By Orion Karl Daley
I watched your show this morning with Ron Paul. When he intimated that Amendment II of the Bill of Rights was intended to give the right of anarchy, I was dismayed that a Congressman would interpret its wording this way.
Consider - would Amendment II be intended to jettison the Constitution( Articles 1 -6 ) if the government was in question by the people ? In other words, does Amendment II say that we can trash the government which is based on the Constitution.
Consider George Washington's words: "Let us raise a standard that the wise can repair" . I believe that he was referring to the US Constitution.
Article 4, Section 4 speaks of a Republic, where in Amendment I, we are given the right to peaceably assemble, and also petition our government. It is my interpretation that Democracy ( to assemble and Petition ) drives our representation of the republic.
Consider - Why would Amendment I state our means to address government when at issue, if Amendment II was intended to give the right to anarchy ? Does this actually make sense ?
Lets also consider the words in Amendment II - The Right to Bear Arms –
"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"
Regarding the word Militia: In Article 1, Congress is solely responsible for forming Militias, and in Article II, it is the President who acts as the sole commander and chief of the Militia. Its only a matter of reading this document to see that the word Militia is only used 3 times !
Regarding the word 'Arms: I would imagine that this could mean anything, and if part of a Militia, as not having a national guard in 1790, means that you could have cannons, cannon balls and black powder as well. Today, if this is to be taken literally, and if given the right to Bear Arms, such as for one's personal protection - then does it include any form of modern weapon , or even an old spear ?
Consider what "to the security of a free state" might mean – when thinking back about the French Indian War, and the Revolution, and that the 9 colonies were the basis of a new founded nation without a national guard - what is required for the State to be free of oppression ? In other words to be overrun by the English, French or an Indian Tribe ?
Amendment 10 as affording States to make laws, provides plenty of latitude for Virginia and NY to differ in Gun Law. Simple question again - why would the Bill of Rights imply the Amendment II is for this when we are made up of states and given Amendment 10?
I am glad that we do have Amendment I when considering 450+ Senators and Representatives having various understandings of what the US Constitution means in terms of the management of our Government and our Bill of Rights –
Thank you in advance for thinking about this,
Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Author - The New Deal ISBN: 1419670948
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA -