The Right

The Right

   According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary the word "Right", as employed and understood by the men that framed our Constitution, means:
RIGHT, adjective rite. [Latin rectus, from the root of rego, properly to strain or stretch, whence straight.]
Properly; strained; stretched to straightness; hence,
1. Straight. A right line in geometry is the shortest line that can be drawn or imagined between two points. A right line may be horizontal, perpendicular, or inclined to the plane of the horizon.
2. In morals and religion, just; equitable; accordant to the standard of truth and justice or the will of God. That alone is right in the sight of God, which is consonant to his will or law; this being the only perfect standard of truth and justice. In social and political affairs, that is right which is consonant to the laws and customs of a country, provided these laws and customs are not repugnant to the laws of God. A man's intentions may be right though his actions may be wrong in consequence of a defect in judgment.
3. Fit; suitable; proper; becoming. In things indifferent, or which are regulated by no positive law, that is right which is best suited to the character, occasion or purpose, or which is fitted to produce some good effect. It is right for a rich man to dress himself and his family in expensive clothing, which it would not be right for a poor man to purchase. It is right for every man to choose his own time for eating or exercise.
RIGHT is a relative term; what may be right for one end, may be wrong for another.
4. Lawful; as the right heir of an estate.
5. True; not erroneous or wrong; according to fact.
If there be no prospect beyond the grave, the inference is certainly right 'let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'
6. Correct; passing a true judgment; not mistaken or wrong.
You are right justice, and you weigh this well.
7. Not left; most convenient or dextrous; as the right hand, which is generally most strong or most convenient in use.
8. Most favorable or convenient.
The lady has been disappointed on the right side.
9. Properly placed, disposed or adjusted; orderly; well regulated.
10. Well performed, as an art or act.
11. Most direct; as the right way from London to Oxford.
12. Being on the same side as the right hand; as the right side.
13. Being on the right hand of a person whose face is towards the mouth of a river; as the right bank of the Hudson.
RIGHT, adverb
1. In a right or straight line; directly.
Let thine eyes look right on. Proverbs 4:11.
2. According to the law or will of God, or to the standard of truth and justice; as, to judge right
3. According to any rule of art.
You with strict discipline instructed right
4. According to fact or truth; as, to tell a story right
5. In a great degree; very; as right humble; right noble; right valiant. [Obsolescent or inelegant.]
6. It is prefixed to titles; as in right honorable; right reverend.
RIGHT, is used elliptically for it is right what you say is right it is true, etc.
RIGHT, cries his lordship.
On the right on the side with the right hand.
RIGHT, noun
1. Conformity to the will of God, or to his law, the perfect standard of truth and justice. In the literal sense, right is a straight line of conduct, and wrong a crooked one. right therefore is rectitude or straightness, and perfect rectitude is found only in an infinite Being and his will.
2. Conformity to human laws, or to other human standard of truth, propriety or justice. When laws are definite, right and wrong are easily ascertained and understood. In arts, there are some principles and rules which determine what is right In many things indifferent, or left without positive law, we are to judge what is right by fitness or propriety, by custom, civility or other circumstances.
3. Justice; that which is due or proper; as, to do right to every man.
Long love to her has borne the faithful knight, and well deserv'd had fortune done him right
4. Freedom from error; conformity with truth or fact.
Seldom your opinions err, your eyes are always in the right
5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.
6. Just claim by courtesy, customs, or the principles of civility and decorum. Every man has a right to civil treatment. The magistrate has a right to respect.
7. Just claim by sovereignty; prerogative. God, as the author of all things, has a right to govern and dispose of them at his pleasure.
8. That which justly belongs to one.
Born free, he sought his right
9. Property; interest.
A subject in his prince may claim a right
10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.
11. Authority; legal power. We have no right to disturb others in the enjoyment of their religious opinions.
12. In the United States, a tract of land; or a share or proportion of property, as in a mine or manufactory.
13. The side opposite to the left; as on the right Look to the right
1. To rights, in a direct line; straight. [Unusual.]
2. Directly; soon.
To set to rights,
To put to rights, to put into good order; to adjust; to regulate what is out of order.
Bill of rights, a list of rights; a paper containing a declaration of rights, or the declaration itself.
Writ of right a writ which lies to recover lands in fee simple, unjustly withheld from the true owner.
RIGHT, verb transitive
1. To do justice to; to relieve from wrong; as, to right an injured person.
2. In seamen's language, to right a ship, is to restore her to an upright position from a careen.
To right the helm, to place it in the middle of the ship.
RIGHT, verb intransitive To rise with the masts erect, as a ship.

