There seems to be some type of misunderstanding....

“It was, he said, a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved. How is an army for that purpose to be obtained from the freemen of the United States? They certainly, said he, will know to what object it is to be applied. Is it possible, he asked, that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves and their brethren? or, if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?”

.
- Theodore Sedgwick, Jan., 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (MASSACHUSETTS), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 2]

.
“The honorable gentleman from Boston has stated at large most of the checks the people have against usurpation, and the abuse of power, under the proposed Constitution; but from the abundance of his matter, he has, in my opinion, omitted two or three, which I shall mention. The oath the several legislative, executive, and judicial officers of the several states take to support the federal Constitution, is as effectual a security against the usurpation of the general government as it is against the encroachment of the state governments. For an increase of the powers by usurpation is as clearly a violation of the federal Constitution as a diminution of these powers by private encroachment; and that the oath obliges the officers of the several states as vigorously to oppose the one as the other. But there is another check, founded in the nature of the Union, superior to all the parchment checks that can be invented. If there should be a usurpation, it will not be on the farmer and merchant, employed and attentive only to their several occupations; it will be upon thirteen legislatures, completely organized, possessed of the confidence of the people, and having the means, as well as inclination, successfully to oppose it. Under these circumstances, none but madmen would attempt a usurpation. But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his own fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainty will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation....”

.
“ . . . demonstrated the impracticability of forming a bill, (Amendments - Bill of Rights), in a national constitution, for securing individual rights, and showed the inutility of the measure, from the ideas, that no power was given to Congress to infringe on any one of the natural rights of the people by this Constitution; and, should they attempt it without constitutional authority, the act would be a nullity, and could not be enforced.”

.
- Theophilus Parsons, Jan., 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (MASSACHUSETTS), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 2]

.

Massachusetts? And Samuel Adams was even present. Wow! Wonder what happened?

Journals of the Continental Congress, "...the citizens of the United States possessed of arms", Jan. 31, 1780

"...That it will appear by the constitutions and other publick acts of the several states, that the citizens of the United States possessed of arms, possessed of freedom, possessed of political power to create and direct their magistrates as they think proper, are united in their determinations to secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of liberty, by supporting the independence of their governments, and observing their treaties and publick engagements with immoveable firmness and fidelity. And the Congress assure his Majesty, that should any individual in America be found base enough to show the least disposition for persuading the people to the contrary, such individual would instantly lose all power of effecting his purpose, by forfeiting the esteem and confidence of the people...."
.
"...and on which it is highly necessary that the United States explain themselves with precision, and with such moderation as may consist with their essential rights...."

"...But if ignorance and depravity should prevail..."

"...There is such a love of liberty implanted in the human heart, that no nation ever willingly gave up its liberty. If they lose this inestimable birthright of men, it is not for a want of the will, but of the proper means to support it. If we look into history, we shall find that the common avenue, through which tyranny has entered in, and enslaved nations who were once free, has been their not supporting government.
.
"The great secret of preserving liberty is, to lodge the supreme power so as to be well supported, and not abused.
.
"...But still the people themselves must be the chief support of liberty.While the great body of freeholders are acquainted with the duties which they owe to their God, to themselves, and to men, they will remain free. But if ignorance and depravity should prevail, they will inevitably lead to slavery and ruin......If we will exercise mutual candor for each other, and sincerely endeavor to maintain our liberties, we may long continue to be a free and happy people."
.
- Gov. Huntingdon, Jan. 9, 1788, FRAGMENT OF THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

"That there be a declaration or bill of rights asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people..."

