Let me start off by saying that I am currently a resident of the Peoples Republic of Connecticut. I have held a concealed carry permit here since about 1980. I have held a permit that allows me open carry since about 1985. In CT a carry permit means that the firearm must be concealed unless a separate open carry permit, known as a blue card, is issued. I hold non residents permits for Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I have complied with all reasonable requirements with regard to background checks, application fees, letters of reference, etc.
Notwithstanding, I consider those requirements to be unconstitutional. The Second Amendment states, in its entirety, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the maintenance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Who is the militia? At the time of the writing of the bill of rights the militia was made up of two parts. The organized militia, which went on to become the state national guard, and the unorganized militia which constituted the pool of citizens from which the organized militia could draw upon to fill its ranks. The purpose of the second amendment was to insure that if the federal government ever became so onerous, that the people had the means to rise up and replace it with another government more to their liking. The national guard is now considered to be part of the national military. There was a lawsuit when then governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts tried to prevent President Ronald Reagan from deploying some Mass national guard troops to central America. President Reagan won the decision and since then there has not been a question that the State National Guard are actually part of the federal military. So if the “organized militia” is no longer a separate entity from the federal government then the rights devolve onto the “unorganized militia”. Originally this was limited to free white males, between the ages of 16 and 45, not mentally enfeebled, nor felons. As we have extended franchise to larger groups than this the new “unorganized militia” no longer discriminates between the “races” (personally I only recognize one race, the Human race), nor do we discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. If you are crazy, or a felon, you should still be prohibited from access to a firearm, but such determination should be made by a competent court, and not by a law enforcement official acting prophalactically.
In addition to the above reasoning for the protections of the second amendment, the right of self defense against predators, four legged or two legged variety should be very clear. It is necessary to the maintenance of a free state. If you deny this right then you are no longer living in a free state. Give up the title citizen and take on the title subject. Traditionally free men have guns, slaves do not. And as Lenin once said, “ One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.”
Now as for Someone75 comments.
Name calling? This discussion did not resort to name calling until you started to refer to people like myself as “gun nuts”, “scrawny wimps”, and “people like you don’t think before you shoot”. If we were to take each issue in turn and examine them I think I can show that you are engaging in not only ad hominem attacks but fail to logically conduct your argument. “Gun nut” implies a lack of sanity in anyone who maintains that they have a right under the constitution. Would you also consider someone to be a “religious fanatic or nut” if they also held fast to a religion protected by the first amendment? I suspect you would. Would you want to silence conservative voices on talk radio, under the guise of “fairness”? I suspect you would be happy to do so.
Scrawny Wimps? I do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that if you are going to be attacked that there could be more than one attacker. The instances of multiple perpatrators on one victem are too numerous to mention. I may not be able at the hazard of my body, defend myself bare handed against a half dozen teenage thugs, but with my Glock model 20 I may be able to remind them of an urgent appointment elsewhere. Tell you what I will let you use your super ninja powers to subdue them, while I watch from the sidelines. Then let’s judge which approach is more effective at 1- preserving the victem unharmed, and 2- detering crime.
With regard to Karl Marx, and your support for him. Marxism has DIRECTLY lead to the deaths of more than 100 million people in the 20th century. It is corrupt, evil and rightly should be opposed by anyone that has more than three brain cells to rub together. But if you want to believe in Marx, go ahead. I don’t care if you want to believe in the Easter Bunny. Your beliefs do not effect me. But your actions do.
In closing I do have one point I would like to stress. The second amendment ain’t about duck hunting. It is about securing the liberty of a free people. If you don’t want to exercise your right to protect yourself fine. Just don’t interfere with my exercise of that right. I will let you do as you will and hopefully you will let me do as I will. My gun does not represent any threat to you unless you present yourself as a threat of serious bodily injury to myself, my family or those I associate with. And if that bothers you, wouldn’t you like to have the option of returning fire?
