Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
They then wrote the "Bill of Rights" to spell out the protections of the people from the government. They were written as amendments 1 through 10, so they would never be separated from the Constitution.... so the government couldn't just cast them aside.
|
Very good, that's the first half of the equation. The second half entails the inalienable rights, predominantly LIFE, from which the concept of proportionality extends to protect the citizenry. The reasonable man principle is applied to determine what weapons may be owned by individuals to protect their own lives. The reasonable man's perspective being established through the Legislature and Judiciary with Executive branch enforcement. It is a continuing process just as is the Constitution a living document.
We have Armed Forces, National Guard, and Police organizations at many levels which negate the need for Joe Citizen to maintain private ownership of WMD and many other weapons of war. The government; however, does NOT provide personal bodyguards for each and every one of its citizens (to negate the need for personal arms of any sort) and probably never will as it would create an invasion of privacy situation [prohibited by the Constitution]. Even if privacy concerns were not a factor, would anyone else assigned to protect your life do so with the same dedication you have to saving your own life? Society has both collective personal security tasks and individual personal security tasks. Joe Citizen is still responsible for taking care of himself in his everyday walk of life. Those who choose not to do so have that right; but, they do not have the right to impose that choice on anyone else and it can't be done through due process without first rescinding other parts of the Constitution which would change the fabric of this nation.
At this point in our cultural and technological development, firearms are still the great equalizer between weak and strong, old and young, poor and rich ... etc. Many other forms of equalization (i.e. justice) are reactive in nature rather than proactive thus diminishing the individual's right to life. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and those who would deprive all citizens of the right to bear arms in any form are the weakest links in our society AT THIS TIME. Perhaps someday, we will become culturally and technologically advanced enough that individually owned weapons will not be necessary to secure our persons. Until then, ALL are invited to read the
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations with particular attention to Article 3. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person."; also, Article 30. "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group
or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
Because so few here get the big picture and so few here are men or women of vision, I generally don't get involved in these tunnel vision discussions. The timing was right to make an exception. Now I'm going back to Nothingland: as I've said before "I'm only here for the entertainment".
Aren't I a stinker?! :p