    "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."--John Dickenson and Thomas Jefferson, Continental Congress, July 6, 1775. Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms

    "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78


George Mason -
    "Virginia delegate George Mason wrote, "The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree." Mason had earlier written the Virginia Declaration of Rights that strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence. He left the convention bitterly disappointed, however, and became one of the Constitution's most vocal opponents. "It has no declaration of rights," he was to state. Ultimately, George Mason's views prevailed.

    "Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.

    "When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights."
   - From; 'A Voice of Dissent: George Mason, (Bill of Rights, National Archives Experience).
   "Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper."--James Madison, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 8 June, 21 July, 13, 18--19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424--50, 661--65, 707--17, 757--59, 766.

The Second Amendment, (1)(2)
as enumerated in The Bill of Rights(3),
and attached to The United States Constitution(4);
"to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:"
 . . . "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,


   The additional enumeration of this specific Right was insisted upon by the Anti-Federalists, particularly George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and others(5), during the Framing of the Constitution. Their argument was so convincing, that Mr. Madison, (who had been operating under the impression that such a Bill was not necessary), was finally pursuaded to agree.

    Patrick Henry:
    "The means, says the gentleman, (Mr. Madison), must be commensurate to the end. How does this apply? All things in common are left with this government. There being an infinitude in the government, there must be an infinitude of means to carry it on. This is a sort of mathematical government that may appear well on paper, but cannot sustain examination, or be safely reduced to practice. The delegation of power to an adequate number of representatives, and an unimpeded reversion of it back to the people, at short periods, form the principal traits of a republican government. The idea of a republican government, in that paper, is something superior to the poor people. The governing persons are the servants of the people. There, the servants are greater than their masters; because it includes infinitude, and infinitude excludes every idea of subordination. In this the creature has destroyed and soared above the creator. For if its powers be infinite, what rights have the people remaining? By that very argument, despotism has made way in all countries where the people unfortunately have been enslaved by it. We are told, the sword and purse are necessary for the national defence. The junction of these, without limitation, in the same hands, is, by logical and mathematical conclusions, the description of despotism."--Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/14/1788)
    "That paper ought to have declared the common law in force." (Which, indeed later it did - Amendment VII)--Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788).

    "...Again, a large part of the advantages enjoyed by one who has a RIGHT are NOT created by the law. The law does NOT enable me to use or abuse this book which lies before me. That is a physical power which I have without the aid of the law. What the law does is simply to PREVENT other men to a greater or less extent from INTERFEREING with my use or abuse. And this analysis and example APPLY to the case of POSSESSION, as well as to OWNERSHIP."

    "Such being the DIRECT WORKING of the LAW in the case of possession, one would think that the ANIMUS or INTENT most nearly parallel to its movement would be the intent of which we are in search. If what the law does is to EXCLUDE others from INTERFERING with the object, it would seem that the intent which the law should require is an INTENT to EXCLUDE others. I believe that such an INTENT is ALL that Common Law deems needful, and that on PRINCIPLE no more should be REQUIRED."--Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law - LECTURE VI., POSSESSION. PARA. 27 Sent. 9-13

    "As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."--James Madison, National Gazette Essay, 27 March 1792

   "These are prohibited by your declaration of rights."--Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788).

     "In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present, and proceed to state such acts and measures as have been adopted since the last war, which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America."

    "Resolved, N.C.D. That the following acts of Parliament are infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists; and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary in order to restore harmony between Great Britain and the American colonies, viz.:"

    "The several acts of 4 Geo. 3, ch. 15, and ch. 34. -- 5 Geo. 3, ch. 25. -- 6 Geo. 3, ch. 52. -- 7 Geo. 3, ch. 41, and ch. 46. -- 8 Geo. 3, ch. 22, which impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend the powers of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize the judges' certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to, requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships and goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend his property, and are subversive of American rights."

    - DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS: RESOLUTIONS OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, OCTOBER 14, 1774.(See also; The Rights of the Colonists - I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men, Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772).

    "They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."--Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788).

    "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."--Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833.

