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.
What the NRA is proposing: that every man become his own enforcer of his own view of “constitutionality” by having his own masses of whatever firepower he so chooses, … is the exact opposite of being well regulated. As we see with every new report of shootings, it promotes anarchy.
If we assume that a civilian population is required to keep arms to protect itself from tyranny, then by the words of the Constitution itself,… we have to regulate those very arms…
We can regulate them by banning assault rifles. We can regulate them by banning high capacity clips. We can regulate them by registering every firearm to a single owner, and holding that single owner accountable for whatever accident befalls that gun. We can regulate them by requiring insurance, and if there are those who refuse to abide by the constitutional regulations, we can incarcerate them and be done with them.
The Constitution allows for firearms, only IF THEY ARE WELL REGULATED….
So, in order to validate the Constitution, let’s regulate all firearms….. Failure to do so, is a violation of the Founding Father’s own principles, and is unconstitutional….
It says so right there in the Second Amendment. Care to read it?
kavips 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm
mike w.
Someone needs to brush up on his period english.
Hint. The term “regulated” did NOT mean “regulated” in the way we think of the term today.
It meant “sufficiently armed and trained in their use” which goes along perfectly with the 1792 militia act. If it meant “regulated” as in “regulated out of existence by government” the way we use the term today, itwould cease to make any sense.
February 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm
mike w.
You also fail basic reading skills here. What is being “regulated” in the sentence is not the “arms” but the “militia.”
Firearms were not the subject of that sentence which was to be “well-regulated” The militia was, so why are you being so disingenuous?
February 18, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Guns: Split The Difference; A Rational Approach « kavips
[…] the NRA does, is violently accost anyone who proposes regulating firearms, (which btw, the Constitution commands us to do.) Just like the handling of snitches on the streets of Wilmington, they rough up advocates to […]
February 20, 2013 at 9:55 pm
Freedom and the Second Amendment | PropaGUNda
[…] itself, it is clear that the forefathers of the country meant for some sort of oversight. As this blog post points out: If we assume that a civilian population is required to keep arms to protect itself from […]