Deadly serious now. The US constitution allows for a citizen to have the right to bear arms. what kind of arms are these and what citizens can bear them? It is obvious the intent was for the arm to be a military weapon. When the article was written, hunting and military weapons were indistinguishable but the relative effect of a weapon was the same as it is today. But today our legislators seek to obfuscate that concept by saying that the government militia, also provided for in the constitution, which was in the beginning not a state enterprise but a volunteer organization, is the only place for a citizen to bear arms. But this is clearly not the intent of the constitution. Any tryannical government can have a standing army of citizens, and control weapons in an armoury. But the framers of the constitution intended obviously for its citizens to be individually armed lest the government take its powers to be too absolute. The US is the only government in history that allows for its citizens to take arms against its government if it become too oppressive. Where would these arms come from if they were only distributed amongst a standing army?
The obvious solution if one is to be constitutionally, historically correct and free is to distribute assault rifles - real military weapons, amongst every able bodied, free citizen of good character in order for the government to hew to the standard of freedom that it first embarked on. That may sound crazy, but it is a fact that there are more .303, KAR 98, 30-06, 30-30, other WWII rifles in Canada than there are adult male Canadians. And it should be noted that the number of crimes and accidents that happen with these weapons is vanishingly small. The same situation exists in Swizerland where ~every~ Swiss has an assault rifle at home and is in the militia. I do not see much fire arm crime in Swizerland. Presumably anyone who thinks about committing such an act has to think about the number of equally armed people he is likely to encounter.
EC<:-} |