Richard Henry Lee:
"Those essential RIGHTS of mankind without which LIBERTY cannot exist."
James Madison:
    "It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of EVERY MEMBER of the community, ANY apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to DEPRIVE them of the LIBERTY for which they VALIANTLY FOUGHT and HONORABLY BLED. And if there are Amendments desired of such a nature as will NOT INJURE the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give SATISFACTION to the DOUBTING part of OUR FELLOW-CITIZENS, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that SPIRIT of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished....We ought NOT TO DISREGARD their inclination, but, on PRINCIPLES of amity and moderation, CONFORM to their wishes, and EXPRESSLY DECLARE THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND SECURED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION."--Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, (8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18-19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424-50, 661-65, 707-17, 757-59, 766 [8 June]).

   (Thank you! Gentlemen, one and all!)


   The First proposition is; that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural, Unalienable, and Inherent Right. A Right ENDOWED to man by GOD (6). That the Right had already been declared, accepted and secured. And, it was held as being 'self-evident':

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."--homas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

    "[September 9, 1774]9th. The Comee. met, agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature, the Principles of the english Constitution & Charters & Compacts; ordered a Sub. Comee. to draw up a State of Rights."--Samuel Ward's Diary, Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 1

    "The Declaration of Independence...[is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, 1819
    I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men;

    "Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

    All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

    When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

    Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

    All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity."

    ""Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, [418]as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former."

    "In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.

    In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.

    [419] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."

    "In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation."

    "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."--Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, (November 20, 1772).

    "It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the Constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption...."

    "In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature."--James Madison, June 8, 1789 House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 8 June, 21 July, 13, 18--19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424--50, 661--65, 707--17, 757--59, 766.
    "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."--St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)

    "Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."--John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763

    "I here close my examination into those natural rights, which, in my humble opinion, it is the business of civil government to protect, and not to subvert, and the exercise of which it is the duty of civil government to enlarge, and not to restrain. I go farther; and now proceed to show, that in peculiar instances, in which those rights can receive neither protection nor reparation from civil government, they are, notwithstanding its institution, entitled still to that defence, and to those methods of recovery, which are justified and demanded in a state of nature.

    "The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."--James Wilson, from a series of lectures given between 1790 and 1792, 'Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', in 2 The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).

    “The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature's laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency.

    “The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction.

    “This law, or right reason, as Cicero calls it, is thus beautifully described by that eloquent philosopher. "It is, indeed," says he, "a true law, conformable to nature, diffused among all men, unchangeable, eternal. By its commands, it calls men to their duty: by its prohibitions, it deters them from vice. To diminish, to alter, much more to abolish this law, is a vain attempt. Neither by the senate, nor by the people, can its powerful obligation be dissolved. It requires no interpreter or commentator. It is not one law at Rome, another at Athens; one law now, another hereafter: it is the same eternal and immutable law, given at all times and to all nations: for God, who is its author and promulgator, is always the sole master and sovereign of mankind."--James Wilson, [The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L.L.D.; Chap. III Of the Law of Nature]. Mr. Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence  and the U.S. Constitution.  In addition he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
   "Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1797

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."--Preamble to the United States Constitution.

   "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."--Patrick Henry

   " unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 1824, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., 16:48.


   There is no indication, from any available source of authoritive information, that specifies that man was given power over the laws of nature. In fact, all reliable and readily accepted information, seems to indicate exactly the opposite to be the truth. Furthermore, this is clearly more indicative of an attempt by those whom seek Gun Control, to undermine the whole basis for the Foundation of our Union.

   Secondly; since the Federalist Papers were the method used by the Framers, to 'sell' the idea of a Constitutional Federal Republic to We The People(7). And that the  aforementioned Constitution is the framework of a CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT(S) between the officers of the government and the governed. This then makes the Federalist Papers part and parcel of the COMPACT, (Constitution), as it provides the clear intentions of the framers. For it was the means used to effect the sale of the 'new' form of government to We the People. Therefore, the Principles contained in the Federalist Papers, demand adherence to those Precepts(8). By those in the government, who are acting on behalf of We The People. To Wit:
    Dear Sir,

