The Senate is saying that the 2nd Amendment is debatable…There is only confusion among those who dont understanding the meaning of words, and those who dont care to, and from those who would seek to undermine the clear meaning of words among those who dont understand. The first part the necessity of a well regulated militia for the security of c free state. Is a clear separation of public from state, militia from military, that is well regulated by the group of citizen members who it is made up of. Such militia is wholly independent of government. And clearly made so in order that it be fully capable of standing against any government that attempts or moves to take away the freedom of the people, able to use military against people to compel sacrifice of rights. A well regulated militia serves as a deterrent and a buffet against government tyranny. In second part, the right of the people to bear arms shall Not be infringed, is absolutely Clear, and cannot be Mis construed by any effort to subjugate the people to submission to any governance that seeks to move against freedoms of the people. Every person has the absolute right to bear arms, which may serve as part of any militia against government tyranny, or individually. For a militia is individuals, but an individual may not need be a member of a militia, but can be, even at a moments notice, and cannot be deprived of that right by any government act. As well as every individuals right to self defense, as a right by nature. Nor may government by any means cause any regulation to be imposed upon any militia, or individual, for it would serve to compromise the very Freedom in the right to bear arms, where government gains any advantage to place any militia, or individual at any disadvantage that would or could serve in any way whatsoever as an infringement upon said right to bear arms. Any and all militia and individuals have the the absolute right to this freedom fully independent of government. Such Independence also serves as a check against any act or aim of government infringement, and deters such considerations by government by the obvious consequence of and for infringing these rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It would be a reprehensible government in deed, who would attempt to destroyed these freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. If these rights are wished to be changed in any way shape or form, a constitutional Amendment is required to do it! Otherwise, we are without Law, and have No Law if any right guaranteed by the Constitution, which is The Law of the Land is sought to be deprived, derogated in any way! Efforts to muddy the otherwise Clear meaning of the Constitutional Law on this matter, is an effort to commit a de facto infringement, and serves as an act of insurrection, anarchy, and treason on behalf of those who so do!
Posted on: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:21:43 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015