Founder's Intent
Posted on 03/23/2019 12:48:43 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Meaning of "militia" in the Second Amendment is not limited to a well-regulated, state militia; it is all the people who stand able and willing to bear arms to defend their liberty
What America's Founders intended in the Second AmendmentThe militia noted in the second amendment is a militia of all those able and willing to bear arms to defend their liberty.
Today, discussion of the Second Amendment begins with two claims: Liberal, gun-control advocates focus on “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and argue that the right to bear arms only applies to those in a well-regulated militia. Conservatives emphasize “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As though you needed an amendment to say that states may have armies. States have had armies forever before that was written.
You may read it as because states have armies, you need a weapon to defend yourself against the state.
I think the Founders pretty much meant that EVERY home should be able to take a few of the enemy out if attacked, before possibly being killed.
And more than a few is better.
Nothing harder than having to fight for EACH AND EVERY HOUSE or block when invading.
Armies have succeeded in doing this but at horrific prices.
It ain't difficult...if I,who's never been mistaken for a rocket scientist,can figure it out today's Rat Party leadership can.
The Bill of Rights are, each and every one of them, the rights of individuals.
That is exactly what they meant.
Yes, recognizing that armies exist apart from people, the future would always pose a risk that such armies could be used against a free people, hence the people must have a right apart from government to hold arms.
It is a check against tyranny.
It ain’t difficult...if I,who’s never been mistaken for a rocket scientist,can figure it out today’s Rat Party leadership can.
************************************************
The left has always known it and that’s why they’re so desperate to disarm the population.
The thought bosses know they are tyrants. They know they have industrial strength mass murder planned, as all such regimes have had. They know they were within grasp of closing the deal before Trump got elected. And now they know that the worm may damn well be turning enough that they, themselves, are facing slaughter on a personal level if issues break a certain way.
They are desperate to disarm us. Now. They know their lives depend on it.
“you need a weapon to defend yourself against the state.”
And don’t give me that old crapola re “automatic weapon” were never conceived by the founders !
Worse than that,they NEVER knew about NATIONWIDE newspapers, radio or TV ! Those are worse for the nation than Browning’s inventions ..Maybe radio and TV should be regulated to reach only 5 MILES, — Sound reasonable ?
If their argument works for guns, why not Radio and TV ?
Thank you James Madison. Without ‘’Little Jim’s’’ insistence on the 2nd. Amendment being put into the Constitution we could have lost this most important right a long time ago. Not that the other Founders were against it, they just thought it was a given. Madison insisted on it being put in there.
A main spark for our rebellion against a despotic monarch was when that regime’s army was sent to confiscate privately owned arms, leading to the fights at Lexington and Concord Bridge. The idea that a 2nd Amendment written by people who had recently been through that experience wouldn’t apply to privately owned arms is ludicrous.
The united states at the time also didnt have a full time profesional army with the incredible capability and equipment we have today.
By the libtard logic, we must also get rid of this entirely because these weapons and full time soldiers didnt exist when the constitution was written.
Our colonies and country were founded by people who fled tyrannical governments that simply wouldnt let them live their certain Christian denomination wherever they were in europe.
Our rights come from God and not man.
The Second Amendment had its roots in events back in Great Britain, events still very fresh in the memory of American Colonials, particularly those of Scottish descent.
The Kingdom of England absorbed the once independent Kingdom of Scotland in 1707.
Parliament followed that by passing the Disarming Act of 1716 to prevent any Scot ideas of renewed independence from England.
In 1746 Parliament upped the ante on violations of the Disarming Act by sentencing guilty Scots to indentured servitude in the Colonies.
The Colonial Americans not only knew this history, some had direct experience with it. And they weren’t going to give another ruler the power to disarm them.
There is also the long forgotten (in America) Declaration of Right, of 1689, a precursor of our own Bill of Rights of a hundred years later. The DoR 1689 limited the powers of the King, and one of its points prohibited the King from stripping citizens of their arms.
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
After reading the article and the comments in the thread, and looking at your video, it occurred to me that it could be looked at as follows:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” means that a well-regulated militia is necessary to protect the state from external invasion and internal insurrection, banditry and so forth. You pretty much have to have something like that. But they knew such a militia could be turned against the people in an act of tyranny so “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” because the people might have to defend themselves against such a “well-regulated militia” if it was turned against them in an act of tyranny.
For some time I’ve thought the founders had difficulty incorporating such an “off switch” in the government they were establishing. They didn’t want to be too obvious about including in the formal documentation the concept of “If we screw up, just shoot us”.
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.