If Free Healthcare Is Now A "Constitutional Right" Without Even Being IN the Constitution, What About Free Guns, Since GUNS ARE IN THERE!!, by Neale Osborn

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 575, June 20, 2010
"The Internet is the collective
consciousness of the human race"

Contents

If Free Healthcare Is Now A "Constitutional Right" Without Even Being IN the Constitution, What About Free Guns, Since GUNS ARE IN THERE!!
by Neale Osborn
[email protected]

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

Since the HCR supporters make no bones that they want "Single Payer" (free healthcare), because they claim it is a Constitutional right, and it isn't in the Constitution, I want the government to pass out military weapons to all voters. After all, the right to keep and bear arms IS mentioned specifically in the Constitution. I get a free lawyer if I can't get one to protect my 5th Amendment rights. Why not a gun? If I have to pay taxes to give others freebies, why can't I get a freebie once in a while?

Now. I'd like to see exactly where, in the Constitution, it says the government is responsible for the healthcare of the citizens of the US. It sure as hell DOES say that the people have a right to own a gun.

"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."

Now, some of you will point to the "well regulated militia" and scream "That means the National Guard is allowed guns, no one else!" Sorry, the Supreme Court of the United States has REPEATEDLY ruled that the phrase "the People" ALWAYS means individuals, not governmental entities. Infringe means:

in•fringe
(n-frnj)
v. in•fringed, in•fring•ing, in•fring•es
v.tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

Therefore, ALL gun laws infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Since the 5th Amendment, which states—No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation—has been determined to guarantee a person a free lawyer if they can't afford one to protect their right to trial and against self-incrimination, then why doesn't the 2nd guarantee those of us who can't afford a decent weapon a free one? After all, the 5th doesn't even guarantee a right to a lawyer, just a right to a fair trial, and the right to NOT be forced to incriminate yourself.

So I ask you, should there now be a new warning, to be administered, when a cop finds that you are un-armed? It would go something like this—

"You have a right to keep and bear arms. If you do not have a gun, and would like one, one will be provided to you. You have a right to carry that weapon wherever you choose, as long as the private owner of that property does not prohibit it. Do you understand these rights I have read to you.?"

I'm waiting for the ACLU to demand something like this. Think it'll ever happen?

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"

TLE AFFILIATE

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

Contents