"...Mr. WYTHE reported, from the committee appointed, such amendments to the proposed Constitution of government for the United States as were by them deemed necessary to be recommended to the consideration of the Congress which shall first assemble under the said Constitution, to be acted upon according to the mode prescribed in the 5th article thereof; and he read the same in his place, and afterwards delivered them in at the clerk's table, where the same were again read, and are as follows:--
.
"That there be a declaration or bill of rights asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following:--
.
"1st. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
.
"2d. That all power is naturally invested in, and consequently de, rived from, the people; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, at all times amenable to them.
.
"3d. That government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind....
.
"12th. That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy, by recourse to the laws, for all injuries and wrongs he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay; and that all establishments or regulations contravening these rights are oppressive and unjust....
.
"16th, That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.
.
"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
.
"18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the law directs.
.
"19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
.
"20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." ....
.
- The Debates in the Several State Conventions (Virginia) on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] Friday, June 27, 1788.

Here we go, again.....

The old argument of property rights Vs. God-given, Inherent, Inalienable Rights. Has raised its ugly head yet again. The argument is going on at Keep and Bear Arms, and is now in its second day. Following are a few of the comments I've submitted on the topic:
.

Actually, business, government and people are ALL bound by the U.S. Constitution, if they are in the territory of the United States. That IS the TRUE intent. To Wit:

"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, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice).

"But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #16

I don't care what nine perverse usurping monkeys with black robes on say. I KNOW what the Constitution says and means. NO ONE has the right to divest us of our BIRTHRIGHT.

If anyone wants to enjoy the OTHER benefits of Liberty, than they have NO RIGHT to divest their fellow-citizens of a God-given, Inherent an[d] Natural Right!

OR, HOW WOULD 'THEY' LIKE IT IF WE STARTED SCREWING WITH 'THEIR' LIBERTIES?

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ...If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

- Samuel Adams

"...were under the sway of powerful combination, properly known as "Ku-Klux Klan," the objects of which were, by force and terror, to prevent all political action not in accord with the views of the members, to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms, and of the right to a free ballot; to suppress schools in which colored children were taught, and to reduce the colored people to a condition closely akin to that of slavery; that these combinations were organized and armed and had rendered the local laws ineffectual to protect the classes whom they desired to oppress...."

- Pres. US Grant, 4/19/1872

Those, that don't want us to be armed, look upon us as SLAVES. Those who attempt to disarm us intend on being our 'masters'.Notice how, that once we started becoming 'uppity' they moved most of our manufacturing overseas?All the 'workers', (read slaves/subjects), in China are now disarmed, aren't they? These 'people' don't care a bit about the rights of man. Their sole end aim and purpose is 'mammon'. And our greedy servants in government bought right into their greed. And assisted in their destruction of our manufacturing base. Greed, and lust for domination is what is destroying our rights, and our country. Would you want an armed populace/workers/shoppers if you were a greedy tyrant?

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe."

"...the EQUAL and independent Station to which the Laws of NATURE and of NATURE'S GOD ENTITLE them...We hold these Truths to be SELF-EVIDENT; that all Men are created EQUAL and independent; that from that EQUAL Creation they derive RIGHTS INHERENT and UNALIENABLE; among which are the PRESERVATION of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; that to SECURE these Ends, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the...." - Declaration, First Draft

"The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war."

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Anyone that seeks to disarm me, is not my friend, or my employer. Nor, are they a TRUE American government 'official'. Much less a TRUE American PERIOD

No, those that seek to disarm me, are in fact my ENEMY......

"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 and Benjamin Franklin, The Rights of the Colonists

"...a private business's choice to prohibit licensed patrons from carrying a handgun for self-defense."According to the Constitution, they have NO such choice:"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent....that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed..."

- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors

You want Liberty? Than you better learn to let others have theirs. NO ONE has the Right to divest us of our God-given, Inherent Right.

Comment by: Cal45acp (10/24/2006)

Let's see which came first, the instinct for self preservation or the business man. I do believe that almost every creature was created, by whatever means, with the instinct to survive. Also that instinct came long, long before any kind of business. It has been called the first "LAW of NATURE" and it was written long, long time before any of the artificial laws of man.The business man is the one that is obligated to recognise that first law. He should not be in business if he wants to restrict anyones instinctive right to life. He should find other work.The argument that a business/property owner can restrict that instinct is the same one the Anti Gunners use in talking about "Reasonable Restrictions". One man controls anothers life.

