Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

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.

I have always been told to take things in context, when reading words written by an individual, put yourself in the time and place of that individual, try to walk a mile in their shoes so to speak. Consider the influences, both internal and external, that compel the group or individual to set those words to paper.


In order to do that with the Constitution you need to go back into history and realize what these men, these patriots, had just gone through. Just four years after the end of the bloody Revolutionary War, a war that freed the people of the “New World” from the tyrannical rule of the British Empire. To understand the mindset of these people, let us examine a few of the other amendments.


1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


To understand why the founders of our country decided to pen this tenet, think back to why these people fled Europe in the beginning, religious freedom. These people were being persecuted for their religious beliefs, they fled to the “New World” in order to practice their religion in peace, free from the persecution of the Church of England, a state sponsored church. So that is why the establishment of religion and free exercise thereof clauses are contained in the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers knew their history from 100 years prior and strove to establish a government that would not repeat the mistakes made by the British government. The English version of the Bill of Rights, dated 1689, to which the U.S. Constitution was loosely based, included the freedom of speech clause, but in the English document, this freedom was only extended to the Parliament, who could not be questioned about what transpired inside the Parliament building. Prior to that it was deemed illegal, "any slanderous News ... or false news or tales where by discord or slander may grow between the King and the people ..." So the freedom of speech was considered an integral right to those belonging to a free country. During this same time in England, to publish any works (ie- press) you had to obtain a prepublication license insuring that the material was not of a political dissenting opinion. So basically if you wanted to speak or write anything that you wanted disseminated, it would have to be approved by officials or sufficiently vague that the meaning was obscured. Under the rule of Charles II during the years of 1661 and 1662, ordered his lieutenants to form a force of volunteers with sympathetic political views with “the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." We will touch on the arms seized bit a little later. I will not even visit the last phrase in “Jolly Olde England,” I’ll just reference the modern England for this one. They seem to be heading down the road back to their tyrannical ways: In 2005 the British Parliament outlawed free-speech within ½ mile of Westminster that was not first cleared by the police. Why are they afraid of free-thinking people?


So by looking at the 1st Amendment and knowing what you now know about the atmosphere in England immediately preceding the drafting of our Constitution, is there any question why the founding fathers crafted this amendment so precisely?


We will skip the 2nd Amendment until last, so what about the 3rd?


3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


This amendment was drafted to specifically address the Quartering Acts that England had imposed on the colonies preceding the Revolutionary War. Although never allowed to reside in the occupied private homes of citizens, the Quartering Acts did go so far as ordering the subjects to provide the soldiers lodging, and provisions in the case of the first Quartering Act. The colonists viewed this as an occupation as would anyone, and the drafters of our constitution took steps to make sure that the republic they were founding did not overstep its bounds of authority. Notice that I said republic and not democracy see my post on http://sempercynicus.blogspot.com/ for the reason why.


4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The fourth amendment was written in direct response to three cases, two in England and one in the Colonies that occurred before the Revolutionary War. The two English cases involved pamphlets published containing seditious opinions of the King’s ministers, and as a result the King himself. The King issued warrants for the seizure of all their papers and books. The two accused sued for damages and the judge, Camden, decided in their favor. This made Camden a hero in the colonies and as a result, many towns in the U.S. are named after Camden. The third case was called the Writs of Assistance. The Writs of Assistance was a blanket search warrant issued to combat smuggling in the colonies. Agents of the Crown were allow to search any place where they though illegal goods might be, and compelled the public to “assist” in these searches and seizures, hence the name. A Boston attorney, James Otis, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the merchants and lost, fuelling the opposition to British rule. Later, John Adams said of Otis’s lawsuit, "then and there the child Independence was born." The fourth amendment was, yet again, a tool used by the authors of the Constitution to limit the reach of government, especially the reach of government into our private lives. This is the basic right granted to us by our Creator and ensured to us by the Constitution that separates us from the Gestapo of Nazi Germany or the KGB of the Soviet Union.


And now…


2nd Amendment: 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.


Think about what these men had just been through. They had just broken away from the most powerful country in the world; a tyrannical government who had imposed many things upon them that they thought were “Intolerable Acts.” How had they accomplished this feat? They did this through conviction of heart, strength of mind, musket and cannons. Remember the Minuteman that fired the “Shot heard round the world?” Notice this wasn’t the debate heard round the world, or lawsuit, or stroke of the pen heard round the world. It was SHOT, from a gun. Governments that are no longer operating with fairness, as they should, are overthrown by patriots who are armed. Our founding fathers knew this and crafted the second amendment to ensure that if the republic they were forming ever got out of control, they could not take the tools of revolution from the people. In 1776 those tools were the musket and cannon, in this day and age there are tanks, cruise missiles, aircraft, and fully automatic weapons, all of which the government refuses you to possess…why? People are concerned for their second amendment rights; worried the government will take them away. I say the government is already violating the second amendment, and if they take the few “legal” arms that they allow us to possess, we will descend into the fascist dictatorship in which we are currently heading.

Open your eyes, They lie!

Semper Cynicus (Always Cynical)

Democracy is a good thing....Right?

Democracy,

The word itself conjures up feelings of liberty, freedom, certain unalienable rights, but do you really know what that word means? Do you really understand what America is trying to do spreading Democracy to the oppressed countries of the world? Examine the attached document and learn the difference between a democracy and a republic, and here is a hint: America's founding fathers NEVER intended on creating a democracy. Pass this on to everyone you know.




Open your eyes, They lie!


Semper Cynicus (Always Cynical)

Official Definition of DEMOCRACY

Here are four (4) fac simile section reproductions taken from a 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928, setting forth exact and truthful definitions of a Democracy and a Republic, explaining the difference between both. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and must be accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction.

These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Such definitions take precedence over any “definition” that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical “modification” to please “the powers in office.”

Shortly after the “bank holiday” in the thirties, hush-hush orders from the White House suddenly demanded that all copies of this book be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation.

This was the beginning of the complete red control of the Government from within, not from without.

(No. 1 fac simile)
TM 2000-25 1
TRAINING MANUAL WAR DEPARTMENT,
No. 2000-25 WASHINGTON, November 30, 1928.
CITIZENSHIP
_______________
Prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff
___________________________
This manual superseded Manual of Citizenship Training
____________________________________________
The use of this publication “The Constitution of the United States,” By Harry Atwood is by permission and courtesy of the author.

The source of other references is shown in the bibliography.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(No. 2 fac simile)
TM 2000-25
118-120
CITIZENSHIP

Democracy:
A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting of any other form of “direct” expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. Whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

(No. 3 fac simile)
TM 2000-25
120-121
CITIZENSHIP

Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brough within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny of mobocracy.

Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) and executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. – Atwood.

121. Superior to all others.- Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not
be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the “direct” rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”

(No. 4 fac simile)
(A. G. 014.33 (4-28-28).)
BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR: C.P. SUMMERALL, Major General Chief of Staff
Official: LUTZ WAHL, Major General, The Adjutant General.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON D.C. AT 30 CENTS PER COPY

Why Democracies Fail

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always
to be followed by a Dictatorship.
(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.)
- Reprinted from the Freeman Magazine

Did I say “republic?” By God, yes, I said “republic!” Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive.
By Westbrook Pegler in the New York Journal American of January 25th and 26th, 1951 under the titles “Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy” and “Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless.”