Author Topic: explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/bear  (Read 729 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/bear
« on: March 23, 2006, 01:51:24 PM »
The following is a primer on the "IInd" amendment and explains its rationale.  This is every bit as applicable now as it was at the Framing.
NomoSendero, this one's for You                                                                       II.
                                                                  ARMS


Prologue:

“There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law that comes to us not by training or custom or reading but from nature itself...That, if our lives are endangered, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.“
Marcus Tullius Cicero on the floor of the  Roman Senate  

“That the subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.”
English Bill of Rights December 16,1689
L. W. Levy “Origins of the Bill of Rights”

“...it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it [government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Declaration of Independence
Philadelphia 1776

“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.”
2nd article of amendment
U.S. Constitution




                                         ARMS, PROPERTY, PREEXISTENCE
     


The states as conceived under the Constitution have the immediate affections and sympathies of the people.  Central government residing in its Republican form has no sense of immediacy in so far as its affections are to the people.  It is the aggregation of the states and their autonomies in balance that constitutes federal government.  Because of this, it is the collective assemblage of a people to a region replete with its culture, laws, and traditions that constitute a state.  Therefore to assure the security of a state, in its autonomy, the right to keep and bear arms is a precondition necessary to that.  It is necessarily important to parse the phrase “keep and bear” to arrive at a proper understanding of the “IInd”.  The right to “keep” arms is the right, first and foremost, to keep property.  This right of property is concurrently recognized in the “takings” provisions of the “Vth” amendment,”...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
     The Framers at the Constitutional convention believed in natural law rights.  Edmund Randolph a proponent of natural rights advocated that natural rights were possessed by all individuals in a state of nature before they were first gathered into a politic society.  All men are born equally free and independent and have inalienable rights that when they gather into a politic society they must protect and preserve by a constitution in government for their posterity.  These natural rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and safety, and are held in a man himself as his property also.  It may be said that a man has a property in his rights and rights in his property.   Therefore, the right to “keep” property that is maintained to protect one’s life and property is fundamental to preserving and protecting an individual’s natural law rights.  Keeping property that protects an individual’s life and property assists in maintaining the state with the affections of the people.  The common understanding of “bearing” arms in the context of the “IInd” is to bear arms in the preservation of the good order and discipline of the state, maintaining its continuity of laws and governance, the rights of its citizens and inhabitants inviolate, the integrity of its borders uncontested, and recognized in its autonomy.  Coequal with the right to keep property is the right to bear arms maintaining the right of the state to its freedom through security.  The rights to “keep and bear” are conjunctive in the “IInd”.
     As much a right to property the “IInd” is “prima facie” of the prefix phrase “...well regulated militia...” a recognition of the autonomy of the states.  The enunciation of right  goes to the “people“ and not the State; therefore it exists independently irrespective of militias and States.  Militias are armed only because the people are armed and possess the right to be armed. this specification of “the right of the people” is flatly stated no less than four times as amendments to the formal Constitution, the “Ist”, “IInd”, “IVth”, and “IXth” Amendments.  Madison and the Framers correctly understood that rights applied to the people and not to the states.  In protection of “the right/s of the people “ it was necessary that the State maintain its security.
     The Madison construction of the “IInd” starkly points out the collective right of the States, as a matter of necessity, to also have militias.  The historical record “a priori” the Philadelphia convention shows that the states were Peloponnesian in character and in instances had engaged each other in open war over any number of issues, borders and territory not the least of motives.  Relationships between the states were very unsettled, chaotic in many instances; the explicit wording and detailed listing of unqualified prohibitions placed on the states in Article 1:10 of the formal Constitution illustrates this reality.
     Madison and the Framers realized that regardless of the mode of government both State and the general [Federal] governments were “in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.“ #46
Therefore, the purpose of citizen armies, militias, in each of the States not only maintained the States in their security individually with each other but also presented a formidable combination collectively to the potential of an unchecked rapacity and despotism of a general government, a condition from which they had lately escaped and to which they earnestly desired themselves and their posterity not to return, and is “ipso facto” a recognition of the autonomy of the States.
     In a brilliantly worded expose’, Federalist #46, Madison put the rationale for the civil right to bear arms and the concurrent necessity of the militia squarely before the first session of Congress and for as yet unknown generations of Americans to come:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments [the States], to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, form a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
In the end the “IInd” is an elegant extrapolation of the architecture of Republican checks and balances impressed on the States.    

     When the “IInd” was proposed and ratified as a part of the “Bill” there was a general fear and mistrust of central government.  This past mistrust in light of its historical context has been misinterpreted by some as a theoretical right to insurrection, and rebellion.   The Formal Constitution states in its articles clearly that treason against the United States would consist in taking up arms and levying war against them.  In a clear and unmistakable counter to this notion, the Supreme Court in 1951 articulated in Dennis .v. United States that though there might be a hypothetical value in the proposition that a “right” to revolution exists against a dictatorial government, that right “... is without force where the existing structure of government provides for peaceful and orderly change.”  The Court further added,
“We reject any principle of government helplessness in the face of preparations for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy.” *
 
             






                         NOT A CALL TO REVOLUTION BUT TO THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING
                                                         Polemic to the Court
                                               re: Dennis .v. United States 1951

