By David Kramer from Lew Rockwell.com.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection.
Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork.
The idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a gun would be
as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one's
right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In
fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.
The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to do that today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.
The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on.
Let's hear it for voluntaryism.
UPDATE: My libertarian friend David Sack sent me this:
The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to do that today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.
The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on.
Let's hear it for voluntaryism.
UPDATE: My libertarian friend David Sack sent me this:
"Someone at the office asked me,
yesterday, what type of “arms” I thought the Second Amendment protects.
The answer to that is those arms of the same caliber and quantity as the
armed federal officers who come to your door have."
Gary North does a good job of explaining what the true solution to school shootings would be:
ReplyDeletehttp://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/12/31/ban-public-schools-not-guns/
Take away lines:
Public schools are shelters for drugged students. Sometimes the drugs are legal: “by prescription only.” Sometimes the drugs are illegal: “for currency only.” Public schools are the nation’s largest and most cost-effective retail drug emporiums. They bring drug buyers and drug sellers together every school day.
...if you want to reduce the number of mass murders, then eliminate the cause. The problem is not gun ownership. The problem is an educational system which produces mass murderers and then provides them with victims.
Skeptics will say this. “The government needs tax-funded education. The government needs public schools to educate children in good citizenship.” What is good citizenship? Good citizenship involves the acceptance of a system which taxes your money by force in order to place your children on a yellow bus which takes them to a drug emporium where they are taught that they are descendents of wild animals, and where drug-dependent psychotics can walk into a classroom and shoot them.
If you don't approve of such a system, you are publicly designated as an imbecilic Christian fundamentalist or a dangerous anarchist or both. Important people say things like this:
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."