Author Topic: Trust Our Founders On The True Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment  (Read 26670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Trust Our Founders On The True Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« on: January 08, 2008, 06:54:14 pm »
http://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/letters/story/124605.html

The Second Amendment to the Constitution as written by our nation's Founding Fathers states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." James Madison, the author, praised "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

A look at the history of gun control confirms their insight. In 1911, Turkey established gun control; 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control; more than 20 million dissidents were exterminated. In 1935, China established gun control and 20 million political dissidents were exterminated. In 1938, Germany established gun control;

13 million Jews and others were exterminated. In 1956, Cambodia established gun control; one million people exterminated. In 1964, Guatemala established gun control; 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated. In 1970, Uganda established gun control; 300,000 Christians were exterminated.

Violent crime has increased in Australia, Canada and Great Britain following adoption of legislation restricting firearms. Contrast this with the fact that gun ownership U.S. citizens is at an all-time high, and "right-to-carry" laws have been implemented in 40 states. And violent crimes have fallen dramatically. The most flagrant exception to this trend is in Washington (murder capital of the U.S.) and New York City, where you have the most restrictive "gun control" laws in the country.

Yes, our Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment.

Allan Walker Jr.

Hilton Head Island
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline esquared

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 536
Re: Trust founding fathers on Second Amendment
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2008, 11:04:47 pm »
This is our only protection . When it is gone I am at war . I will not give mine up period .

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Re: Trust founding fathers on Second Amendment
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2008, 04:18:55 pm »
The Founding Fathers knew the only way to keep a despotic gov't at bay was to insure the common man be armed.
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2008, 12:24:01 am »
When it comes to the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, there was an incredible amount of discussion in literally hundreds of newspapers across this country in the form of editorials, and letters to the editor... the Internet of that time, before the Constitution could be ratified.

The best of these editorials and letters, were compiled into bodies of work called The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalists Papers. Here are links to these complete works... at the links you will also find explanations as to who the authors were, when they were written, and in what papers they were published... you may want to pay particularly close attention to Anti-Federalist Papers number 24 thru 29 which are a few of my favorites from the standpoint of who should be armed, why, and how well armed...

Remember, the main body of the Constitution had already been completed in September of 1787... but it lacked the necessary unanimity of the states in order to be "properly" ratified... 4 of the states said they wouldn't sign it... unless it had an iron clad Bill of Rights incorporated in it... for four years this debate raged in the newspapers, meetinghouses, coffee shops and taverns... those debates, gave us these papers... and thanks to G. William Rice for putting them on his website for us to...

...Enjoy...

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS

JTCoyoté

"The people are the only legitimate fountain of power,
and it is from them that the constitutional charter,
under which the several branches of government
hold their power, is derived."
~James Madison

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2008, 04:41:50 am »
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison

"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 the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" Noah Webster

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" Delegate Sedgwick

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." Alexander Hamilton

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe

"Congress 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 government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" Tench Coxe

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" Samuel Adams

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" Patrick Henry

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" George Washington

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." Aristotle
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2008, 04:43:36 am »
Here are the ten planks taken from the Communist manifesto:

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2008, 06:58:58 pm »
http://www.light1998.com/SSN/Social_Security-Mark_of_the_Beast.htm#Appendix%20M

The Founders of our Constitution and Bill of Rights defenders:

Here is a quote from Abraham Linclon: "Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 29 said that the armament in the hands of the citizens was to be up-to-date and equal to that of the Army, and that there should be "a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to [the military] in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens."
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,896
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2008, 07:18:55 pm »
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment. Annals of Congress [August 17, 1789]

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." ~Niccolo Machiavelli

Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2008, 08:17:24 am »
Much heated discussion took place during the process of the drafting our Constitution as was well documented in the Federal and Anti Federal papers. I have searched diligently, as have those much more qualified than myself to speak on Constitutional subjects, and have found no evidence that there ever was a any debate as to whether or not a man has the right to be armed, if such a document exists it is the most well guarded secrete in American History.

