The Second Amendment
I haven't written on this topic before. It's a given that there will be some decisions on the Second Amendment this next year from the Supreme Court, however I thought I would toss my ideals out there.
First, the idea that the Militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was simply put every able bodied man in an area. Literally everyone was the Militia. Indeed, the idea of it being "well regulated" consisted of the Governor of an area appointing officers in time of war. Otherwise, the local areas would in fact arise on their own and come to the aid of neighbors when Indians, pirates, or thugs attacked.
Today, people equate the National Guard as the Militia, yet that is a lie, and they know it.
The Harvard Crimson ran an editorial recently, one that I found entertaining.
Gun advocates claim the need for handguns in self-defense, but such considerations are moot when weighed against the number of lives that might be saved by making the weapons illegal.
I find it interesting that the so called smartest people in the nation are so obviously illogical. Perhaps they don't see it, and perhaps we can help them.
First, murder is illegal. Yet people murder other people. Use of a firearm in the commission of a crime is illegal, yet people use it. Possession of drugs is a crime, yet people have drugs. Use of those drugs is illegal, yet people use drugs. If the world worked as the Harvard Crimson claims that it does in relation to gun control, all you would have to do to eliminate any behavior is make that behavior illegal. If the world worked that way, we wouldn't need any Judges, nor any jails, much less police. However, people commit crimes every day don't they? Pick a day, any day, that people don't commit crimes. There isn't any such day, yet we are presented with that statement as though all we have to do to end Murder is make guns illegal. If that was the case, then the earliest prohibition against murder would have ended the practice wouldn't it?
They argue that we need to let the police protect us. Yet, they can't really protect us can they? Police aren't equipped with some sort of sixth sense of who is going to commit a crime, in fact, if they tried to do that it would be called profiling.
Indeed the Police can only come and pick up your body after you've been murdered. Oh they'll try and find someone around that they can claim murdered you, however action after the fact is revenge, not protection. Protection requires by definition that they be present within arms reach of you at all times. If you doubt me, look at the Secret Service around the President. They are at most a couple steps away, and they are charged with PROTECTION of the President. If the Police were really protecting YOU, they would be right there with you right now.
Now, why would these basic and obvious truths be ignored by the Harvard Crimson? Easy, they don't want to know the truth, they want to continue living in ivy covered fantasy land.
First, the idea that the Militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was simply put every able bodied man in an area. Literally everyone was the Militia. Indeed, the idea of it being "well regulated" consisted of the Governor of an area appointing officers in time of war. Otherwise, the local areas would in fact arise on their own and come to the aid of neighbors when Indians, pirates, or thugs attacked.
Today, people equate the National Guard as the Militia, yet that is a lie, and they know it.
The Harvard Crimson ran an editorial recently, one that I found entertaining.
Gun advocates claim the need for handguns in self-defense, but such considerations are moot when weighed against the number of lives that might be saved by making the weapons illegal.
I find it interesting that the so called smartest people in the nation are so obviously illogical. Perhaps they don't see it, and perhaps we can help them.
First, murder is illegal. Yet people murder other people. Use of a firearm in the commission of a crime is illegal, yet people use it. Possession of drugs is a crime, yet people have drugs. Use of those drugs is illegal, yet people use drugs. If the world worked as the Harvard Crimson claims that it does in relation to gun control, all you would have to do to eliminate any behavior is make that behavior illegal. If the world worked that way, we wouldn't need any Judges, nor any jails, much less police. However, people commit crimes every day don't they? Pick a day, any day, that people don't commit crimes. There isn't any such day, yet we are presented with that statement as though all we have to do to end Murder is make guns illegal. If that was the case, then the earliest prohibition against murder would have ended the practice wouldn't it?
They argue that we need to let the police protect us. Yet, they can't really protect us can they? Police aren't equipped with some sort of sixth sense of who is going to commit a crime, in fact, if they tried to do that it would be called profiling.
Indeed the Police can only come and pick up your body after you've been murdered. Oh they'll try and find someone around that they can claim murdered you, however action after the fact is revenge, not protection. Protection requires by definition that they be present within arms reach of you at all times. If you doubt me, look at the Secret Service around the President. They are at most a couple steps away, and they are charged with PROTECTION of the President. If the Police were really protecting YOU, they would be right there with you right now.
Now, why would these basic and obvious truths be ignored by the Harvard Crimson? Easy, they don't want to know the truth, they want to continue living in ivy covered fantasy land.
posted by Max Conservative at 1:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home