    ...I have looked with attention over your intended proposal of a text book for the Law School. It is certainly very material that the true doctrines of liberty, as exemplified in our Political System, should be inculcated on those who are to sustain and may administer it. It is, at the same time, not easy to find standard books that will be both guides & guards for the purpose. Sidney & Locke are admirably calculated to impress on young minds the right of Nations to establish their own Governments, and to inspire a love of free ones; but afford no aid in guarding our Republican Charters against constructive violations. The Declaration of Independence, tho’ rich in fundamental principles, and saying every thing that could be said in the same number of words, falls nearly under a like observation. The "Federalist" may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal Constitution, as understood by the Body which prepared & the Authority which accepted it. Yet it did not foresee all the misconstructions which have occurred; nor prevent some that it did foresee. And what equally deserves remark, neither of the great rival Parties have acquiesced in all its comments. It may nevertheless be admissible as a School book, if any will be that goes so much into detail. It has been actually admitted into two Universities, if not more—those of Harvard and Rhode Island; but probably at the choice of the Professors, without any injunction from the superior authority. With respect to the Virginia Document of 1799, there may be more room for hesitation. Tho’ corresponding with the predominant sense of the Nation; being of local origin & having reference to a state of Parties not yet extinct, an absolute prescription of it, might excite prejudices against the University as under Party Banners, and induce the more bigoted to withhold from it their sons, even when destined for other than the studies of the Law School. It may be added that the Document is not on every point satisfactory to all who belong to the same Party. Are we sure that to our brethren of the Board it is so? In framing a political creed, a like difficulty occurs as in the case of religion tho’ the public right be very different in the two cases. If the Articles be in very general terms, they do not answer the purpose; if in very particular terms, they divide & exclude where meant to unite & fortify. The best that can be done in our case seems to be, to avoid the two extremes, by referring to selected Standards without requiring an unqualified conformity to them, which indeed might not in every instance be possible. The selection would give them authority with the Students, and might controul or counteract deviations of the Professor. I have, for your consideration, sketched a modification of the operative passage in your draught, with a view to relax the absoluteness of its injunction, and added to your list of Documents the Inaugural Speech and the Farewell Address of President Washington. They may help down what might be less readily swallowed, and contain nothing which is not good; unless it be the laudatory reference in the Address to the Treaty of 1795 with Great Britain which ought not to weigh against the sound sentiments characterizing it.

    After all, the most effectual safeguard against heretical intrusions into the School of Politics, will be an Able & Orthodox Professor, whose course of instruction will be an example to his successors, and may carry with it a sanction from the Visitors.

    Affectionately yours.


    And on the distinctive principles of the Government of our own State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in—1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of Union of these States. 2. The book known by the title of the "Federalist," being an Authority to which appeal is habitually made by all & rarely declined or denied by any, as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed & those who accepted the Constitution of the United States on questions as to its genuine meaning. 3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799, on the subject of the Alien & Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the U.S. 4. The Inaugural Speech & Farewell Address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value; and that in the branch of the School of law which is to treat on the subject of Government, these shall be used as the text & documents of the School.--James Madison, February 8, 1825 letter to Thomas Jefferson.

    "The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).


   Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #28 declared:
    "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, (Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!), without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."

Separation of Intentions and Purposes;

Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
    "The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"

     "Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:"
   There are TWO distinctly separate clauses in the Second Amendment. With each clause having different INTENTIONS assigned to it, in its purposes(9). The two clauses spell out Vital Principles to which the government, at ALL levels(10), MUST adhere. This FACT is PROVEN in the preamble of the Bill of Rights, which states "that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added". And the reasoning for the aforementioned additions are found in the preamble as well; "and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution".

   The first Principle shows the method used by the state(s) to secure Freedom and Liberty for we the people, by use of a regulated and practiced means - the Militia. The reasoning for this, was to secure the state(s) from internal/external faction(s)/Dangers upto and including usurpations that may emanate from the federal level(11). As well as the threat that may emanate from foreign sources.

   First Clause, The State Militia;

DECLARATORY clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

   The First portion of the Amendment outlines the continuous need for there to be state(s) Militia, rather than a standing army. For, the Framers of the Constitution, perceived a standing army as being 'the bane of liberty'. And that the state(s) Militia, made up of the whole body of the People, would be the effective 'check' against any national standing army that might be raised, under any pretense. This Principle was applied to the state(s)(12), as well as the federal level(13). The clear intent was to provide the means for the People, should either the state(s) or federal government become usurpers. To enable the People to 'throw their weight', in with the side of Right, and thusly crush the attempted usurpation(s) (14). The Delegated authority to Congress, for Regulation of the Militia, is provided in the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8.
    "Mr. MADISON thought the regulation of the militia naturally appertaining to the authority charged with the public defence...."--August 18. (1787), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5]

Second Clause, The Right of The People;

RESTRICTIVE clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

   The Second portion of the Amendment is a statement of FACT or REALITY. This is the portion of the amendment in which the aforementioned restrictive clause applies. Laying out for ALL to see, that the Natural Right, endowed by their Creator(15), was just that - A RIGHT. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is a Guarantee that the government, at ANY level, could NEVER use ANY pretense as justification for DISARMING We the People. Rather, that it is the DUTY of government to SECURE this RIGHT. That this RIGHT is the Second Principle within the Amendment. And outlines the continual necessity of We the People to Keep and Bear Arms for maintaining our OWN Freedom and Liberty.  And this, was intended as a Defense from ANY source of Danger arising against We The People. And furthermore, that this Principle was preexisting, (16)(17)(18), to the framing of the Constitution.

