High Court Affirms Gun Rights In Historic Decision

by By Mark Sherman - June 26th, 2008 - Associated Press (Yahoo)

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individuals right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state [emphasis added] militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.

There are two kinds of militia. Today we have well organized National Guard forces and Reserve Military forces, nominally under the control of the State Governor. They are a force whose command structure can be nationalized for any purpose government desires. These are most emphatically state militias, meaning they are controlled by government command.

There is a more traditional militia that is organized at the local level and it is NOT responsive to the state or its government. They are totally responsive to the will of the volunteers, the people. Note the writer of the article above has inserted the word state (my emphasis) into the discussion with his followup sentence.

State militias are what we have today. However the volunteer militia, locally organized, is what is critical to freedom. Note the explanation phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" in our Constitutional guarantee. It is followed by the exact text of our right . . . "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The preceeding phrases do not limit it our qualify our right, they explain it.

That is the important distinction. You don't find individual freedom in a controlled state because freedom is of little interest to pro-government forces. Volunteer and individually based militias, the kind that can resist government attempts to suppress freedom, require that the people be well armed against the state so they can organize whenever needed to resist state aggression. A state militia will never be on the side of the people, but will instead be responsive to the command structure. That is a state militia. Free militias, militias of a free people, can only exist when the people can voluntarily commit to fight. That can only happen when they are armed against state aggression.

It is typical that those who don't believe we have a Constitutional right to bear arms, always insert the word "state" before militia, changing the meaning of our Constitution to defend their goal of limiting freedom and empowering the state. That goal is tyrannical suppression of people armed sufficiently that local volunteer militias can resist the power of the state. Throughout the twentieth century, every government of tyrannical evil first disarmed its citizens.

The Democrats lie about wanting to reduce crime when they really want state power to be unchallenged in any meaningful way. Now comes the truly frightening thought. All that stands between freedom and totalitarian power in America is ONE supreme court justice. ONE. This 5 to 4 ruling was determined by a single vote. We are that close to losing our Constitution and our freedom.