All it does is make it a serious crime for any "law" concerning guns to be passed or enforced. It is a clear prohibition on government weapons "laws". That's it. It does nothing else.
So, it only applies to lawmakers and law enforcers by making it illegal for them to prohibit or restrict weapons to you and me, in any way. Or for them to demand we pay for permits, background checks, or pay "taxes" on weapons, or not carry in certain places they control (they own no places). They have no say in who can buy, sell, own, or carry a weapon. If they try to anyway, they are criminals. And, they are not "Pro-gun" except in their own delusional heads (and quite possibly in the heads of the "leadership" of the anti-gun NRA).
Any government employee who tries to disarm you if you aren't currently attacking or threatening to attack innocent people (everyone has the right to intervene in this case) is a violent criminal, no matter his excuse. His safety does NOT trump yours. Not ever.
If he says he needs you to hand over your weapon "for your safety and mine" he is lying. He is a coward who knows he is committing a wrong, and doesn't want to face the consequences of his actions.
Government has zero legitimate say in weapon possession, and the Second Amendment makes that very clear- leaving no room for "debate".
Yes, the bad guys in government ignore this law and break it with impunity every day. They keep getting away with it... until the day they don't. Then they will be very surprised for a very short, quite painful, moment. Good riddance to bad trash.
-
If you get any value from my labors, consider rewarding me with your financial support. This blog is in its 10th year now. If you believe I have contributed anything to the conversation regarding liberty during these ten years, and believe I have more to contribute, help me stay online.
"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."
ReplyDeleteThe second amendment is permission to exercise limited property rights as to facilitate a militia to protect the state.
If it were about the right to defense or property rights, it would be, and not contextualized around a militia or a state or specific types of property.
It's statist religious bullshit, garbage. Burn it.
No.
DeleteIt is a recognition of a pre-existing right. The part that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is statist propaganda, but it isn't the meat of the matter. It is simply one poor justification for recognizing the right; it was unnecessary and harmful to include.
As with all the Bill of Rights (and Constitution), its only use now is to show that the deal, if there ever was any, is off. Broken unilaterally by the government side. There is value in that.
I am not a believer in the Constitution. As has been said so many times, it either ensured the police state I now find myself in, or it was powerless to prevent it. I never signed it nor agreed to it in any way. The only people who could have reasonably been said to be bound by it signed it, and have been dead for centuries. And, the "Bill of Rights" was misnamed. It was a Bill of Prohibitions- things government was never to be allowed to get away with. Obviously that was a failure of the worst kind. Establishing any sort of government is always a failure.
But I will continue to use the Constitution and BoR to rub the noses of statists in the mess they made.