Are we armed because we’re free or are we free because we’re armed?

[QuietDan]

Another excellent article to spread far and wide:

**********************************

Are we armed because we're free or are we free because we're armed?

by AWR Hawkins, PhD

Every time I read the Bill of Rights, I am struck by the wisdom our Founding Fathers demonstrated in pronouncing and protecting our natural rights. From religious liberty to protections on private property and the security we have in our own persons, our rights are essential to our humanity because our Creator saw fit to endow us with them. Moreover, because they flow from God to man rather than from government to man, our Founders designated them as off-limits to government encroachment.

But while the whole of the Bill of Rights is magnificent, it is in the Second Amendment especially that one gets a real taste of both the simplicity and profundity of the Founders:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and Arms, shall not be infringed.

In these words, we not only see the right to keep and bear arms clearly and simply set forth, but also the profound truth that an armed population is “necessary to the security of a free state.†No other right is explicitly described by the Founders as necessary to the security of a free state.

No wonder George Washington said a “free people ought … to be armed.â€

In Federalist No. 46, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, boasted of the “advantage†Americans had over the people of almost every other country: that advantage was the fact that they were armed. More recently, Wayne LaPierre, the executive director of the National Rifle Association, has described the right to keep and bear arms as “the fundamental freedom that separates [America] from every other nation on earth.â€

Just think of it, Madison wrote of the advantage of an armed populace in the late eighteenth century, and LaPierre in the twenty-first. It is a theme which, over centuries, has both remained true and proven to be a quintessential characteristic of the American way of life. Quoting LaPierre again: “The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the essence of what being an American is all about — living truly free as individual citizens.â€

Yet, this freedom, which our Founders saw as necessary to the security of a free state, has come to a perilous point in history. Although our government was forbidden from infringing upon it, it has done so anyway, and now we approach a presidential election where perhaps the most anti-gun president in history is running for re-election. If he gets re-elected, he’s certain to expend lots of energy trying to destroy the Second Amendment, either in part or in whole.

As a state senator in Illinois, he supported a one-gun-a-month limit on gun purchases, supported laws making it illegal to use a gun for self-defense, and opposed laws that allow law-abiding citizens to get permits to carry guns on their persons. As a U.S. senator, he supported bans on high-capacity magazines and he supported the assault weapons ban. And at the same time, with a straight face, he claimed to support the Second Amendment.

Here’s the bottom line: The first president of the United States believed a free people should be armed. Like Madison and others, he recognized the right to keep and bear arms was an expression of our humanity. The 44th president of the United States does not see things this way. He equally abhors the thought of an armed people and a free people: much less a free people which is armed.

But Obama is wrong, because the right to keep and bear arms is still necessary for the security of a free state. It always has been, and it always will be. (Rights given by God do not change over time, rather, they endure for all time.)

Not only are we armed because we are free, we are free because we are armed.

http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz1n2bXvcbB

Edited February 21, 2012 by QuietDan

[DaveTN]

Between the time the Bill of Rights was written and now, we had a major event in this country; the Civil War. The war was fought over States Rights. Although the side that was fighting for States Rights lost that war; all Americans learned from it and never want to go that route again. That is why the SCOTUS has ruled they way they have. You have a right to keep arms, but the state will control where and when you bear arms.

Obama hasn’t done anything to take away your guns. He would, but he can’t. Thinking that he can will only result in the same BS we had last election with the price of guns and ammo going through the roof.

Your gun rights will be decided by your Tennessee State Legislators. Pay attention to who you vote for here. The state of Tennessee recognizes your second amendment rights no more than the state of Illinois. Paying the state to be able to carry a gun is not a rights; it’s a privilege and nothing to do with the 2^nd amendment or the United States Constitution.

We are free because of the American people and American Patriots. We are losing our freedoms because Patriots are few and far between anymore. Our country is filled will sell-outs that don’t care about their country as long as they have cheap junk to buy. This Presidential election will be about the economy and jobs. If our economy fails; the Constitution and the 2^nd amendment will be meaningless.

[Moped]

Excellent post Dave!

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I have to agree with you for the most part Dave. While the Constitution says "Shall not be infringed" that very right is being infringed as we speak. Even our state Constitution says that they may regulate our carrying of arms with the idea of preventing crime. But I have yet to see just where or how requiring us to pay for a permit has reduced crime in any way.

Surly there are many cases where a permit holder stops a criminal with his weapon and the incident never makes the news, at the same time it is not the idea that the person had a permit for his weapon that stopped the crime, it is the weapon itself that stopped the criminal. Therefore the requirement that we pay for permits to carry a weapon can only be seen as a means of income for our state and not a true crime prevention tool.

Now as far as being the same as IL, I have to disagree because at least TN does give us the ability to pay for our right to carry a weapon, whereas in IL that happening is few and far between and for the most part still reserved for the politicians and their friends. I understand the point that you are trying to make but I still think that we here in TN are light-years ahead of the citizens of IL. Infringed, YES, but not near as much as they are.

As for the intentions of this administration, it is only logical that they would not try any drastic measures against our rights during their first term and even appear to fully support us. While they can not be guaranteed a second term, history says that they most likely will get one. I feel that once they are in their second term that the assault on our 2-A will begin.

I dont think that there is any way at all to stop the increase in prices of all things firearm related later this year no matter which way the election seems to be leaning.

I feel that we would all do well to obtain any weapons that we really want in the next few months, and especially any "defense" of assault rifles. Holder has already said that the Admin would love to reinstate the AW ban and I think that would be one of the first things that they would try to do if reelected. A federally mandated increase in ammo prices would also be a way for them to further infringe on our rights so buying what we can now IMO is the smart thing to be doing.

Honestly I dont know if we are armed because we are free or if we are free because we are armed and I dont think that it matters.

What does matter is the fact that if we are ever disarmed then we will surly shortly thereafter no longer be free.

[mcurrier]

Honestly I dont know if we are armed because we are free or if we are free because we are armed and I dont think that it matters.

What does matter is the fact that if we are ever disarmed then we will surly shortly thereafter no longer be free.

The second sentence answers the first one in no uncertain terms.