I rarely post political opinions because they are a hot topic and trigger arguments. This however, is a topic I am passionate about. And if I can't express my opinion on my own blog then there is much more wrong with this world. Agree or disagree with me, but no arguing, no name calling, and above all else be respectful and considerate of differing opinions. Diversity is beautiful.
Someone posted a meme stating "how did a well regulated militia get twisted to mean a well armed unregulated populace?"
I love how all these political memes on both sides of any issue fail to take in all considerations and historical precedence. The history of the American population is diverse and based not just on events from our own country but from the long history of England and other governments much older than our own. Specifically, what those governing bodies did that the citizens and government of the newly formed United States wanted to avoid.
The provisions for the individual states' militias stated for every able bodied male between the ages 18 and 54. Every male citizen was required by law to carry arms and ammunition. There was provisions for them to report twice a year for some minimal training, but it wasn't well regimented. These essentially unorganized militia served as a sort of check and balance against the more organized national guard, army reserve, and national army and navy, as well as the government that controlled them. They were to protect the citizens of the states against tyranny, abuse of political power, local crisis, and foreign invasion.
The laws, amendments, alterations, and revisions are many. Some over the years have been contradictory. But the spirit of the initial laws passed by our forefathers was to ensure the right of this country's citizens to bare arms. It is one of the many CORE issues this country was founded on, not something added later. Since politics, money, power, and greed are seeds of a destuctive weed that will thrive even in "civilized" societies, this is a right we can ill afford to relinquish. This argument has nothing to do with unwell or evil minds hell-bent on destruction and murder. Those people will always find a way to carry out their destruction regardless of laws in place or availability of needed items. This is about the majority, the average American citizen's inalienable right to protect themselves and their families and towns from not just sick individuals, but a government out of control. Money, power, and corruption go hand in hand. Every society from the dawn of time has fallen into those traps. The combined wisdom of our founding fathers knew this and gave the new citizens the right to protect themselves from such a fate. It may or may not work, but without this provision in place, we as a population stand zero chance against such an eventuality.
At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, a political sentiment existed in the newly formed United States involving suspicion of peacetime armies not under civilian control. This political belief has been identified as stemming from the memory of the abuses of the standing army of Oliver Cromwell and King James II, in Great Britain in the prior century, which led to theGlorious Revolution and resulted in placing the standing army under the control of Parliament18
During the Congressional debates, James Madison discussed how a militia could help defend liberty against tyranny and oppression:
The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) As a side bar, this is also Federalist Paper No. 46.
Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders' definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of 'civil rulers' when he wrote: The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them. Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
I could go on citing many more examples from history validating our right bare arms. And I will gladly have a deeper discussion with anyone should they care to message me or post respectful comments. But "gun control", banning guns from legal citizens is not a solution to the problems of today. In fact, I absolutely promise you by removing guns from American citizens you will succeed only in compounding violence and oppression 1000 fold, and new horrors against American people the likes of which we haven't seen yet! History has proven as much over and over again. You are ignorant and arrogant to think it won't happen here in America.