   The intention of the Principle is made quite clear by the use of the word infringed, by the Framers. For the definition of the word infringed is; to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. The strictness implied, by use of the words SHALL NOT, provides further clarity as to their intentions(19). In addition, the Intention of the Principle, as it applies to the government, in restraining the states/federal. Was also Intended as a restraint against a misguided People as well!(20). It cannot be stressed to strongly, that in FACT, it is the DUTY of the government to SECURE this Right(s).

   The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms stands alone as an entirely seperate clause. With clear restriction against the Right being Infringed upon.  The only connection with the Militia, is that the people would join forces with their state Militia, in order to fight an Usurping federal. Or join the federal in fighting an Usurping state(s) militia. The citizen is not required to be in the Militia to exercise their God-given natural Right.

   However, the fact that the placement of the Principles, in such close proximity with one another. In such a way, so as it appears to most, that they were misconstrued to be one Principle. Provides the Founders intent of how closely United we should be as a People. That each citizens security was based upon the equal protection of their fellow citizens security. Genius! Perhaps a little to much so.

   The following excerpt from the U.S. Senate proves the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
    “...On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words, 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'"

    “It passed in the negative."

    “On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words, 'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'"

    “It passed in the affirmative."

    “On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows: 'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"

    “It passed in the affirmative....”

    - Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789.
   To further prove this point, consider the following:
    "...Sec. 18. And be it further enacted, That inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain inalienable rights, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment, therefore no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust; no law shall be in force or enforced in said Territory respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances; 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 warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized; nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed...."

    "...It was determined in the affirmative...."


    - Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, July 8, 1856.
   The Framers concisely and irrefutably outlined, three crucial elements for the Preservation of Freedom and Liberty;

1) There would arise occasion for the need of a National standing army, (Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy). This force would be necessary for the DEFENSE of the Union,(21) (offensive use was deeply frowned upon, even for supposed just causes). However, it was plainly indicated that it should NEVER become a force so formidable as to present a DANGER TO LIBERTY(22). As there was a definite fear, by the Framers, that a standing army had the propensity of being dangerous to the Freedoms and Liberties of We the People. 

2) Bearing in mind, the TRUTH found in element NO. 1. The ways and means to enable the state(s) to form an effective 'check', (State(s) National Guard), against foreign OR domestic threat(s) proved necessary. For if the federal level EVER became Tyrannical, the state(s) would need the militia as well as the backing of We the People. AN ARMED PEOPLE(23). And this, because a Tyrannical usurpation could emanate from the federal source on a local, state(s) or national scale. From wherever troops might be based. (This is one of the reasons for the Third 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).

3) The TRUTH(S), found in elements NO. 1 and NO. 2, show it was equally necessary for We the People to be armed to be able to join the side fighting the Tyrannical usurpation(s) that may arise from either the federal or state(s). In addition, for use as defense against Foreign enemy invaders. Furthermore, the Citizens were to be ARMED, AS the military was armed, for WE THE PEOPLE are a CRUCIAL aspect in the overall plan of Defense. And We MUST be LIKE ARMED, as the military, for The People TO BE ENABLED TO EFFECTIVELY repel any army being employed by a Tyrannical government.

   This was the PLAN that was AGREED to, by the states joining the Union and by the federal. Both levels of government, which are intended to act as the Representatives of We the People. And both levels are BOUND by the Republican Principles of government. The plan is not subject to arbitrary or democratic rules, for it is  based on Republican Foundation Principles. And, as Mr. Samuel Adams indicated earlier, "they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact." It is The Right of We The People!
    "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819


(The rigor of the law is the height of oppression).


(Common error repeated many times makes law).

