Not only are the two consistent, the right to keep and bear arms is vested in the individual rather than in the government. Early American practice bears this out.

Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.

The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind the Second AmendmentÂ’s language encompassing both the importance of a well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in the journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants: All were wrongdoers that good citizens had the right, and the duty, to oppose with force.

Now i personally don't have a problem with those who choose not to own guns -- but do not dare to impose your petty fears on my right to defend myself, my family, and my community. Your decision not to exercise your right to secure your safety and fear of those who do does not give you license to abrogate the Second Amendment, any more than your decision not to engage in speech or journalism or religious exercise constitutes a legitimate basis for ignoring the First.

Good job, Glenn!

Posted by: Greg at 11:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.