may these people all rot from stomach cancer like the cancer on the country that they are...
Posted on 07/04/2014 7:53:48 AM PDT by rktman
We all know the story of American independence, don’t we? A rugged frontier people became increasingly tired of being ruled by a distant elite. A group calling themselves Patriots were especially unhappy about being taxed by a parliament in which they were unrepresented. When, in 1775, British Redcoats tried to repress them, a famous Patriot called Paul Revere rode through the night across eastern Massachusetts, crying “The British are coming!” The shots that were fired the next day began a war for independence which culminated the following year in the statehouse in Philadelphia, when George Washington and others, meeting under Betsy Ross’s gorgeous flag, signed the Declaration of Independence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
LOL, I was gonna then I remembered that I was 52;(
may these people all rot from stomach cancer like the cancer on the country that they are...
Yes. Though most don’t or never bothered to look it up.
I’m already broke so...
Happy 4th!!!!!
bump for I never knew some of this
I bid 49.
I’m 51 and know. And have taught my kids. Now working on the next generation with the help of the Rush Revere books
happy hotdogs, it's INDEPENDENCE DAY!!! 8^)
This is the understanding that many people miss. The Second Amendment only makes sense with this in mind. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a check against tyranny from all levels of government.
100%! it was NEVER about hunting...
Never too late to learn a little something more.
LOL! Not sure 50 was accepted yet!
ping
Precisely.
A well controlled army being necessary to the security of a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You need the army to keep enemies out, you need to control it to keep it (and the government) from becoming the enemy within.
To that purpose the overwhelming number of private citizens, with their arms constitute a deterrent: therefore, the Right must be protected and left uninfringed.
Perhaps in California...
I disagree with this interpretation. A "Well-Regulated Militia" consisted of basically all the people capable of bearing arms. This Militia was not only a check on government tyranny, an oppressive army being one aspect of such tyranny, but also reduced dramatically the necessity of supporting such an army.
The little noticed Third Amendment prohibits the government from forcing citizens to house soldiers during peace time. Such soldiers were sometimes a necessity but always a concern. Reducing the need to maintain such an army was one goal of the Second Amendment.
The relatively recent militarization of police departments is a fearful development and would have been addressed by our Founders if any such police force had existed at the time of the Revolution.
The founding generation, as praiseworthy, and brilliant, and inspired, and courageous, and self-sacrificial as they were, were not perfect. They themselves fell short of their own timeless words, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...’ when it came to slavery, thereby pushing the great judgment for that grave national sin off onto their grandchildren. But before we judge them too harshly for that, perhaps we should look at the beam in our own eye. Not only are we enslaving our grandchildren with debts we cannot possibly repay, we are slaughtering a large portion of this generation under the color of “law.” Will we have the courage to stop this un-American holocaust, and restore adherence to the principles of our Declaration of Independence, and the clear purposes and explicit requirements of our Constitution, or will we curse our own posterity to death, destruction, or, for the survivors of our injustice, servitude? It’s still an open question, one that we had better answer before it is too late. Something important to think about on this Independence Day. God help us.
They had security, but they valued liberty more.
Amen to your Amen...
Consider: "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." From Federalist 29 link
Consider that the Government the colonists overthrew was a system of Military Governorships which used the Army as police.
Controlling a standing Army, actually even whether to have a standing, professional (Federal) army, was discussed in The Federalist Papers, and the conclusion was that the State Militias (each an army under the command of the Governor), and then the People, in their entirety, would be sufficient to counter a professional army by sheer force of numbers, even without martial training, should that professional army seek power. Therein lies the security of a free state: dealing with outside threats by the Navy, the standing (federal army, and such State Militias as might be called forth to deal with the threat, while on the other hand, the People retain, by virtue of sheer numbers and arms, the ability to halt any usurpations by Federal or State forces, should that occur.
I do not make that interpretation capriciously.
With the option of having a Federal Army, the Third Amendment was included to further protect the rights and property of the people.
Keep in mind that until the Bill of Rights was added in, the Constitution would not have been ratified.
(Note that now, simply by declaring an "emergency" those rights are gone via the NDAA, and the government has claimed the power to seize anything we own.)
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe, 1788.
Let me repeat: "Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia". Coxe was perhaps using a different dictionary, since the arming or disarming of the army is certainly within the control of Congress.
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.