Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 2nd Amendment - Thank God & George Mason
Old Virginia Blog ^ | 02/14/2013 | Richard Williams

Posted on 02/14/2013 4:54:43 AM PST by Davy Buck

But more importantly than the cold hard facts and statistics regarding gun ownership vs "control" is the fact that the 2nd amendment to our Constitution simply acknowledges a God-given (inalienable) right that pre-exists human government - the right to self-defense against criminals and tyranny . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Education; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; georgemason; god; guncontrol; guns; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/14/2013 4:54:49 AM PST by Davy Buck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

More gun ownership simply equals less crime.


2 posted on 02/14/2013 5:02:41 AM PST by BuffaloJack (Guns should not be illegal; they should be undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

Excellent charts depicting gun ownership and homicide rates world-wide not jus in US.


3 posted on 02/14/2013 5:10:55 AM PST by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

Not to mention national security and an array of FA based sports. Theres a lot to recommend firearm ownership!


4 posted on 02/14/2013 5:14:05 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

Yeah maybe so, but, but ,but


5 posted on 02/14/2013 5:32:06 AM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

You’ve posted this in Bloggers and Chat, so far. Wanna go for Religion?


6 posted on 02/14/2013 5:48:08 AM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo (FR: Now, More Than Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with defending your home or person; au contraire- to BEAR ARMS is a PURELY MILITARY TERM as demonstrated in these historical facts:

O`Callaghan, "Hist. Of New Netherland", Vol.2, p.134, `Provisional Order for the Government, Preservation and Peopling of New Netherland`

1650`s New Netherland: also cf. ibid., p.430 "the town contained 40 men capable of BEARING ARMS" ==================

also cf. ibid., p.521 "Staten Island is a two good (Dutch) miles from the fort (Amsterdam). It was settled on the south side, out of sight of the FORT, by ten or twelve men capable of BEARING ARMS." ========

1656,1664 "At the commencement of Stuyvesant's administration, the number of persons capable of BEARING ARMS is stated to have been between two hundred and fifty and three hundred, in and around the capital.3 Including Rensselaerswyck, this would give a population of two thousand souls. In 1664, the number is estimated at " full ten thousand."4 New of New Amsterdam contained, in 1656, when first surveyed by dam. Capt. de Koninck, one hundred and twenty houses, and one thousand souls. The former increased in 1660, when a map of the capital was made, to over three hundred and fifty,5 whilst the population augmented, in 1664, to fifteen hundred. Of these, not quite two hundred and fifty were male adults; the balance, between twelve and thirteen hundred, consisted of women, and children below eighteen years of age." ibid, p.540

Thus the second Amendment means to bear arms means to be ready for miitary action; in this case, every citizen has the right to take military action for the security of the state [=the PEOPLE], [which is what Americans did in 1775-1781 against tyranny.] The other pre-consititution state constitutions also say KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, so the "Keep" is understood in the Second Amendment since it was explicitly stated in pre-existing state constitutions.

7 posted on 02/14/2013 6:42:30 AM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Marchione.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

wow greenland is dangerous who’d a thunk...


8 posted on 02/14/2013 7:12:59 AM PST by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

9 posted on 02/14/2013 7:47:12 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7
Thus the second Amendment means to bear arms means to be ready for mi[l]itary action; ...

The 2nd Amendement has little to do with "sport" and everying thing to do with "hunting" tyrants.

10 posted on 02/14/2013 10:38:01 AM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

“’TO BEAR ARMS IS A MILTARY TERM-
TO KEEP ARMS IS IMPLICIT IN “TO BEAR ARMS”

“An account of the numbers of men able to bear arms in the ...”
by
Thomas Carte
An Account
England: 1744
PREFACE May 1 1743

“As all appearances bid us soon expect a war with France,
and the accounts given of the condition and abilities
of that kingdom differ prodigiously,
according to the different views,
inclinations or prepossessions of our
political writers, it is thought proper to publish
to the world the following accounts:
as well as the numbers of men able to BEAR ARMS,
and fit to be employed in the service of the war...”


