I was reading this article the other day: DISTRICT JUDGE: BANNING AR-15S, AK-47S…

And it occurred to me, what a good place to start.  Now I am not going to pretend I know all the inner details of the case and the people involved.  But from a constitutional perspective I just need to review the conclusion, specifically the second half:

The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Accordingly, the law is constitutional and will be upheld

First, as stated in the report, there was no evidence provided that banning these weapons has any impact on public safety.  Second, government interests should never be an excuse to violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I am not sure this judge has read the 2nd Amendment either with her defense of hearth and home.  The 2nd Amendment is very clear:

“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. “

Shall not be infringed…Seems clear to me.  Doesn’t make a law saying what arms you can or can not have infringe?  She obviously is not clear on the purpose either of the 2nd Amendment either.  It says “being necessary to the security of a free state“.  In other words to protect our right from enemies foreign and domestic, which could even include our own government.  Before the revolution, one of the first things the British did was to try and disarm the people of Williamsburg.  They knew an armed population was hard to control than a disarmed one.  Hitler knew this as well:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.

So the 2nd Amendment is much more important that just defending our homes and keeping our deer population in check.  It is also about protecting our nation from invasion, our rights, and from tyranny in any form it may come from.  You think invading armies won’t have automatic weapons?  Do you still think criminals will follow the law too?

And lastly, this seems like a good time to share a Penn & Teller moment…

 

Sources:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236628112/Baltimore-District-Court-gun-ruling

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/District-Judge-Banning-AR-15s-AK-47s-Does-Not-Significantly-Burden-2nd-Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Incident

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!