The Second Amendment And The Need For Community Militias
The Second Amendment is a very important Amendment because it gives power to the people to enable them to fight a corrupt government. It is also the Amendment our government hates the most as an armed people have the ability to overthrow the government. I am not saying that there are not good reasons to disarm the public because there are. An drunk or insane person caring a gun is a danger to us all. Well armed gangsters make the street dangerous for the average citizen. Firearm accidents kill many innocent victims. Murderers who commit there crimes because of overwhelming emotions may not do so if a gun in not readily at hand. So it is obvious the firearm regulation of some sort is necessary.
The basic truth is that governments tend to be despotic either because those in power desire to stay in power and do not leave it up to the vagaries of human behavior to keep them there. They play every trick such as stacking the judiciary with judges that will favor them and their point of view, forbidding political speech, redrawing district lines, and every other dirty trick they can get away with. An armed people is a threat that always hangs over them and helps to keep them in check. Guns have saved lives because like the government they keep criminals cautious and a cautious criminal is one that thinks twice before committing a crime. Guns give the victim a better chance to fight off a victimizer. So it is obvious that firearms off every type need to be readily available for citizens to train with and use,
One suggestion to the dilemma of gun ownership that I believe my work is a town militia. Militia were attended for citizen defense work and did not make very good soldiers as they were organized on a small unit basis. The small unit owed loyalty to the town in which the members lived and that was the extent of their loyalty. In centralizing the military power of that state by introducing national guard the state government has succeeded in removing that power from the individual to some extent. Still the National Guard is composed of citizen-soldiers who’s primary job is not military and so the people still retain some of the power they had before though that power is more diluted as it is on a state v, community basis. We also have to be on the lookout for attempts by the federal government to weaken the national guard and strengthen the full time military. A full time military is isolated from the general citizenry and can become alienated because of this. The government can use this alienation to cement the loyalty of the military to them instead of to the people they serve.
A militia will allow the community to train members on gun use and safety. It can make more advanced weapons available to the general public if the need presents itself, while keeping them out of the hands of those who would misuse them. It allows perspective gun users to be screened for stability. It trains average individuals to work together in order that they will be available in a general catastrophe like Katrina.
The basic truth is that governments tend to be despotic either because those in power desire to stay in power and do not leave it up to the vagaries of human behavior to keep them there. They play every trick such as stacking the judiciary with judges that will favor them and their point of view, forbidding political speech, redrawing district lines, and every other dirty trick they can get away with. An armed people is a threat that always hangs over them and helps to keep them in check. Guns have saved lives because like the government they keep criminals cautious and a cautious criminal is one that thinks twice before committing a crime. Guns give the victim a better chance to fight off a victimizer. So it is obvious that firearms off every type need to be readily available for citizens to train with and use,
One suggestion to the dilemma of gun ownership that I believe my work is a town militia. Militia were attended for citizen defense work and did not make very good soldiers as they were organized on a small unit basis. The small unit owed loyalty to the town in which the members lived and that was the extent of their loyalty. In centralizing the military power of that state by introducing national guard the state government has succeeded in removing that power from the individual to some extent. Still the National Guard is composed of citizen-soldiers who’s primary job is not military and so the people still retain some of the power they had before though that power is more diluted as it is on a state v, community basis. We also have to be on the lookout for attempts by the federal government to weaken the national guard and strengthen the full time military. A full time military is isolated from the general citizenry and can become alienated because of this. The government can use this alienation to cement the loyalty of the military to them instead of to the people they serve.
A militia will allow the community to train members on gun use and safety. It can make more advanced weapons available to the general public if the need presents itself, while keeping them out of the hands of those who would misuse them. It allows perspective gun users to be screened for stability. It trains average individuals to work together in order that they will be available in a general catastrophe like Katrina.
posted by Kerwin | 10:26 PM
1 Comments:
You make perhaps the most compelling case I've heard or read for a town militia. The founding fathers did not see this so much as a right as they did a duty to perform.
Post a Comment
<< Home