‘We notice also in the Colony records, 1680, “Srj.John Barker was freed
from BEARING ARMS for the wounds in the late war.”
p17.

p.239 “Peter Collamore (early Collamer) was on the list of those liable
to BEAR ARMS in Scituate 1643.”

p.118 ‘Military Affairs’ “In 1643 the Colony Court ordered a list of men liable to BEAR ARMS that year.”

“History of Scituate, Massachusetts: from its first settlement til 1831”
by Samuel deane, 1831


p.168,
‘No freeman shall be compelled to BEAR ARMS, nor pay an equivalent therefore,
except in times of exigency or WAR.”

p. “Every man should be a citizen, and every citizen a soldier; and then he would be best able to defend
his country and his own property.”

p.180. “The right of conscience in relation to BEARING ARMS is a scared right.
It is equally sacred with the right to self-defence.”

“But what is meant of our militia? Why, when he spoke of them, he meant American citizens, accustomed to the use of arms;
not in the camp or in the field, but American citizens accustomed to use THEIR ARMS, and to all that manual dexterity
which could only be gained by long practice; not field maneouvering and marching, but a perfect knowledge of the rifle
and the musket. Such a use of the rifle that you could take the eye out of a squirrel on the highest tree. This was in all,
and beyond this there was no necessity to go in this country. In this the soldiers of our country had a superiority of those
of any other. Ask the British officers who were engaged in the last war whether there was no superiority in our troops
in this respect. WEll, was this to be learned at military musters? ....But when it is necessary, the American citizen is
always ready to BEAR ARMS without this militia training. how was it before in the last war in this State? [War of 1812]
Were their any militia trainings to make the cititzens of Pennsylvania prepared for service?
Not At all-they were ready to meet the enemy in the east and in the west. How was it in Tennessee before the Battle of New Orleans.
Did the men who fought that battle perform militia service to prepare them for it?
No sir- it was known that they did not. Were the militia of Bunker Hill, prepared for the events of that day
of glory by previous trainings as militia? No sir.’ p183

p.79 “He thought, too, that we ought not to prohibit aliens who had made this their adopted country,
from BEARING ARMS in its defence in time of WAR.”

WEARING ARMS< BEARING ARMS
Volunteers#War of 1812

“Governor Synder, 1815- Our militia and volunteers were actually engage with the enemy..”p.99
‘...if we destroyed the militia system, we did not indeed take away the right of the people to bear arms,
but we destroyed the inclination, the habit of WEARING ARMS; and such was not his [Gov. Snyder]sentiment
as to what ought to be the condition of things in a country like ours.
He believed that not only right, but the habit of WEARING ARMS was essential to freemen,
and to the preservation of the liberty of freemen. This was the principle inserted into
the Constitution of the United States; and if we did away with this, the effect would be to destroy
the principle and the feeling altogether.”-p.100

p.105. “The terms of the Constitution he need not refer to; and the amendment now under discussion
was simply an AFFIRMANCE OF A POWER,-THAT THE RIGHT OF A PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
“Who fought the Battles, of Lexington,Bunker Hill and Saratoga?
...Who saved Baltimore? ... Who obtained the victory at New Orleans?
These militia, trained and disciplined in their own houses;
not practised in the field, but BRINGING THEIR GUNS WHICH THEY WERE TAUGHT TO USE WHEN CHILDREN.”p.111

viz “
“Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Vol. 4, by the Pennsylvania
Constitutional Convention, 1837-8


11 posted on 02/14/2013 11:01:01 AM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Marchione.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

just saying

inalienable = (from Washington)

It’s Unalienable = (from God) Rights

“endowed by their Creator with certain-— unalienable—— Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

unalienable

unalienable


12 posted on 02/14/2013 5:28:40 PM PST by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson