The Fight For The Right

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.

As we all know that this amendment, a constitutional freedom for all Americans, has been under heavy attack for decades. Recently with the court case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the issue of an individuals right to self-defense has been brought before the Supreme Court.

The anti-freedom gun grabbers argue that the second amendment does not give any rights to individuals, that the terms "militia" and "peoples" disqualifies the individuals right to bear arms. That the soul purpose of the second amendment is to give government, in this case the state, the right to form militias and does not extend the right to individuals to keep and bare arms.

I would offer up a dispute to this contention in that the framers knew that unified defense of state begins with an individuals right to self-defense. The core issue is the concept of the meaning "individual." Is it an individuals right or a "peoples" right? If you believe the argument of the anti-freedom gun grabbers, then the term "peoples" means a collective group, a militia. If you are of the mind of freedom first, you then most likely interpret the word "peoples" to mean an individuals rights.

I take this to mean that individuals, as in we the people, have the right to keep and bear arms in that we as individuals have a right to self defense. Our families have the right to defend our homes against aggression. The people of our hometowns have the right to stand in common defense in order to defend our towns. Our states, a collection of towns, families, and individuals, have the right to defend its boarders and unite with other states to defend our nation. The core of our national defense starts with the individual. To deny the individual, we the people, our collective individual right to keep and bear arms for any reason is to deny our fundamental freedoms. Our Republic is after all, a nation of the people for the people.

"United we stand or divided we shall fall." Those are not just words they have meaning. If we were to subscribe the ideology of the far left liberals, then we as a nation shall fall. What happens if a nation’s military is devastated? We all know that the far left liberals despise our military and have openly called for its disbandment. So it isn't too far of a reach to consider that if they gain absolute power, they will down size the military, suspend military technology research, and open up dialog with our former enemies as if we all lived in a great worldwide utopia of United Nations.

Consider if you will, that without a military how will we defend our nation. Shall we be relying upon the charity of the United Nations for our protections? Looking back at the United Nations track record in Bosnia, the Sudan, and else where and we can see that they are not a very effective force when it comes to defending people.

So without a military to defend out nation who then shall we find to defend us? Certainly we the people of the United States are not unable to defend ourselves. Not yet any ways. If our military should happened to be overwhelmed, and our nation sieged, it will be we the people, a collection of individuals, who will stand up and take the fight to the enemy. Take away our right to self-defense by taking the freedom we have to choose whether or not to own a firearm, and we stand before our enemies naked, like sheep before a pack of hungry wolves. History has proven time and time again that the weak and defenseless shall and have always fallen prey to those aggressors who have happened along.

Being made defenseless does not make we the people safer. That is the crux of the District of Columbia vs. Heller. While the Mayor of DC walks away with his taxpayer paid for armed police escort, he is protected, what about us?

A police force is not a militia, and we all know from humble experience that in a situation where only the police are the ones who are armed, it is no longer a free state, it is a police state.