RE: There's no such thing as a toy gun....Submitted In Disgust;

Below you will find a copy of the E-Mail sent to the author of an article posted on Keep and Bear Arms, (linked in the headline):

Mr. Doblin,

Do you have any idea what you are writing about? You are espousing the notion of even further usurpation on the Rights of American citizens. It is clear that you haven't the slightest concept of the whole basis our nation was founded upon. No 'permit' is required to exercise an individual God-given, Inherent, and Natural Right. The government assumed this power unconstitutionally. In fact, they were clearly forbidden from infringing upon the right in any fashion. Which right, is the main guardian intended to secure all of the other rights.

The gibberish that you have spewed forth, can very well be likened to treason. You have the right to spout it, of course. However, the ends which your ravings may help bring about are most definitely treasonous. Would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Truth before belching out further calls for tyranny and usurpation:

http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html

http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/SenateJournal09091789.html

http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRight.html

http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/TheRight.html

The tripe that you spewed forth is linked at Keep and Bear Arms for the weekend. And there are already a number of colorful comments in answer to your babbling. Such as the one left by myself for instance;

Doblin - Just look at his picture. Classic Leninist goatee. Obvious Marxist leanings. Spewing forth typical communist rantings. Is any other proof necessary, of what it really is the majority of media is espousing in our country today?

They have a written agenda (Current Communist Goals) and yet people still dismiss it as 'Oh, you are just being paranoid'.

Look at the list on the linked page. Is that 'paranoid'? Consider how many on the list have come into being.

Our systems of education, media, court and other governmental branches are clearly turning communist/socialist. Consider the rest of the world, and the disarming of its populations.

Our government(s) have already gone far beyond the bounds imposed upon it, and certainly need no more help by you calling for further treachery. Would suggest that you pull your head out and get a breath of some clean, and presently free, American fresh air!

Submitted In Disgust,

E. David Quammen
GunShowOnTheNet.com

Ongoing discussion at 'The Volkh Conspiracy' - "St. George Tucker versus Saul Cornell on the Second Amendment:"

The following is my last reply on the post. It is mainly in response to a question concerning weapons of mass destruction in the hands of citizens, (Nukes, NBC agents, etc.) :
.
Below is my response to the follwing question that was posed:
.
"The SCotUS ruled that a saw-off shotgun isn't a viable "militia" weapon, is that the standard?"
.
Congress has delegated authority over the militia. That is a fact, that cannot be contested. And, if I'm not mistaken. The case you referenced was argued on the basis of the defendant(s) being in the militia.
.
The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms is a pre-existent Right of Nature. It is a stand alone inherent, and natural right that has NOTHING to do with the militia. Other than joining with others in your community if the situation demanded it. The militia was declared as necessary to the security of a free state in the "Declaratory" clause. The right of the people was removed from debate in the "Restrictive" clause. It was specifically kept from being intruded upon by ANY acts of government/law.
.
Because Congress illegally, with the concurrence of S.C.O.T.U.S., stuck their nose in. And this, in a place where it was specifically denied any intrusion upon, or any authority over. Does that make their decisions right and legally correct? NO. It makes it an Usurpation of authority and an exercise of unconstitutional power. How can "Shall NOT be Infringed" possibly be mistaken in its meaning? It cannot. The ONLY legal authority they have, is punishment for misuse of the God-given, Inherent and Natural right.
.
However, the government is specifically charged with the duty of:
.
"...insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
.
How can a right be secured, if it is allowed to be infringed? If a person is free from confinement - they are free, they have paid their debt for their crime. They are once again in 'the state of nature' and entitled to defend themselves. Anything different than this can very well be construed as cruel and unusual punishment.
.
The weapons that are capable of causing mass destruction cannot, and must not be left up to the use of individual discretion. That would defy the whole purpose of instituting a government to begin with - security of the whole society. Which government, is supposed to have a series of checks and balances to ensure against, as far as is possible, incorrect and arbitrary decisions in the use of power.
.
The decision for use of a weapon of mas[s] destruction would be an arbitrary one, in the case of an individual. And brings in others that may not concur with its use. Thusly causing an adverse effect on the noncombatants liberty. As much Individual liberty as is possible, within the bounds of respect for the liberty of others, is the guiding rule. Or, it is supposed to be.
.
The right of self-defense/preservation is the First Law of Nature. The whole American governmental system is based upon "the transcendent laws of nature and of natures God". And is supposed to be guaranteed to each and every free American citizen without distinction. It is the basis on which our Constitution was formed - the very foundation. It cannot be discarded, or whittled down by technical misconstructions. For it is THE Fundamental law on which all others stand. It is a pillar, as well as self-defense/preservation being the guardian of ALL of the other rights. And, we are to be like armed as the military force, in the hands of usurpers, that may be employed against us. However, we do not have the right of taking those, whom are not involved by their own choice, with us. Which the use of a weapon of mass destruction would most certainly entail.
.
And, as indicated in an earlier post. If we have a government that has, or is using weapons of mass destruction on the people, than that government needs altered or abolished.

"...wondering what the founders' view on the militia was?

Received an E-Mail from Mike, whom I've had previous correspondence with, which reads as follows:
.

I was wondering what the founders' view on the militia was? Was it mandatory that all abled bodied males of age serve and bring their own arms?

I know you probably have some quotes regarding it. =)

Thanks, Mike.

.
Mike and I have had some decent communication. So I thought it best to give an answer better than just a few short words;
.
Hello Mike,
.
Well, from what I've gathered so far. It seems that the majority were in favor of the militia. They looked at it as the only logical defense. And this for a number of reasons. During the colonial period, each colony had different rules and regulations, with certain exceptions, (mainly for those morally/religiously scrupulous of bearing arms - although, even many of those had a change of heart during the Revolution). The militia had been an American means of defense, since at least the mid 1600's. As shown in an excerpt, here:

"Nevertheless, with all these defects, the colony was admirably governed in the main. One great right of freemen, the right of bearing arms, a highly necessary right to men planted suddenly among wild beasts and savages, was certainly not taken from the people. On the contrary, the government took care that all should be duly trained to self-defence. There is no man who bears a head, says Wood, (New Englands Prospect, 1639,) but bears military arms; even boys of fourteen years of age are practised with men in military discipline every three weeks. And they practised to some effect, as the records of the time prove, and as the Pequods learned to their cost."

The preliminary regulation and requirements didn't effectively start until the mid 1760's, (after passage of the Stamp Act in 1765). The Revolution can be traced directly to that British Parliamentary act that started the fire smoldering. After that act, the militia started to receive much more attention. Up into the early/mid-1770's most of the militia had their own personal weapons. Teenagers, from about 15 were allowed as drummers, assistants and various other duties. Some of the colonies had stands of arms, (supplied by begging the king for them), for supply in various towns/cities. And others just relied on the prevalence of private arms in the population. The majority of the guns in America, at this point, were held in the hands of the citizens. There was a standing army, but it was under British control.
.
After the Declaration is when everything started to change. At one period, all free white males, again with certain exceptions, between the ages of 16, (or 17, can't remember now), to 60 were part of the militia. There were even black slaves that earned their freedom by fighting in the militia. They were held in regard for their fighting ability, and looked upon as equals in their abilities as soldiers. There were many calls to the people to loan the government their arms, because the supply was low, to non-existent otherwise. As well as calls for recruits, and yes, it was required that they bring/supply their "own Arms and Accoutrements." (See - http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.html). Patrick Henry even did a number of 'arms drives' where he went around the countryside begging arms from the people to be used by the army and militia. And the people ended up giving him what was required and more. The government called out to the people, in order to borrow their own private arms, on a number of occasions.
.
George Washington didn't appear to be that big of a fan of the militia. Although he fluctuated in his opinion over a course of years, and still recognized the value and purpose/need of the militia. He was pure regular military, and learned by experience, that the militia were not regulated to his liking. That they generally were a cause of headaches to his military-ordered mind. He started to form plans of regulation in the early 1780's. While still recognizing that the right of Self-Defense was the First Law of Nature. Many of the other founders were aware of the need for a standing army, however distasteful it might be to their senses. The majority of them saw the militia as indispensable.
.
The one thing that is crystal clear, from all of the information I've gathered. The American people, (A good part of them anyways), have ALWAYS been armed.Hope that helps answer your question.
.
Best,
.
David

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787...

