16 December 2006

semantic relativism

DC is once again trying to define its own version of the Bill of Rights. the idea that the preamble to the second amendment indicates a state interest in bearing arms is a common theme in modern socialist america.
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.
i would argue that the focus of interpretation should rest on the statement of recognized right: "the right of the people...." The first and fourth amendments, fundamental to modern individual rights, use the exact same words. i haven't met a single person who would disagree that they guarantee individual rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
a government entity simply deciding that we should no longer own armaments does not negate the right. a more appropriate course of action is to seek to amend the constitution. i find it incredibly troubling that our government is seeking a Hobbesian monopoly on force. people seem to be ignorant of their own country's history when they sit silently by.

No comments:

Post a Comment