Posted 5 months ago on Dec. 18, 2012, 7:26 p.m. EST by brightonsage
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In the American Revolution, a loosely-affiliated group of colonial states, operating under the Articles of Confederation (1777-87), provided arms to those serving in well-regulated militias. Art VI of the Articles stated in part: “…Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed…and shall provide…a proper quantity of arms…”
When the Founders realized the Articles were too weak, and the nation needed a stronger central government, they adopted the U.S. Constitution, which created a federal system, and delegated to Congress the power to raise an Army. The new arrangement concerned some, as they feared a rogue President might use the Army for his own personal purposes, to overthrow their liberties.
So, guess what was so important that it was left out of the Constitution altogether? Any reference to arms either private or government owned.
The Second Amendment is just that, an amendment, which means it wasn't even a part of the Constitution until some of my relatives helped stage the Shays's Rebellion and "lobbied for a statement of rights similar to those they already had in the Massachussets Bay Colony. But the language above was borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, under which the big bankers were foreclosing on every landowner's property and evicting them. Sound familiar?
Subsequent Acts of Congress, such as the Militia Act of 1792, which ordered every 18 to 45 year old man to be “enrolled in the militia” and to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock…or with a good rifle” showed the Founders were connecting the right to bear arms with enlistment in a militia.
I know five members of the Supreme Court can't read English, but four of them can. And I think you can, as well.
Just because the Supreme Court had five votes for it doesn't make it right, or true, or accurate, does it? It only makes it the law, for now.