirable portions of the population was being considered in our own country long before the Nazis actually implemented it. To get to that point to where "the final solution" was a possibility, the German government began a process of disarmament. First it used propaganda to point out alleged reasons that Germany declined after World War 1, some of them valid. Then, after garnering support, began to initiate legislation to solve some of these problems, including gun control measures and confiscation. Hitler didn't come out screaming, "Lets build concentration camps and kill all of the people I don't like", but this process took only 5 years to get to the point where they felt comfortable going full monty. 

By the way, we just use the term Nazi because we like to believe that this evil group just took over the German people and started doing bad things. The Nazi regime was ELECTED. Hitler was then appointed as Chancellor by the party voted into a leadership position. Germany was an industrialised nation with outstanding education. The German people weren't evil themselves, they were just gullible. Germany after WW1 was a scary place. Horrible depression, sky-high unemployment, a loss of a national identity, corruption on a massive scale. All of these things lead people to look for a leader that had the strength to "make things right". Does any of teh above criteria ring anybodies bell yet?

From Wikipedia:

"A decorated veteran of World War I, Hitler joined the Nazi Party in 1920 and became its leader in 1921. Following his imprisonment after a failed coup in 1923, he gained support by promoting nationalism, antisemitism and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and propaganda."

This cycle of fear driven policy turning against the people who initially granted it power has repeated itself over and over again. The founding fathers of our country, a lot of whom would be very unpopular today knew this to be true having just thrown off a set of shackels themsleves, knew this to be true and set-up the Bill of Rights to let the citizenry know that the people had the power.

Take a look at this: http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

If the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was about the National Guard and standing military, why is it in a document proclaiming the rights and liberties granted to the people and to the States? The main body of the constitution already has amendments covering the issue of levying taxes for the common defense and for providing for the establishment and supply of a standing military.

Apparently then using that logic, newspapers and other media outlets are the only groups who have protected speech. I guess then that only established groups and official clubs have the right to public assembly. What about the other 9 amendments, how could they be "interpreted" by revisionists with an agenda?

We have already allowed our fear to allow our Government free reign to pass bullshit legislation like the Patriot Act. Now we are letting our Government pass a "stimulous" packet that doesn't do anything but stimulate our national deficit.

If we've gotten THIS stupid and lazy, we don't deserve the freedoms originally claimed by our ancestors. I guess we have lost our drive and motivation to the point that we no longer deserve our place at the head of the worlds table.