Monday, January 16, 2006


Guns for all, and ammo for none

There is a line. It has been drawn for us over the years. This line defines how and when we are allowed to defend ourselves against external forces infringing on our person or property.

Obviously, the government (an organization of legalized coercion) defines its right to plunder or murder as it sees fit, with our actions of self-defense determined illegal.

Amendment Two should have, over the years, been more broadly interpreted by the courts, allowing for any defense of one's self as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. What it shouldn't have done, and has done, was to define particular "weapons of choice" as either legal or illegal, limiting both ability and choice in defense.

The real advantage the second amendment was supposed to grant us, was in the ability to defend ourselves, protect against excessive governmental coercion and injustice and and act voluntarally in national defense (that is defense against nations - not defense of a nation) rather than through draft service. It seems to me that this Amendment was supposed to act like a fourth branch of the government, as an additional check and balance to the beauracrat's budget-maximizing agenda, the Court's monopoly on law, and the Executive branch's push for power.

That's my take.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
CrispAds Blog Ads

Does someone you know deserve flowers?
Web Site Hit Counter
Dell Canada

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?