Vic’s post makes for a great refresher course, friends! Give it a read. — YUR
Amid the violence plaguing the US, we can’t forget the original controversy about gun ownership. For many gun owners, including friends and family, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is sacred. However, and here’s the kicker, there is no 2nd Amendment without the other nine.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution were drafted as a package, and were required to ensure adoption of the US Constitution. Collectively, they are called the “Bill of Rights.” The 2nd Amendment is only one of the ten. Tear down any of these fundamental rights, and you tear down them all.
Here is the set, courtesy of the National Constitution Center.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending…
View original post 991 more words
Unclerave's Wordy Weblog 
I appreciate Mr Crain’s thesis. However, I’ve been waiting for someone to elucidate more clearly the real and essential purpose of the Second Amendment.
It wasn’t written explicitly about firearms. The essential purpose was about self-defense. A firearm, or any weapon, tool, or implement of any kind that one is capable of using alone, is permitted for the purpose of defense of oneself or others. If one can handle it without help, one can use it: Hence, the word “arm”.
The framers were concerned that those out on the frontier, far from police, military, or trappings of local civilization had the absolute right to defend themselves from Indian attack, marauding criminals, or vicious and threatening public officials.
“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.”
It’s NOT about pitchforks and caveman clubs, lwc. Doubtful that it was about knives, swords, or bow and arrows either. When Jefferson wrote “the security of a free State” he was referring to the potential of an overreaching, oppressive government. He was frequently warning us about both banks and government getting too powerful. “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
I, personally, have no love for guns. But, I do have a healthy suspicion/fear that our federal government has too much power, and too little respect for the rights of the people. Just look at what Trump has been doing the last couple of months. It doesn’t look like he believes in a free and just democratic republic to me.
— YUR