Posted on 12/09/2012 4:25:54 PM PST by dontreadthis
I am my local militia, according to the Constitution.
You sre right, the constitution didn’t create, but affirmed this right.
2nd amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And be done with it.
It is obvious to me that the founders intended us to have weapons capable of confronting a tyrannical government. Not hunting or musket antiques. Not single shot, or magazines limited to ten rounds.
They intended us to have state of the art individual combat weapons. The Swiss have them in every home, and have one of the lowest crime rates.
Many in our government don’t trust us to that extent. And I don’t trust them.
Then, too, the basic need for them was discovered in Europe long before the founding of the British colonies in North America.
It was a simple item. The Huguenots agreed to a truce between themselves and the Guise (that is, Catholic faction) at the end of the French Religious Wars ~ but they refused to stack arms and allow them to be returned to the government controled armories.
Technology changes everybody's plans, and then their beliefs. Today even the Pope is a Huguenot when it comes to the value of demanding and protecting religious freedom!
You can thank firearms for that.
Plain and simple: the people=US citizens.
“well-regulated”=”well-equipped”
While undoubtedly there exists a sizeable percentage of
the population that fundamentally lack the capability of
understanding something as simple as the Second Amendment,
it’s historical basis and the rationale for it’s existence
these people are the exception. In reality the vast vast
majority of those who would outlaw the right to arms and the right to self defense truly fully and completely understand the Amendment and what it actually means.
They just don’t care. To a large portion of the populace and for nearly EVERY person holding federal elected office
the meaning of the Constitution is explicitly clear...they just don’t care. It’s an impediment to their agenda thus it is to be ignored, denigrated, abused and violated with
impunity.
The solution to the problem is not debate, not logic, not
education. For the vast majority of those opposing our fundamental rights the solution is a long drop on a short rope as these people truly only care about one thing....their power....and how to get more of it over us.
The word was thereafter spelled with a lower case, c, to distinguish between Sovereign Citizens and federal citizens, the latter who became subjects of the federal gummint.
The 14th Amendment was written in order to grant privileges and immunities to former slaves who had no official status with the state or the federal government until those who decided to accept the protection of the federal government became its subjects . . . "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
This should come as a surprise to many, realizing there are two classes of 'citisens' in America living side by side.
Yes, folks. The 14th Amendment only applies to subjects of the federal government.
So, where do you stand?
Search US Code and unorganized militia. All males 16-45 are in it.
There is a more pedestrian explanation.
Legal documents of the Constitutional period regularly capitalized nouns, in the German style. This practice continued thru the mid-1800s, when it was dropped from the stylebook. Thereafter, the distinction was between proper nouns (capitalized) and common nouns (not capitalized) -- as is the practice today.
If you go back and look at the wills, deeds and land transfers of the Constitutional period, you'll find that nouns were generally capitalized. After the Civil War, they were not.
With the US Constitution and the law.
Style changes it seems are quite arbitrary, depending on the political necessities of the day. I note that the dictionaries arbitrarily decided to re-write the definition of marriage, removing any reference to male-female unions. Very timely for the Mass. courts, who used the occasion to stamp their approval on same-sex marriages.
All dictionaries, especially the legal dictionaries, always defined marriage as between one man and one women.
Same sexers now have a source to legitimicize their 'unions.'
I imagine Congress found it a godsend to realize they could call their new subjects 'citizens.' Heretofore, they were unable to because the capitalized word was reserved for Sovereigns in the U.S. Constitution prior to the mid 1800's, as you point out.
2A ping
“well-regulated”=”well-equipped”
You almost got it right.
“Well-regulated” meant “well-equipped and competent in their use”.
In other words, the founders felt that a citizenry which could pick up an arm and be effective immediately would be the best possible manner by which our freedom would be protected.
They were correct in all particulars.
i am a member of the militia reserve... 50 year old willing to take a bullet so the young can triumph over evil...
but more willing to give a bullet to those who wish to see america fall.
teeman8R
Wait for 0 to redefine “arms”: knives no more than 1” long, air pistols, bow and arrow - arrows having a suction cup of color on the end rather than a steel tip.
Time for patriots to get organized folks. 2010 might be the last chance if the slobbering enemedia is right about Clinton in 2016.
Two totally incompatible things today. The law today means whatever they say it means and that is variable because we abandoned Black's Law and decided precedent was supreme. Think about that, one corrupt Judge can set precedent and it becomes law unless the Supreme Court negates it, of God forbid congress actually do their job as employees of the People.
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.