     The right of the people to overthrow the government through “alteration” or “abolition” exists as a primitive right of the people expressed in the blunt force words of the “Declaration”.  This statement presumes that men have the natural right of defending themselves and avenging wrongs; therefore a presumption is made that people individually are armed or generally possess the unhindered capacity to be armed.  That men have the property of self defense is self evident, the reality of which indisputably exists as a demonstrated fact in nature on a daily basis from the pygmy bush man of the veldt to the home dweller of the metropolitan jungle living behind barred doors and windows where even the powers of the police dare not tread.  Taken from their first state of nature, that men collectively have the right of avenging wrongs, of avenging  the wrongs of  grasping despotic governments through “abolition” there is likewise a primitive right stated in the ”Declaration”.  That right is primitive because it is first, pure and undiluted existing as a catalyst to change and in itself is unchanged;  it is first because it is fundamental, and has been demonstrated as fact in practical matters of politics, “in extremis”, throughout all of recorded human history from Julius Caesar to the continuum created by the Fourth of July, therefore it is not theoretical, hypothetical or conjectural; it is actual.
     Men being armed and possessed of their rights to defend themselves and avenge wrongs it follows then that from this, the devolved right of keeping and bearing arms is pristine and the first and dearest of all of our American Freedoms because when everything else fails as it can and men cannot any longer avail themselves of established legal remedies, even in the continuum of a Representative Republic, the right to keep and bear arms can absolutely guarantee that men can live in safety free from fear.  It is the one right upon which all other devolved rights hinge and can be said to exist at all.  

* “Origins of the Bill of Rights”
Levy


Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2006, 02:08:57 PM »
Sure, it is always a right but is that the logical thing to do?
Revolutions happen every day and who can stop them if enough people get together, but it is a very bloody venture and not one that is siezed overnight.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
the "IInd" a reply
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2006, 12:50:06 PM »
Revolutions are never begun overnight; they are precipitated down through time by a train of abuses that eventually precipitate a rise to arms by a populace that feels itself agrieved.
This expose' is not a call to revolution, as some would take it.  It is a primer for anyone interested to not only give a rationale for the right to keep and bear but to also develop the history of the right to keep and bear.  If you listen to any of your acquaintances develop and discuss any topic, not just the right to keep and bear, you will find that far too many people will debate vehemently without the slightest knwoledge of the hsitory involved.
The best to You and yours

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline magooch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6644
explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2006, 03:15:11 AM »
All of the historical justifications and rationales for the 2nd Amendment are fine and dandy, but I sure wish the fellas who wrote the thing would have been just a little more direct.  That part about the miltia could and should have been left out.
Swingem

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
missing thepoint
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2006, 04:02:07 AM »
"couldof should of" begs the point and does not lead to an understanding of the "IInd".  
The "IInd" is an  elegant extrapolation by Madison and the Framers of checks and balances:the people among themselves, the people facing the state, the states facing each other, and the states facing the general[read as federal here] government.  You're darn right it is in and well in, because the whole thing makes no sense without it and is harder to justify.


Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline Brett

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5148
  • Gender: Male
explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2006, 04:33:45 AM »
At the time of it's writing a 'militia' was understood to be comprised of the common folk, not a standing army, National Guard or organized police force.  Thow some don't care to admit it this fact is evident elsewhere in the document as well as in many other historic documents of the period.  How could the writers have known that the meaning of the word 'militia' would be morphed over time to mean anything other than the general populace? They could not have foreseen that anymore than they could have foreseen that the words 'cool' and 'bad' would be used today to describe something that is attractive or good as in;  'Fred has a really cool car with a bad set of dual exhaust pipes.'
Life memberships:  <><, NRA, BASS, NAFC

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
almost!!!
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2006, 05:11:03 AM »
'My boyo"
You're almost there


Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2006, 03:10:17 PM »
I appreciate the information. With those who know me, my point has been made, but there will be new ones in the future & every additional piece of
info. helps.

Thanks
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline magooch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6644
explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2006, 03:24:25 AM »
The point is that you shouldn't have to justify the right to keep and bear arms in the land of liberty.  In fact, it should be an unspoken right; just as breathing air, or feeling the warmth of the sun is not delineated in a document of law.  

Maybe my sentiments are a bit too idealogic for modern society, but I feel that liberty and freedom are so basic and that the only useful guarantor of sustaining one's God given rights is to have the means to do so on an idividual basis.  Of course, common sense has to obtain.  Individuals probably don't need a nuclear weapon to secure their liberty, but almost anything short of that could be useful.  Again, it's the difference between scratching your butt and tearing a hole in it.
Swingem

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
2 Magooch
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2006, 06:53:49 AM »
By God, Sir
You are there


Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline Daks

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2006, 11:47:13 PM »
When we talk about using the 2A in a revolution or defending ourselves against a tyrannical state, we come across as dangerous nut cases. No one I know of who isn't already convinced of that line of reasoning gets convinced by that argument. It is a nonstarter in my view. People just don't think about government in that fashion any more and folks who bring up that idea sound a lot like those militia men out in Montana some years ago.

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
explaining the "IInd"righttokeep/
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2006, 01:24:08 PM »
I agree that many would view it this way, sadly this is the case. It is equally true that many of these conditioned by the gov. folks have no
grasp of the constitution or anything that the Founders believed & said.

However they could tell you exactly what is going on with American Idol.
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.