I Built This

Mr. President,

I built this while building a small business and raising a child on my own. And I did it while wearing 5-inch stilettos and looking fine!

~Ponytail Patriot

Friday, February 1, 2013

Justification for Protecting AR/AK type Rifles

**An article by Krusty Kurmudgeon**



While the debate about scary looking semi-automatic rifles has been raging, the arguments for banning have been emotionally driven. Most of the antis have felt that nobody needs a rifle that holds that many rounds or can fire “a hundred rounds a minute”, never mind that it is extremely difficult to fire a semi auto that quickly for that length of time. First of all it is the Bill of Rights not the bill of needs. Next the 20 and 30 round magazines are not extra capacity or extended magazines they are standard magazine sizes for that rifle type.

The Second Amendment Says –“ A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
The antis like to say that this is a collective right and the “free state” is the individual states or the federal government. In UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, The court said differently - The "people" under the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth & Tenth Amendments are individuals, not the States. The recent Heller and McDonald decisions reinforce this point. It is an individual right and it extends to individuals in all of the 50 states (McDonald v Chicago).
The next collective argument is that the militia is the National Guard. This is refuted by PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - National Guard is NOT the militia but part of Armed Forces. Militia divided into "organized" and "unorganized".
As far as the not needing the scary firearm of the day, U.S. v. MILLER - Militia-type weapons covered under Second Amendment/Militia composed of civilians primarily and bearing their own firearms. This case was a challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934. The firearm in question was a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches. The court deemed that the shotgun was of no use to the militia. Miller nor his attorneys were at the hearing due to financial issues and procedural irregularities.  The interesting part of the case is the government argument that The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. The court also looked at how the militia was defined by the authors of the Constitution - "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Interestingly shotguns were used extensively in the trenches during the First World War. Why the 2 Justices who were military vets didn’t know that fact is not known.
Right now the arms in common use are the M-16, M-4 carbine, AK-47 and AK-74. We can’t own them as they are post 1986 manufacture (Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) or banned from importation so the only option is the AR-15 type and AK-47/74 type semi-automatic rifles. Which the Government argued were protected under the 2nd amendment in the Miller case.
The argument is consistent with the overall view of the American public, 65% or so think the 2nd Amendment is to protect against government tyranny. The rebuttal is that the militia would have no chance against the standing Army. They, of course, assume that the majority of the army would obey the orders to shoot their fellow citizens. I would also point out that the Iraqi and Afghani militants have done a pretty good job of stalemating the military for 10 or more years.
My last point is a direct rebuttal of Danny Glover who stated that the 2nd Amendment was created to protect against slave and Native American revolts. Dread Scott lost his case in part because of the fear that freed slaves would receive the protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights and arm themselves.  The 2nd Amendment was not created in America; it is nothing but putting on paper and shielding from government the natural law of self-defense. It is so persons could be secure in their homes and about their daily lives. It is also protection from tyranny. The founders had just fought and won a war of independence from just such tyranny. They knew what happens when men stop acting under the rule of law and wanted safeguards put in place to prevent it.
The Bill of Rights is a limiting document. It does not limit the people, it limits the government.

♦NOTE: To add to what Krusty Kurmudgeon put together, his wife came across this site (thanks to one of her friends) http://www.assaultweapon.info/  that does a VERY good job of breaking down more facts that helps even the non-firearm aficionados understand and explain these types of firearms. This information should be shared far and wide, and you have their blessings and encouragement to do so.  Thank you.

ShareThis

I'm An Indian Too

They Don't Speak For Us

Smart Girl Politics

Obama History