I would surmise that if the opposition had such a document it would long ago have surfaced and give credence to their argument, yet it has not. Of all the disagreements the Founding Fathers saw fit to debate among themselves the Right to be Armed was not among them, this in and of itself is but proof they were of one mind, at least where this issue is concerned.
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2008, 10:05:35 am »
   Put simply:    Without our 2nd amendment rights,we have no other rights period.

http://www.galleryofguns.com/gallery/specials.aspx
"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/

Offline spangler

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,741
The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2009, 05:44:20 pm »
Texas state representative, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, whose parents were killed by an insane gunman while her gun was out in the car, cools the U.S. Senate on the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment - self defence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2dqylg4Cq0

http://themaverickmuse.com/politics/schooling-the-us-senate-a-historic-moment-for-the-2nd-amendment/

Offline Neco

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,490
  • Welcome to the 4th Reich
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2009, 06:37:23 pm »
She hit the nail on the head.  Too bad, the legislators aren't in the business of making common sense, they are in the business of selling their souls to the highest bidder. 
"Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen: the enunciation of truth." ~V

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." ~Patrick Henry

Neco Illuminati

Offline a ReVoLuTIONarY ideA

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2009, 01:57:35 am »
Too bad, the legislators aren't in the business of making common sense, they are in the business of selling their souls to the highest bidder. 

EXACTLY!

Offline TheCaliKid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,570
  • What can we do about it, really?
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2009, 06:14:36 pm »
It is NOT gun control ("their" phrase).

It is Civilian Disarmament. Plain and simple.

The guns don't go away and they are not "controlled", the monopoly on their use just changes hands.
Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission

Offline lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: Trust The Founding Fathers on The Second Amendment
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2009, 08:25:51 pm »
DECLARATION OF TAKING UP ARMS:
RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
JULY 6, 1775 1
[Since the colonial governors had taken steps to prevent the assemblies from naming delegates to the Second Continental Congress, the representatives to that body were chosen by irregular conventions. For this reason the Second Continental Congress was, from the beginning, an extra-legal, if not a revolutionary, assembly rather than a constitutionally authorized gathering. While it took steps to defend the colonies, it did not gather in a mood to declare immediate independence. To clarify its position, Congress adopted the Declaration reproduced below. The first draft is said to have been written by John Rutledge, but no copy of it has been found (for a brief sketch of the life of Rutledge see p. 258). An early draft of this document, written by Jefferson, proved too strong for the committee (Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, II, 128 n.). It was redrafted and toned down by John Dickinson (cf. p. 261) and adopted after debate, on July 6, in order that Washington might publish it on his arrival at the camp before Boston.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A declaration by the representatives of the United Colonies of North America, now met in general Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense must convince all those who reflect upon the subject that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desperate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms.

Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.

Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, left their native land to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labor, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and inhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike nations of barbarians. Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and a harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great Britain in the late war, publicly declared that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies.

Toward the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. From that fatal moment, the affairs of the British Empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions that now shake it to its deepest foundations. The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace and of then subduing her faithful friends.

These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statutable plunder. The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behavior from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honorable manner by His Majesty, by the late king, and by Parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations.

Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have, in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the "murderers" of colonists from legal trial and, in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighboring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in Parliament that colonists charged with committing certain offenses shall be transported to England to be tried.

But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that Parliament can "of right make laws to bind us IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it is chosen by us or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament, in the most mild and decent language. But administration, sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of Delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer a humble and dutiful petition to the king, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful, measure: we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy. But subsequent events have shown how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.

Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in His Majesty's speech; our petition, though we were told it was a decent one, and that His Majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his Parliament, was huddled into both houses amongst a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The Lords and Commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that "a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts Bay; and that those concerned in it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by His Majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought His Majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to enforce due obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature." Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of Parliament; by another, several of them were entirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to General Gage.

Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished Peers, and Commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on. Equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious maneuver calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? In our circumstances to accept them would be to deserve them.

Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, General Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, and still occupied it as a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the General, their Governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire to leave their most valuable effects behind.

By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance are reduced to deplorable distress.

The General, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial." His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burned Charles-Town, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.

We have received certain intelligence that General Carleton, the Governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feels, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword, and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favor toward us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with our [one] mind resolved to die free men rather than live slaves.

Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow- subjects in any part of the Empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offense. They boast of their privileges and civilization and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With a humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the Empire from the calamities of civil war.

By order of Congress,

JOHN HANCOCK,
President

Attested,

CHARLES THOMSON,
Secretary

PHILADELPHIA, July 6th, 1775
 Seems even more relavent for today.
 ;D
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/
"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/

Offline KI4BNC

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2009, 02:39:12 am »
the second amendment is about self defense,but more importantly it protects the other freedoms we hold dear.
along with the core of the thing which is to be able to put the government back into check when it gets too big for its britches-i.e.:tyrannical behaviour,enacting unconstitutional "laws" and restrictions and over-stepping its bounds.
(the shit they are doing now-the laws the mass programming, the dis info etc.etc.)

WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO THEY NOT UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?!?
those that would give up a little liberty to obtain a little security,deserve neither and will lose both.

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2009, 10:12:22 am »
yes protect the 2nd amendment at all costs. It can not be regulated or abolished as it is a god given right.

I believe our want to be elected officials,senators, congress , president need to read every word of the federalist papers and the US Constitution and then they must take a test and give a written opinion on both and if they fail then they can not run for office.

It would help if you ask me.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,841
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2009, 10:29:28 am »

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2009, 10:44:50 pm »
I have sooooo got to put this here!


"The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; . . . the weak will become prey."
— Thomas Paine

One should read all his works!

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2009, 06:35:37 pm »
Prescience
by Tim Case

"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people."

~ John Adams, Second President of the United States

Do you remember the first time you read Charles Dickens opening paragraph to his book Tale of Two Cities?

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

It was November 22, 1963 just before 10:30 AM Pacific Standard time; I was sitting in my English literature class, when those words were forever burned into my mind. I had no more finished reading Dickens’ opening paragraph when the school loud-speaker system came on with the disquieting news that "President John F. Kennedy has been shot in Dallas, Texas."

Within seconds many of the young ladies in the class began to quietly sob while an otherwise stunned hush fell over the class. Our literature teacher then gave permission for the girls to leave the class but told the males to stay put he had something he wanted to tell us.

As the last girl left the room, the door to the classroom was closed and locked. Turning to those of us remaining; that wise old sage in a controlled but stern voice said: "Gentleman, your world is going to change. I know most of you hunt. I doubt there is anyone here that doesn’t own a firearm. The day is coming when the Federal government is going to try and disarm you. I won’t see it, but you will. Mark my words and be on your guard, the Second Amendment is the only thing standing between you and the suffering you can’t comprehend. Class is dismissed."

What experiences had brought that literature teacher to make those proclamations, I’ll never know.

Of course, we didn’t see any immediate change in our lives. Groups of us still made the weekly rounds to the Sears’, Wards’, and Penny’s stores to look at and drool over the racks of firearms. We still bought our ammunition from these stores or the local gun shops even though none of us had reached our fourteenth birthday. No one gave us a second look when a troop of us walked through town carrying our weapons on the way down to the river to plink at tin cans or to go bird hunting.

If we were approached by a police officer, there was no fear. He was one of us and would tell us to be careful or warn us of something he had seen that we needed to know to stay out of harm's way. When bird hunting he would ask us to let him know where the birds were or to tell us where he had had some success during his hunts.

Life really hadn’t changed but we often talked about what that literature teacher had said and we wondered what was going to happen.

It was as Dickens’ had said, "the best of times…" while the worst times were not having the fifty-five cents it took to buy a box of 22 long rifle shells to plink with or the ninety-nine cents for a box of shotgun shells during bird season.

