The Deep State Wants Your Guns

[Tesser]

https://mises.org/wire/deep-state-wants-your-guns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I especially liked one of the comments by Zaphod Braden:

There has never been a government that banned it's own ARMED FORCES from "Keeping and Bearing" ARMS.
Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a "RIGHT" for it's ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People'S RIGHTS to arms.
The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a "right" to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS' GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it's "rights" up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it's army's/soldier's "RIGHT" to "Keep and BEAR ARMS" because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It's own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the "People" in the Second Amendment were the same "People" that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
Why would "the Militia", a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time "regulars", need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right "to keep and bear arms"?
Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms"? Of course not. ............. That is assumed.

the 2nd amendment,, specifies that the RIGHT to bear arms is the right of the people,, NOT the militia,,,, it is the people who will make up the militia,, but the right is not the right of a "well regulated militia" it is the right of the people, We the people were BORN WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS, meaning they come from GOD.

Your Rights do not come from the Constitution. Your Rights come from Our Creator, and the Constitution was written to SUPERVISE, REGULATE, and CONTROL government actors. As it relates to firearms, the Heller "decision" was completely unnecessary, and likely a smokescreen to make it APPEAR that the USG retained some rights to regulate some firearms. Check out the relevant part of US v. Cruikshank:
"[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;... This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
than to restrict the powers of the national government,…".
U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
Res adjudicata - "the thing has already been decided."
The 9th and 10th Amendments help make it ABUNDANTLY clear to even the DENSEST of intellects that we truly have NO "Constitutional rights." What we have(at the risk of being redundant) is Constitutionally-SECURED rights, but these rights are ONLY as secure as:
a) the honor and integrity of those taking the oath, and
b) the ability of the People to COMPEL obedience on pain of perjury charges and removal from office.

The intention of the Founders and Framers was to keep our God-given rights secure by REQUIRING those who seek office to take the oath as an immutable predicate to taking office, meaning it is binding on THEM - not on US.

[JU-87]

Outstanding!
Thank you.

[sodbuster95]

There has never been a government that banned it's own ARMED FORCES from "Keeping and Bearing" ARMS.

[snip]

Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.

Well...it's not quite that simple (if I may play devil's advocate for a moment.)

Clearly, the 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to the armed forces (or, the standing army) per se as that would be illogical and entirely ridiculous. And, just as clearly, the government has no need to secure itself against its own "infringement." Therefore, it would seem logical to conclude that the state militias (being part of the armed forces) would fall within that category and that constitutionally securing their right to keep and bear arms is equally ridiculous.

Except that the state militias were, by their very nature, *not* considered part of the armed forces or even an extension of the government unless or until mobilized by the government. Ergo, so the argument goes, the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms applied to the members of "a well regulated Militia" but only so long as the individual remained such a member. The argument is premised on the idea that the state militias were comprised of individuals who supplied their own individual arms and, therefore, had a need to "keep and bear" them for the purpose being available for mobilization and remaining a member of the state militia.

Of course, I don't agree with this argument, but I recognize that it exists.

Rather, I am of the position that the Constitution "says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say". (Antonin Scalia) The right of "the people" is, very simply, the right of the individual. There is no "people" without the individual.

Yes, we could read between the lines and try to divine the intent of individual commas, words, and predicate phrases, but it seems that is nothing more than an exercise in arriving at a justification for the conclusion we already have. The Constitution has 4,543 words (including signatures). It is not complicated, yet it founded a country. Meanwhile, the ACA has an estimated 11,588,500 words simply to pass a very narrow, single purpose law. The Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be simple, straightforward, and applicable through the ages; they did not intend for it to be interpreted as a "living document" and subject to the whims of populism.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Yeah. What sodbuster said.