    "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, 31 October 1823
   The reckless disregard of the Right of We the People to Keep and Bear Arms was brought about by varying conditions. And in response to those conditions, incorrect and Constitutionally illegal methods were employed to bring about supposed solutions to those conditions, (A.K.A. - REAL LIFE).

   There appear to be three direct underlying root causes given as justification(s) for these Infringment(s);


   This emotion can be held out as being the most significant contributor to the reckless disregard shown by many of the states as well as the federal government. And in large part, this fear was motivated by actual historical occurences, (Civil War, Old West 'Gunfighters', 'Gangsters', Political Assassinations, etc.), which gave seemingly plausible excuses for the Infringement(s). However plausible the excuses, it does not provide justification for the Constitutionally Repugnant Usurpations(s) that have been inflicted. This fear emanated from some of the people as well, provoking the government to cross the boundries placed on it.


   As our country has grown, so did criminal activity. Which brought about the necessity for Law Enforcement. This in turn, caused the People to develop an ill conceived reliance upon Law Enforcement in providing for defense. This reliance upon Law Enforcement, by the People, was misguided. For the court(s) have held that the defense of  the individual is NOT the responsibility of the government. The court(s) have held that the governments Constitutional responsibilities are to provide for the Common Defense. Thus leaving the individual to fend for themselves in matters of defense of life or property. There is foundation for the 'Common Defense' ruling(s) by the court, for it is plainly stipulated in our Founding document(s). This misconception has caused many to become lazy in providing for their own defense. As well as creating a false dependence upon government to provide personal protection it is not empowered to provide. The people have historically defended their own Right to Life and Property. As well as taking care to perform their civic and moral duty of taking part in the defense of others in their communities. (Which was one of the clear intentions of the Founders for the Militia). This has been the accepted natural and normal course of civilian life since the beginning of time.

   Should the perversion, of the Original Intent of the Framers continue; we will be left with a Police State. Governed by Arbitrary Rule. Much like what we are witnessing currently. Only, as has been historically proven, there IS the propensity for the situation to become far worse.


   For many different reasons, chief of which can be held out as monetary, lawyers have played the major role in providing the justifications used for the Infringements. Whether the lawyer is wearing the badge of an attorney or that of a politician.

   By the introduction of various UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws and ordinances, that were supposedly intended to curb violence. Or, by bringing suits against citizens, on behalf of an alleged criminal or family of the alleged criminal. For the wounding or killing of the aforementioned alledged criminal. Thus acting as a repellent to the idea of exercising the Right of Defense out of fear of financial ruin.

   The above assertion, should in no way be misconstrued as meaning that there are NOT valid uses for lawyers. For there are cases, in which self-defense is claimed as just cause, but in reality were criminal in their nature. Whether by malice aforethought, unjust use of a deadly weapon, or conspiracy to commit murder. The latter instances, are ideally the cases, in which the court rightfully enters into these type matters.

   Here is what Mr. John Jay, (The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, nominated by President George Washington), had to state in an address dated October 11-18? 1774 to the People of Great Britain and Ireland:
    "...It has been already observed that the ostensible reasons which have been assigned for this Attempt to destroy natural, constitutional, chartered, and antient rights, is for the purpose of raising a revenue to protect and defend the Colonies, to support Government and the Administration of Justice here and to reimburse Great Britain the Expence of defending the Colonies in the last war. The two former reasons are sufficiently answered by stating the notorious facts, that from the first Settlement of the Colonies until the late War they sustained these Expences themselves...."
   The following help drive home the point as well:
    "Now, in questions of this sort, precedents ought to go for absolutely nothing. The constitution is a collection of fundamental laws, not to be departed from in practice nor altered by judicial decision, and in the construction of it, nothing would be so alarming as the doctrine of communis error, which offers a ready justification for every usurpation that has not been resisted in limine. Instead, therefore, of resting on the fact, that the right in question has universally been assumed by the American courts, the judge who asserts it ought to be prepared to maintain it on the principles of the constitution."--John Bannister Gibson, in dissent in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sergeant and Rawle 330, Pennsylvania 1825
    "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
   Attempts at solving the problem of crime, by the use of Prior Restraint upon law-abiding citizens, is clearly REPUGNANT to the Principles of Our Constitution. INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, remember? There is NO Constitutionally  legal justification for 'Gun Control', PERIOD


   Many of the People across the country, by the use of  perverse law(s). Have been illegally restricted or kept from exercising their Natural, God Given and Constitutionally protected Right and Duty to Keep and Bear Arms. A great many People are now left defenseless by Constitutionally Repugnant Infringements upon their Right and Duty to Keep and Bear Arms. Or fearful to exercise that Right due to the threat of civil lawsuits. This can be construed, in the least, as Gross Negligence on the part of the government(s). And in all actuality, is an USURPATION by the government by adversely effecting the Right to Life and Liberty held by We the People. Regardless of the justifications used for the Infringements, this can be called nothing less than DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. In addition, these Infringments provide a new definition to the word; EVIL.

