The Disarming of the American.

Imagine living in a country where citizens were not allowed to posses firearms to protect themselves or their family. What could be done if a criminal started shooting people at random? Nothing, because firearms were banished long ago, and all that can be done is pray that law enforcement comes soon before everyone is dead. The Second Amendment was unwittingly taken away from this country many, many years ago, now the only people with firearms are criminals and law enforcement, in which criminals out number the law.

This is a fictional glimpse in which could happen to America, if we allow the Second Amendment to be infringed upon by individuals meaning well but not thinking about the impact of the process and the devastating effect it would have on the freedoms of the American. The Second Amendment states that 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. “One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rational for preserving the right. The founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. These simple people had no way of knowing the government was later to form “official” State Guards and call them “militias.” To them, the militia was “all the people.” Richard Henry Lee said, in fact: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms, to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms.” So this does not mean that only those who are controlled by the government through membership in a
State Militia are allowed to keep and bear arms. It means that all the people must do so. homas Jefferson said: “No free man shall ever be barred the use of arms.” Samuel Adams said: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms and even George Mason said: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” Our current government even knows that. So, even if today’s well regulated militia were National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals, each perceived as crucial to the maintenance of liberty: First, it was meant to guarantee the individuals right to have arms for self-preservation. Such an individual right was a legacy of the English Bill of Rights. This is also plain from American colonial practice, the debates over the Constitution, and state proposals for what was to become the Second Amendment. In keeping with colonial precedent, the American article broadened the English protection. English restrictions had limited the right to give arms to Protestants and made the type and quantity of such weapons dependant upon what was deemed “suitable” to a persons “condition.” The English also included the proviso that the right to have arms was to be “as allowed by law.” Americans swept aside these limitations and forbade any “infringement” upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The second and related objective concerned the militia, and it’s coupling of these two objectives have caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public and Madison’s original version of the Amendment, as well as those suggested by the states, described the militia as either “composed of” or “including” the body of the people. A select militia was regarded as a little better than a standing army. The argument that today’s National Guard, and members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation. Indeed, it would seem redundant to specify that members of a militia had the right to be armed.”

Australia is a recent example of what could happen to America if firearms are banished; “In 1996, Australia banned private ownership of most guns, since then crime has risen dramatically, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. After Australia lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association. The bans were not limited to so called “assault” weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort Cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell. Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country,

The nation’s crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported “dramatic increase” in home burglaries and assaults on
the elderly.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America said, based on the examples of
democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but “liberals completely ignore this reality.”

The United States Government needs to consider the above, if America’s rights are taken away then how are we to defend ourselves when a criminal who can get a gun illegally comes in shooting innocent victims? “These–gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law abiding citizens and risk making it less likely that good people have guns compared to criminals. Deterrence is important and disarming good people relative to criminals will increase the risk of violent crime. If we really care about saving lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that never happen because people are able to defend themselves.” If the Government succeeds in creating a social dictatorship by disarming America then it is too late, we cannot fight back.

Therefore, to “keep” and bear arms simply means keeping one’s own arms or self- preservation for militia use. If guns are taken away what does the American have to defend themselves with when they are terroristically threatened? “The center for Disease Control and Prevention released a study that states there is no evidence to prove gun- control laws are even effective in preventing violence. There has always been substance to the cliché that guns do not kill people, people do.”

The Second Amendment, therefore, states that the militia, not the army, was necessary to the security of a free state. The reference to a “well regulated” militia was meant to encourage the
federal government to keep the militia in good order.

Julie W