Finally there is this: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:58 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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:358510 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