   After careful examination of the FACTS, it can justly be contended that Gun Control, is against the Law; The Laws of God, The Laws of Nature, and The Laws of Reason. That Gun Control is Constitutionally Repugnant and therefore ILLEGAL.  The ONLY exception being, when a citizen has committed criminal act(s) and is imprisoned. If a citizen is Free, they have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ANYWHERE in this country - WITHOUT RESTRAINT. And that this Right is SUPPOSED to be SECURED by the government, AND NOT INHIBITED IN ANY FASHION.
    "The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion."
    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."--St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803)
    "The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."--By James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', (Signed the Declaration of Indepedence, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice). 1790-1792
   The officials in state governments that are practising these illegal Usurpations are in Violation of the Peoples Contract. The federal government is itself in VIOLATION of the CONTRACT, in two ways.  Firstly; By ALLOWING the passage of UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS on the federal level. Secondly;  By NOT fulfulling its OBLIGATED DUTY in upholding THE LAW OF THE LAND. Which IS The United States Constitution. The framework of We The Peoples CONTRACT, which every state WAS SWORN TO AGREE TO, before being admitted into the Union! This is clear indication that the federal government, at ALL levels, is complicit in these Usurpations! This TRAVESTY of JUSTICE, must be reversed!
     "Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in OPPOSITION to that of The People, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the LATTER rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental.

    "But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

    "It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

    "If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

    "This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, 3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.

    "But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.

    "That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

    "There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

Article VI:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

   It is indicated, in The Federalist Papers, that the people are the Natural Guardians of Our Constitution. And, it is clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights that it is, after all,  THE RIGHT of The People to Keep and Bear Arms. It is therefore within Our Rights to ask. That the fetters, which have been illegally placed on us in its Rightful exercise, be removed.
    "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."--John F. Kennedy,  Jan. 20, 1961.

   The answer to the problem of Violence cannot be found in the REMOVAL of a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT. For that CANNOT be a VIABLE SOLUTION, ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. Rather, the ANSWER is found in the use of EDUCATION in the PROPER USE of ARMS. And by the PUNISHMENT of those who fail to comply with the RIGHTFUL Laws of the Land.
    "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)
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."--Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).
    "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 militia, 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).
   "One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation."--Thomas Jefferson
   Yet again, it cannot be stressed to strongly:
    "These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They MUST be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."--James Madison, Federalist #46

    "Two propositions in our constitutional jurisprudence are no longer debatable. One is that the national government is one of enumerated powers; and the other, that a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself.

    "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. Being a grant of powers to a government, its language is general; and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces in its grasp all new conditions which are within the scope of the powers in terms conferred. In other words, [Page 199 U.S. 437, 449] while the powers granted do not change, they apply from generation to generation to all things to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded. As said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709:

        "'It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.'

    "It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them; putting into form the government they were creating, and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible, the powers that government was to take. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in Gobbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188, 6 L. ed. 23, 68, well declared:

        "'As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.'"--Mr. Justice Brewer deliver[ing] the opinion of the court, U.S. Supreme Court, [South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)]

    "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).

    "It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

    "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

    "But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

    "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84
   It appears that Mr. Hamilton was indeed correct in his assessment....


   To those politicians and businesses responsible for Usurping against Our God-given and Constitutionally Protected Right, there are penalties provided as well:
    "Wilful ABUSES of a PUBLIC AUTHORITY, to the OPPRESSION of the SUBJECT, and EVERY SPECIES of OFFICIAL EXTORTION, (1 : the act or practice of extorting especially money or OTHER property), are OFFENSES AGAINST the government, for which THE PERSONS WHO COMMIT THEM MAY BE INDICTED and PUNISHED according to the circumstances of the case."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83

U.S. CODE: TITLE 18>  PART I> CHAPTER 13> § 242:
Deprivation of rights under color of law

    "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, OR to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
    "But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."--Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
   Once again, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed!



