  |
|
Metaphysics
|
 Necessary To The Security So, the second amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Yet there is no check and balance with the militia in the constitution itself. It was instead considered the duty of every citizen to become a member of their own states' militia: it was through the militia that the laws of the union were to be exercised and enforced, and this was not a national, but a federal right (in the sense that the rights of the people operate at the state level, as in congress assembled). The regulation of the militia was purposed to ascribe rank and a command. That is the purpose of the state over the militia, to hold for them an armoury and to maintain the militia. There is no "right to keep and bear arms" for home defence or hunting alone, that is an extension made upon the same right to keep and bear arms, for its purpose was to free the people to belong to a militia for the security of each of the states in the union. So then, if the militia have the responsibility to uphold the laws of the union, where is the check and balance found but in a threat of rebellion and unlawful sedition? The truth is, it (insurrection) should never have been threatened and also needn't ever be - the upkeep of those laws (and rights) needed no such threat of violence, only a simple check and balance. Then the constitution needs amending somewhat, for the militia have every constitutional right to affect the law concerning their nation's security, but the arms held by the nation's standing army (under the command of the executive branch) had led to an arms race and removed from the people their right to keep and bear arms. The state will never answer an individual or even a well-regulated militia's call for a state funded gift of a stealth bomber (or more) for "hunting" and "home defence" only. (Though I suspect every state's constitution states it should provide somewhere, in history.) Then the constitution is antiquated unless it should be restored - placing the people once again in control without any need for threat of violence, unlawful sedition or the unthinkable consequences of bloodshed. The militia then needs the power to speak, whereas their only purpose is (supposedly) to threaten violence. How does this ever have any constitutional solution? There need be no new branch of government, only a place given the militia to speak (some two hundred years too late). |
 |
|