My, how times have changed! What we didn’t understand, in those early years, is that the government is an entity which stays benign only so long as those who make up its character are so disposed. The very soul, mind, heart and action of any government are a direct expression of the morality, or lack of it, by those who make up the government and those who elect them.

Now, we are seeing the truth of that statement. Recently, I was sent an article entitled, "Does the Right Want a Civil War?" by one Sara Robinson, Orcinus. The blog is one long diatribe which blames every recent illegal shooting on anyone who doesn’t hold her perverted view of reality. In her words, the Department of Homeland Security was perfectly correct when it "expressed their worries about right-wing extremist violence last April…"

Furthermore, anyone who objects to the policies being foisted on the American public doesn’t "seem to give a damn about the future of this country, either." Sara Robinson condemns any objections as "selling hate…without regard for the cultural sewage you're creating, without regard for the way you've polluted the political landscape, and now apparently without even a moment's regard for the innocent lives that are being lost because you seem bent on destroying every shred of trust required for our democracy to function."

It is not my intent to dispute an obviously sick ideologue who clearly has never seen what war can do to society. One such as Sara Robinson lives in a world of morbid paranoia supported by the dementia of those in the media, DHS, or a number of governmental positions, Federal, state and local.

What is relevant is that it seems to be spreading. How far from social chaos are we when the question can be asked: "Isn't it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?" Bonnie Erbe of CBS isn’t kidding, she means without trial, or without just cause. She wants people arrested and jailed based simply on some "authority’s" concept of hate. She would be perfectly happy to incarcerate those who have any opinion contrary to hers and the present administration.

It is no wonder then that "terrorists" as defined by the state must be an ever-expanding all-inclusive term. Between delusional state agents and rampant governmental paranoia they must try to marginalize and herd all those they fear into one giant boogeyman. Never realizing the "terrorism" they fear is not a single unified adversary.

If you think this isn’t getting a little out of hand consider this; On Friday, June 19, 2009 the NRA-ILA posted "In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?"

It seems that "n some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess."

"In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico."

So who changed? Was it those of us, who, in our formative years, understood the inherent danger in the misuse of weapons? Are we who grew up respecting other’s property rights and the sanctity of life the ones to blame for the tension being felt in the current social environment?

It sure isn’t those of us who looked to remove ourselves from governmental oversight, while remaining productive members of society, which entailed avoidance, as opposed to open violent confrontation with the state. We learned early the necessity of self-reliance; looking to provide for ourselves and our community. We knew instinctively that this is the road to happiness.

No! What changed was not us but the state with its support from those statists, conservatives and progressives who fostered continuing, never-ending oppression, seeking to place all human activity under political control.

For a while it worked, didn’t it? A friend’s correspondence concerning what has occurred over the last 50 plus years seems more than appropriate. "I suspect that some of us recognize that with the term ‘sheeple,’ we herd up. We've got a shepherd, big government. That government even has dogs. ‘Don't worry, they're not there to attack you (even though they… look like wolves), they're only to protect you from the wolves.’ And we buy that. Of course the shepherd is only willing to expend his time and resources because he can fleece us and maybe even sell us as mutton!"

This, by definition, is that most common and loathsome circumstance known throughout history as state-sponsored terrorism. With it comes intimidation of citizens by their government using state resources such as the police, judiciary, news media and military to quell domestic opposition to its policies. To that list we can now add the banking system and domestic thugs funded by the state through "private community" organizations.

The old Literature teacher was right; to stay in control those in favor of government domination must find a way to do away with the Second Amendment right and confiscate private weapons.

The catch is that some within the "herd" are now starting to question all those altruistic lies. Why? Maybe it is because they are learning that they would be better off not sacrificing more wealth for a new set of lies. Maybe they are beginning to understand that big government is not the sweet smiling parent figure it has pretended to be. Maybe people would just like to keep what is theirs.

Could it be that people are just sick and tired of having a government that will not listen but continues to act without the consent of the people? It happened in 1776.

Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court in 2003 wrote in part:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." (Emphasis mine)

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message824999/pg1
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2009, 06:39:38 pm »
Wow, Nailer!  Outstanding post!

Offline TheCaliKid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,570
  • What can we do about it, really?
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2009, 06:41:20 pm »

Great post, Nailer.

Civilian disarmament in the U.S. really took off in 1968.
Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2009, 07:12:10 pm »
Great article!

I was in Mr. Jones' World History class... we were studying the Crusades that day....

Thomas Jefferson made the point that there are many reasons why arms are important including the influence of the gun on youthful development... http://www.oldyoti.com/show18.mp3

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species
of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate
exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and
independence to the mind. Games played with the ball
and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun
therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

~Thomas Jefferson

But the bottom line has always been aimed toward being familiar and proficient so to stand against tyranny.

JTCoyoté

"The reason for the Second Amendment may not be
fully understood until such time as it is needed."

~Thomas Jefferson

Offline TheCaliKid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,570
  • What can we do about it, really?
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2009, 08:48:16 pm »
Excellent quotes, JT. Thank you.

Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2009, 09:13:33 pm »
Great article!

I was in Mr. Jones' World History class... we were studying the Crusades that day....

Thomas Jefferson made the point that there are many reasons why arms are important including the influence of the gun on youthful development... http://www.oldyoti.com/show18.mp3

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species
of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate
exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and
independence to the mind. Games played with the ball
and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun
therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

~Thomas Jefferson

But the bottom line has always been aimed toward being familiar and proficient so to stand against tyranny.

JTCoyoté

"The reason for the Second Amendment may not be
fully understood until such time as it is needed."

~Thomas Jefferson

Thanks Dawn,

The link in my previous post is to a radio show I did in October of 2001 titled: "My 40-Year-Old High School Shop Project Still Shoots" -- Try to get away with that in school, *THESE* days! Built during the 1964-65 school year as a shop project, patterned after an 1836 Remington Percussion Rifle, I built the "Squirrel Gun" in my wood and metal shop class as a high school Junior.  On that day, in 2001, I shot it at the Sedalia "What Cheer" Shootin' Range, while simalcasting from WXBH AM-1190 Cobleskill NY. Later I walk back up to the shop after the smoke cleared, and talked some more old guns, as well as the meaning of "Domestic Violence", and "9/11".

By 1968 the federal usurpers with the HELP of the NRA passed the 1968 Gun Control Act in the wake of the Kennedy, King, Kennedy assassinations and started the "Disarm the People" ball rolling down the steep slope to tyranny.

Oldyoti

"Fear can only prevail when victims
are ignorant of the facts."

~Thomas Jefferson

Offline lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: Trust Our Founders On The True Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2009, 09:44:24 am »
Gun Control Laws
The passage of the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban in 1994 were interpreted by those in the militia movement and among the right-wing as the first steps towards disarming citizens in preparation for the UN-led NWO takeover. Some are convinced that the registration of gun owners is in preparation for a confiscation of firearms and eventually the arrest of the gun owners themselves. An article by Larry Pratt, Executive Director for Gun Owners of America, interprets a 1995 UN study of small arms, done reportedly in cooperation with U.S. police, customs and military services, as part of the UN’s plan to take over the U.S. Pratt goes on to say that the “UN is increasingly assuming the jurisdictional authority of a federal world government with the U.S. as just one of scores of member states. And gun control -- meaning civilian disarmament -- ishigh up on the agenda of the UN.” Speculation like this only serves to fuel the already existing paranoia of militia and patriot groups.

The right-wing believes that many of the restrictions being placed on the ownership of firearms today mirror events in The Turner Diaries. In his book, Pierce writes about the United States government banning the private possession of firearms and staging gun raids in an effort to arrest gun owners. The book discusses the government/police use of black men, assigned as “special deputies” to carry out the gun raids. Many members of the right-wing movement view the book as prophetic, believing that it is only a matter of time before these events occur in real life.

In the aftermath of the school shootings in Littleton, Colorado, President Clinton, Congress, and Attorney General Reno acted swiftly to propose new laws aimed at restricting the sales of guns to juveniles and to close loopholes in existing laws. In May 1999, the Senate passed a bill to ban the importation of high capacity ammunition magazines and require background checks for guns sold at gun shows. In light of the enormous importance and prominent role that extremist groups place on the Second Amendment, it is probable that recent government actions aimed at controlling guns are perceived to be compelling signs of the UN-led NWO takeover.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Cliff Linedecker, Prophecies for the New Millennium (Lantana, FL: Micromags, 1999), p. 3-4.

5 Charles Bosworth Jr., "Illinois Man Sought Start of Race War," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 15, 1998.

6 Paul Duggan, "From Beloved Son to Murder Suspect," The Washington Post, February 16, 1999.

7 While he never claimed to be the book's author, the Apostle John was identified as such by several of the early church Fathers. Authorship is generally ascribed to him today.

8 This interpretation of the Book of Revelation is according to the Catholic Bible and a Catholic scholar that was consulted on the matter. However, there are other varying interpretations of the Book of Revelation within Christianity.

9 All symbolism was taken from The Catholic Bible; New American Bible

10 Kerry Noble, Tabernacle of Hate: Why they Bombed Oklahoma City ( Prescott, Ontario, Canada: Voyageur Publishing, 1998).

11 Robert Draper, "Happy Doomsday," Texas Monthly, July 1997, p.74; Evan Moore, "A House Divided: Tensions divide Abilene-area cult," The Houston Chronicle, March 24, 1996.

12 Evan Moore, "A House Divided: Tensions divide Abilene-area cult," The Houston Chronicle, March 24, 1996.

3 John K. Wiley, "Profile of attack suspect is familiar and frightening," The Miami Herald, August 12, 1999.

14 Use of this term within militia circles became more common after President Bush starting using it to refer to the state of world affairs after the collapse of the USSR at the end of the Cold War and in the context of using international organizations to assist in governing international relations. The term One World Government is also used as a synonym for the New World Order.

15 James P. Wickstrom, "Intelligence Update," October 1998, accessed at www.posse~comitatus.org.

16 See Fall 1998 edition of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, "Millennium Y2KAOS."

17 William Pierce, "The Millennium Bug and 'Mainstreaming' the News," accessed at www.natvan.com.

18 Larry Pratt, "The United Nations: Pressing for U.S. Gun Control," accessed at www.gunowners.org

Thomas Jefferson summed it up best........'' Those who beat there swords into ploughshares .....will plow
for those with the swords''    or somin like that.   ???         :P
"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Trust Our Founders On The True Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2009, 12:16:35 pm »
Most of the founders no doubt made similar statements to the quote you attribute to Jefferson above... the only quote of it I have in my listing however, is this one...

JTCoyoté

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually
end up plowing for those who kept their swords"

~Benjamin Franklin

Offline lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: Trust Our Founders On The True Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2009, 10:19:44 am »
Most of the founders no doubt made similar statements to the quote you attribute to Jefferson above... the only quote of it I have in my listing however, is this one...

JTCoyoté

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually
end up plowing for those who kept their swords"

~Benjamin Franklin

Thanks for the correction , JTCoyoté ,  I was 'winging' it from memory.  :-[
"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
The Unalienable Right of the People to Bear Arms has Been Made Clear
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2011, 11:50:34 am »
2nd Amendment Quotes
http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

Read this in light of the last article about the Well-Regulated Militia.

Whoever said that the founding fathers didn't think that all citizens should have guns is living in their own little world.

The following quotes by the authors of the Second Amendment, their contemporaries, various state and federal courts, and others should be useful in the debate over whether that amendment protects a right of individuals or only the military.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Second Amendment states: "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."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"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 the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress 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 government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New-England)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, 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." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<