(1) Defined, word for word; Second Amendment Defined

(2) Brief History; The Contended Amendment

(3) Full Document; The Bill of Rights

(4) Full Document; The Constitution of The United States of America

(5)"The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis." - Quote from A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution

[ "Incidit Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdin." (He falls into Scylla's hands who wants to avoid Charybdis; from Homer's Odyssee, about the sea monsters Scylla and Charybdis).]

(6) Origins and Precedent - A comprehensive historical summary of the Right. 

(7) "In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth."

"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

(8) "To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same." They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84

(9)  PARA. VI, final sentence Federalist #29  

(10) "The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents." -  James Madison, Federalist No. 46, PARA I, 4th - 8th Sent.

"Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States." - James Madison, Federalist No. 54

(11) Quotation from Federalist #16; "If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest." (Now, how could one suppose that an UNARMED People would be able to "throw their weight" and be able to effect "a decided preponderancy in the contest"?)

(12) "In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, (Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!), without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28

(13) "The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8

(14) "The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.

"But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

"How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28

(15) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence.

(16) As enumerated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689

(17) The Rights of The Colonists by Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of  Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772

"Dear Brother: Your favour of the 12th. Ulto. came safe to hand a few days ago; by it I gladly learnt that your Family were recover'd of the two complaints which had seized many of them, and confind my Sister. I am very glad to hear also, that the Convention had come to resolutions of Arming the People, and preparing vigorously for the defence of the Colony; which, by the latest accts. from England will prove a salutary Measure. I am also pleasd to find that the Manufactury of Arms and Ammunition have been attended to with so much care; a plenty of these and unanimity and Fortitude among ourselves must defeat every attempt that a diabolical Ministry can Invent to Inslave this great Continent. In the Manufacturing of Arms for Publick use great care should be taken to make the bores of the same size, that the same Balls may answer, otherwise great disadvantages may arise from a mixture of Cartridges." - George Washington,  Oct. 13, 1775 Letter to John Augustine Washington, Camp at Cambridge.

"No Soldier whenever dismissed, is to carry away any Arms with him, that are good, and fit for service, if the Arms are his own private property, they will be appraised, and he will receive the full Value thereof: Proper persons when necessary, will be appointed to inspect, and value, the Arms, so detained." - George Washington, Head Quarters, Cambridge, November 20, 1775. [The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.]

(18) "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." - John Dickenson and Thomas Jefferson, (Continental Congress, Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms July 6, 1775).

(19) "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." - James Madison, Federalist No. 51

"A fifth class of provisions in favor of the federal authority consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several States:....

"....Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society...."

2. "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

"The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor.

"In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors.

"In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.

"In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others.

"In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.

3. "The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

"It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions.

"Several reasons might be assigned for the distinction. I content myself with one, which is obvious and conclusive. The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution. The election of the President and Senate will depend, in all cases, on the legislatures of the several States. And the election of the House of Representatives will equally depend on the same authority in the first instance; and will, probably, forever be conducted by the officers, and according to the laws, of the States...."

"...We have now reviewed, in detail, all the articles composing the sum or quantity of power delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, and are brought to this undeniable conclusion, that no part of the power is unnecessary or improper for accomplishing the necessary objects of the Union. The question, therefore, whether this amount of power shall be granted or not, resolves itself into another question, whether or not a government commensurate to the exigencies of the Union shall be established; or, in other words, whether the Union itself shall be preserved...." - James Madison, Federalist #44

(20) "Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.

"It may be suggested, that a people spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures. I am far from denying that this is a distinction of peculiar importance. I have, on the contrary, endeavored in a former paper to show, that it is one of the principal recommendations of a confederated republic. At the same time, this advantage ought not to be considered as superseding the use of auxiliary precautions. It may even be remarked, that the same extended situation, which will exempt the people of America from some of the dangers incident to lesser republics, will expose them to the inconveniency of remaining for a longer time under the influence of those misrepresentations which the combined industry of interested men may succeed in distributing among them." - James Madison, Federalist No. 63

(21) "Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46

(22) "Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 26

(23) "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, (Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!), without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo...."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and DOMESTIC USURPATION of POWER by rulers. The RIGHT of the CITIZENS to KEEP and BEAR ARMS has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of THE REPUBLIC; since it offers a STRONG MORAL CHECK AGAINST the USURPATION and ARBITRARY POWER of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM." Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

                                                            "Summum ius, summa iniuria."
                                                  (The extreme law is the greatest injustice).

No comments: