The 2nd Amendment–Let’s Put It To Action!
“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.”
It is our right as a citizen of the United States to keep and carry weapons for hunting and protective purposes. But there is a an effort underway to do away with this right. Why would any one want to do away with a right guaranteed us by our founding fathers? All of us know that the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is probably the biggest blunder we’ve ever made as a country. He will take away every right until we are solely reliant on the government for survival. He is seeking to take away our right to keep and bear arms. Will you allow this to happen? The very amendment in question gives the power back to the people so nonsense like what is going on with our government right now can stop and get back to what was intended for us as a country. Let us dissect the amendment and find out why gun control is such a controversial issue and how we’ve been duped into believing that it has been interpreted correctly.
What is a militia? We are lead to believe a militia is the National Guard. It is not. The following is what a militia was according to the founders of the Constitution:
The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations. Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.
In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time, probably at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.
A related concept is the jury, which can be regarded as a specialized form of militia convened to render a verdict in a court proceeding (known as a petit jury or trial jury) or to investigate a public matter and render a presentment or indictment (grand jury).
With the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, control of the army and the power to direct the militia of the states was concurrently delegated to the federal Congress. The Militia Clauses gave Congress authority for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” the militia, and “governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”, with the States retaining authority to appoint officers and to impose the training specified by Congress.
Proponents describe a key element in the concept of “militia” was that to be “genuine” it not be a “select militia”, composed of an unrepresentative subset of the population. This was an argument presented in the ratification debates.(Wikipedia)
So simply put a militia is a group of citizens voluntarily called on in time of emergency to help the country get back on it feet or to help defend it against attack or insurrection. The militia members were to own there own guns and ammunition and may or may not have received compensation for what supplies they used. The militia is not the National Guard as we know today. The National Guard is ultimately responsible to The Federal Government, not the state to which it comes from. The oath they take is the same as the U.S. Armed Forces, with the addition of defending the state they are from constitution and obey the orders of the president and the governor. So look at what a militia did and what the definition of it today is and you answer whether or not this part of the 2nd Amendment is correct. Take a look at these interesting and informative writings from our founding fathers–
“In the first major Federalist pamphlet, aimed at the people of Pennsylvania, Noah Webster had contended, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops than can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
Amazing what this man knew and what is more amazing, if every person who did not vote for Obama had a gun and wanted to take this country back, they could!! You must remember half the country didn’t vote for him and a good number who did wished they hadn’t! Let’s go further–
“On a similar theme, Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, invoked “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,” avowing that if European civilians were comparably equipped, “it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”
Are you starting to get the picture?? More–
“In Virginia, the Federalists’ task was complicated by the state’s unusual alignment on the federal constitutional issues. The leaders who opposed an unamended constitution, and were calling for a bill of rights, came from varied backgrounds. The conservative George Mason and the liberal Thomas Jefferson joined forces to promote a bill of rights, despite their earlier differences over what that bill should contain. They were joined by the fire-brand Patrick Henry and the more staid Richard Henry Lee, both of whom defy simple classification. Although Mason was a strong supporter of the traditional militia concept, he was acutely aware of the threat to the institution, which resulted from the lack of an individual right to keep arms. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people–that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them–but that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
These guys knew that if the citizens were armed, they could not let the government become too much in control, like it is today. Their argument was to keep the people under control of government, take away their guns. Does that sound like anything that is going on today??? Check out this one–
” Patrick Henry shared similar fears. The “militia, sir, is our ultimate safety,” he argued, yet, “[t]he great object is that every man be armed . . . every one who is able may have a gun.” Even Richard Henry Lee concluded, “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Although, to Lee, “the young and ardent part of the community, possessed of but little or no property” could not be relied upon as the militia, he nevertheless thought that this part of the community should be allowed to possess arms.”
Wow, teach young people how to use weapons? That would never be taught in today’s government run schools, would it.? So now I have established that a militia is not the National Guard let’s look at the second half of the 2nd amendment.
We have the right to keep and bear arms. Plain and simply put we have the right to own and carry a weapon. Do we have that right today? To “legally” own a gun we must register it. And when we do, the Federal Government knows we are in possession of a firearm. Which makes it that much easier to know where to go to confiscate them when the 2nd Amendment is repealed. A legal citizen will have his gun taken away while the criminal keeps his. Where is the logic? A legal gun owner shoots an intruder breaking into his house and is charged with murder. Where is the justice in that? If someone can explain to me why I need a permit to carry weapon when the Constitution clearly says we have that right. Maybe if people were allowed to exercise that right, the streets would be a lot safer than what they are now.
So why do I tell you all this? To make you aware of just how watered done the Constitution has become. We are puppets in the game of bringing the downfall of America as we know it. It is time to stand up and take back our rights and freedoms and quit being pacifists about what is going on around us. The only solution may be another Civil War and unfortunately I believe we are headed in that direction. Take a lesson from the first Civil War–the South lost, but they stood up for what they believed was right. It wasn’t a slavery issue, it was a Federal Government/States issue–who was in control. And the outcome of that war gave complete power to the Federal Government.
It’s time to take it back!!!!
The BOC has spoken
