They also wanted us to be able to overthrow the government as necessary, more so than defense from outside forces. They wanted the government to quite literally fear us.
We're talking about the bill of rights here, all of which are about the people, the individuals. "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) BTW Madison wrote the bill of rights, so I'd say he'd know what he meant. "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) "...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)) These men were revolutionaries. They didn't even want us to have a standing army. They were CLEAR across the board about their intent. I have never understood how anyone who has spent anytime reading the actual words of these men can think any different. On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Gruss Gott <grussg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > the federal government. So a plain reading of the 2nd amendment, taking > > into account placement of commas and treating them as non-dependent > > clauses, the 2nd amendment is to me at least clearly an individual right. > > Reading the founders only reenforces this opinion. > > > > See, I think the opposite ... Here's how I get there. > > Reading the founders it seems to me they had one big concern (relative > to arms): the ability to quickly spin up national defense *locally*. > In this day that might seem odd, but consider that it was during a > time when we had a lot of rural communities with poor communication. > > Paul Revere is great but if there are no "arms" then there's not a lot > to be done. Boston needs to be able to repel vikings on its own > (militia) and - here's the key - the federal government should not be > able to prevent Boston from arming itself. So, the founders said, we > must prevent the federal government from telling Boston what to do. > And not only on arms, but we need to prevent the federal government > from legislating away all kind of things. > > Said another way, the Bill of Rights was written to be curbs on the > power of the federal government. That's it. In other words it was > not written for individual citizens, it was written for the federal > government. > > I think using the due process clause (not written for this purpose) > from an amendment written 100 years later to "back-date" federal curbs > to the states is the real shredding of the Constitution. > > I'm fine with guns, I just don't think the Constitution gives you a > right to them. What it does do is prevent the Feds from preventing > you from having them ... but it says nothing about what your State can > do. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:358509 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
