The Ninth Circuit Circus Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 on June 10 that the 2nd Amendment never protected the right to carry concealed weapons. Of course it did until the 1840s, when state courts began restricting concealed carry, arguing that the right to carry was not being infringed if one could carry openly.
The majority on the 9th Circus determined that the California concealed-carry permit law – the state’s law requiring concealed carry permit petitioners show “good cause” to receive a permit was the law being challenged – did not infringe on Californians’ 2nd Amendment rights because the 2nd Amendment does not include the right to carry concealed.
So Californians should just carry openly, then.
But laws that require a person “show cause” to exercise a right are capricious and arbitrary. They do nothing to deter criminals from carrying weapons in secret and make criminals out of people who have no criminal intent.
Just a couple of weeks later, in the wake of the Orlando Pulse Nightclub false flag shooting, President Barack Obama, presidential candidate SHillary Clinton and their Fabian Marxist, gun-grabbing , totalitarian cadre (including some pseudo-conservatives) launched into a full-on gun-grab assault on the people.
The mantra from the gun-grabbing crowd is that no one “needs” to have what the gun grabbers have termed an “assault weapon.” The term “assault weapon” is a fictional term with no real meaning as it’s based on cosmetic standards set arbitrarily by the political class.
And the notion that a class of people who obtained their positions based on the sole qualifications that they have a superior ability to con people out of their money and could finish first in a popularity contest have the moral authority to determine what other people “need” is ludicrous.
In other words, the whole of the gun grabbers’ argument is fiction based on double-speak and argle-bargle. Gun laws will not reduce crime and have the sole purpose of enslaving the populace. And the gun grabbers admit it. Here’s what Congressman Henry “Ratface” Waxman (Communist-California) said on MSNBC in 2001:
If [gun owners] are militia people who think they’re going to defend America from Americans by having these weapons, and using them for that purpose, I don’t think they ought to have them… If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!
So what did the Consitution’s framers have in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment? It reads:
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.
Gun grabbers love to focus on the opening clause, “well regulated Milita.” Their claim is that those words restrict the right to own weapons to the militia.
So what did the Founders mean when they penned and approved those words? As Thomas Jefferson suggested in a letter to William Johnson, “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.”
According to An American Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. II by Noah Webster, published in 1828, the definition of “regulated” is this: “adjusted by rule, method or forms, put in good order, subjected to rules or restrictions.”
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives one more definition dating from 1690 and relating to troops: “properly disciplined.”
So well regulated, to the Founders, meant a group of troops put in good order and properly disciplined. So who were these troops?
The word “militia” is a Latin abstract noun meaning “military service,” not an “armed group,” and that is how the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term for army or soldiery was “volgus militum.” So they did not mean a standing army or a regular national guard.
The Militia Act of 1792 further defines it as the whole people, particularly, “every able-bodied man” from age 18 to 45.
Remember that the Founding Fathers had just participated in a bloody revolution. They feared a standing army. When there was a need for an “army,” men came from the surrounding area, bringing whatever weapons they possessed, to be led by a man or men with previous military service. Sometimes the State provided them with weapons, ammunition, horses, etc., if they did not have their own.
As Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts put it: “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.”
In his An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787, Webster wrote: “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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
Tench Coxe described the militia this way: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
In a speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, George Mason said: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves … and include… all men capable of bearing arms. … The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle,” wrote Richard Lee as The Federal Farmer.
“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it,” Lee also wrote.
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” said Patrick Henry during the Virgina Ratifying Convention.
It’s clear the Founders intended that everyone be armed — not just for hunting or for self-defense, which were givens, but to protect themselves from tyranny.
Finally, what is meant by “infringed”? Again, back to An American Dictionary of the English Language, this time Volume I:
“Infringed—Broken; violated; transgressed.”
Further, infringe is defined: “To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done. To break to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as to infringe a law. To destroy or hinder; as to infringe efficacy.”
Liberty lovers should see the 2nd Amendment as inviolate. Not only will the laws being proposed by the gun grabbers infringe on the 2nd Amendment; but many, if not most, of the laws already on the books infringe on the Amendment as well.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant Americans the “right to keep and bear arms.” That right is held by all at birth. What it does is acknowledge that right and restrict any infringement upon it by government.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights was written to restrain government, not the people.
The post Guns and the Founding Fathers appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/guns-and-the-founding-fathers/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/guns-and-the-founding-fathers/
No comments:
Post a Comment