If we are wise enough.....

"There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.
.
"In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.
.
"The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. (1)An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. 'T is possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom.
.
"If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an (1)insulated situation...."
.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8
.
Mr. Hamilton had this to say, about the U.S. Citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms;
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
.
Seems Alex had a valid point there, didn't he? In consideration of the present day political environment, are we, indeed, wise enough?
.
We have mayors from around the country that just finished a summit bent on Usurpation from a different angle. Led by the notorious super-rich, anti-gun politico Michael Bloomberg. They claim the Federal isn't doing enough on "illegal guns". If the Second Amendment Right attached to the United States Constitution is examined in the absolute sense as was intended. Just what would be an "illegal gun" anyways? In my minds eye, an "illegal gun", would be one that was stolen from its legal owner. Or one that was used in an "illegal" manner.
.
The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms has already been trampled on, perversed, regulated, ordinanced, subverted and schemed upon enough. To the point where there is NO doubt that it has been Infringed upon.
.
The recommendation that would seem most worthy of consideration for these scheming mayors. Would be that they return to following the principles found in the Constitution. Rather than on scheming on how to further undermine the Right which is considered the First Law of Nature.
.
A firearm is just a tool, albeit a deadly tool. A gun, in and of itself, is not "illegal" in the True Constitutional sense. The hands that use the tool in an "illegal" manner are what is criminal. Would suggest to these supposed 'Public Servants', (that's right gentlemen, that is ALL that you are - SERVANTS!). That you focus on solving the inner-city problems in a Constitutionally LEGAL fashion!
.
It is good to remind you here, that the American Gun-Owning Citizen has a very long memory. As the democrats found out the hard way in the last few elections. Perhaps you gentlemen need the same reminder? Elections, for many of you, are right around the corner....