The right of the people.

[DuneHopper]

I have been working on a project the last two year or so, and among other things is going back way back in search of why we have a 2nd Amendment and not just why but, of all rights that were discussed long before the Bill Of Rights it self. Having done lobby work myself I was aware but also wondered if others knew so as I was constructing this project thought ID share some. I have poured over some 300+ pages of documents and the conclusion is:

(I wont bore anyone with a long explanation.)
If one looks at all the hearings and over 50 drafts and arguments to the 2nd Amendment there is a few things that are clear and consistent as the discussions went on for decades before it was created.

1. The key purpose was to ensure all people were and could be armed.
2. The government must be kept in check by such a right.
3. There should be a standing army of the people not the government.
4. People have a choice to be armed if they choose.
5. Defense of one person is very clear as well as recreational.

Looking at today the modern military according to the drafts, hearings and discussions of the Bill of Rights is the people are the governments standing army, they are the Militia or should be. At time of war those entities could be included in a national government army but should return inactive when war was abated. The national Guard its self should not exist and even though it is argued the opposite the facts show the National Guard is a government created militia not a People created Militia. Why this is so, is because the Bill of Rights is a National Law of Rights, and therefore a national army formed would be the peoples army. Not a state government issued one. And all bets are off since the the abatement of war has been absent for over 150 years allowing the Government full control on the people military force why we are at a constant state of war.
( this is scary sheet right there )

Going to stop there, but the conclusions are accurate.
There is obviously allot more could be posted to clarify things but facts are these documents are buried deep. Imagine the chaos if we told the Government we wanted our militia back.. ?
And to end all current wars.

DH

Read More

 

[Ura-Ki]

Yea but, the Several States abolished "State Militias" in favor of National Guard, and State Controlls! The officil militias no longer exist, leaving the burden of a civilian militia to the people! Further, it is/was believed that a need could/would be delt with with our active military, and Obummer even went so far as to Executive order a change that gave the U.S. Mil operational auhority with in the CONUS against the people! ( don't know if this has been struck down, or if it still stands) so much needs to be done yet to make that little bomb go away!
Currently, we have three independent "Standing Armies" under gov control, we have the D.H.S. ( under the guise of Dept of treasurary, U.S. Coast Guard) we have the D.O.J. which has control of Martials office, F.B.I and Rangers ( under the dept of interior, B.L.M.) and finally we have contractors, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc, who take coin of the realm to provide "Services" outside the scope, and oversight, of the Dept of defense, dept of Justice, and even out side the view of the States Sheriffs!

 

[whitney]

I have edited the OP quote only for brevity.

Why this is so, is because the Bill of Rights is a National Law of Rights, and therefore a national army formed would be the peoples army. Not a state government issued one.
DH

DH, can you expound upon the premise the Bill of Rights is a National Law of Rights?

It is my contention the Bill of Rights has no basis in law; that is legislative law.

~Whitney

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Always good to conduct research.

2A is tightly-woven into nearly every aspect of American history.

Not being allowed to own a firearm didn't stop Crispus Attucks from standing up to the crown; his mortal wounds are reason-enough to own the best and most advanced firearm a person can afford.

Every living creature has been given the ability and instinctive desire or responses to defend itself; thorns, pigmentation, skin, ears, eyes, teeth, etc., etc.

 

[P7M13]

@DuneHopper , in my own studies, I agree with everything you say.
When I discuss the 2nd Amendment with folks, they always point to "well regulated militia" and suggest that is The National Guard.
I try to enlighten them, that the standing states' militias were established in 1793, and the Dick Act of 1903 established the National Guard (deemed Organized Militia), reinforces the power of the Executive Office to take command of the National Guard, and then recognizes the citizens' militia : us all here -- the "unorganized militia."
And when I try to explain, that the militia of that time were CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS, it dawns on some, while others willingly accept that their defense and safety is in the military and law enforcement's hands.
When I was in college, I believed that the Constitution should be considered a living document, that it should change with times as our country evolves. I did not like Justice Scalia's "strict constructionist" approach to interpretation of the constitution.
In the years that have intervened, I now revere his brilliance and fortitude.
When you have the time, watch the documentary Scalia: Portrait of a Man and Jurist. We lost a true patriot when he died.
You can find it on Hulu or Amazon.

 

[USMC-03]

Allow me to set a bit more existential foundation.

1. Life is the gift of opportunity bestowed on the individual by our Creator.
2. As life is the most precious gift, it is given unconditionally; it is ours to make of it what we choose within our limitations.
3. Human beings thus possess free will.
4. Life is limited in time and our ability to apply our talents is also limited; the product of our efforts, the labor of our minds and bodies, is ours to expend as we so choose and the private property is therefore an extension of our productive time.
5. No human may act with violence to deny life or property of another without just cause; at the same time we have the right to defend life and property with just force.
6. Arms are necessary for self defense and the defense of others and shall not be denied to any man without warrant.

Perhaps this will help.

 

[P7M13]

Allow me to set a bit more existential foundation.

1. Life is the gift of opportunity bestowed on the individual by our Creator.
2. As life is the most precious gift, it is given unconditionally; it is ours to make of it what we choose within our limitations.
3. Human beings thus possess free will.
4. Life is limited in time and our ability to apply our talents is also limited; the product of our efforts, the labor of our minds and bodies, is ours to expend as we so choose and the private property is therefore an extension of our productive time.
5. No human may act with violence to deny life or property of another without just cause; at the same time we have the right to defend life and property with just force.
6. Arms are necessary for self defense and the defense of others and shall not be denied to any man without warrant.

Perhaps this will help.

Beautifully said.
However, with laws that allow others to sidestep responsibility for the choices they made with free will, we see the degradation of society and thus initiatives to further restrict free will.
Kinda forked, when you realize it should all come right back to personal responsibility.
A late, good friend of mine, when commenting on violent criminals, used to say, "drop 'em in the wood chipper." I would ask him to explain, and he always returned to the simple phrase, "Society's laws are simple, if you cannot obey them, then you shouldn't be allowed to exist in this society." He would then punctuate it with his best imitation of Schwartznaegger's "hasta la vista, Baby!"
Draconian, but I suspect it would be effective.

 

[Colts4me]

It should be understood under our form of government we give consent to the elected to make our laws but only if they follow a bill of rights. When they dont' follow that bill of rights they no longer have our consent to be governed. Our government no longer listens to us and doesn't follow the rules laid out to govern us. At some point the people will not obey, they won't be governed and won't listen because consent to govern will be lost. When they no longer listen then they have no consent to govern.