[Farrand's Records, Volume 1] YATES Monday, June 25th, 1787.
.
“...Mason--The Executive negatives both Brs of the Legislatr and each Br. has a negative on the other--and the Genl. Gov. have a neg. on the State Legislature--these regulations are necessary on the principles of self Defence--it is an instinctive principle in nature, and in a proper degree every being professes this power. If the State Legislatures are deprived of the Election of the 2d. or 1st Br. of the natil. Legislature the States are destitute of this principle of self protection--I wish them to continue & I shall not agree to deprive them of the power of a constitutional self Protection"

"The Sword that is drawn in the Defence of Liberty is consecrated..."

"...Let us begin with contemplating in Retrospect, the Scenes, which are already passed. Entitled to the Character of Freemen you saw a system formed for debasing you to the Condition of Slaves. Vested by bounteous Heaven with the Right of being governed by yourselves, or by those, upon whom you devolved the Powers of Government, you saw others, avow a Claim of governing you, without your Consent in all Cases whatever. Alarmed at Pretensions, to which Submission would have been Treason, you did, what a free and temperate People ought to do,--you petitioned and remonstrated against y our Grievances; but you petitioned and remonstrated in a Tone which evinced your Determination never to bear them. Your Oppressors turned a deaf ear to your Supplications. Your Wrongs were multiplied, and [their Severity was] increased. To feet, and to say that you felt them, were accounted Crimes. Arms were employed to punish you for not surrendering your Birth-right; and to wrest from you what you would not, relinquish. What remained on your Part, to be done? To oppose Force by Force. The Sword that is drawn in the Defence of Liberty is consecrated...."
.
- Inhabitants of the United States, Journals of the Continental Congress, MAY 29, 1777.

"...interested combinations of a Majority against the rights of a Minority"

“...We must not shut our eyes to the nature of man, nor to the light of experience. Who would rely on a fair decision from three individuals if two had an interest in the case opposed to the rights of the third? Make the number as great as you please, the impartiality will not be increased, nor any further security against justice be obtained, than what may result from the greater difficulty of uniting the wills of a greater number.
.
“In all Govts. there is a power which is capable of oppressive exercise. In Monarchies and Aristocracies oppression proceeds from a want of sympathy & responsibility in the Govt. towards the people. In popular Governments the danger lies in an undue sympathy among individuals composing a majority, and a want of responsibility in the majority to the minority. The characteristic excellence of the political System of the U. S. arises from a distribution and organization of its powers, which at the same time that they secure the dependence of the Govt. on the will of the nation, provides better guards than are found in any other popular Govt. against interested combinations of a Majority against the rights of a Minority.”
.
- James Madison: Note to his Speech on the Right of Suffrage. [The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Farrand's Records, Volume 3, CCCXLII.]

"Our greatest Enemies are within ourselves..."

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 7 May 1, 1777 - September 18, 1777.
.
“...Our greatest Enemies are within ourselves & not among those Men who oppose us by Arms or who honestly & openly profess themselves averse from our measures & politics. You would be astonished were you here to see the number & influence of the property Men. I call them so because almost every Man of them were the most Vigorous in opposing the measures of the British Ministry until they perceived that opposition, proceeding to a serious War, then fear of the Loss of Life & Estate shocked their faith. they wished to remain neuter, they still acknowledged that America had been greatly aggreived but withdrew from the Councils & Society of their former Colleagues under pretences, some that Independence had been declared too soon, others that it had never been their design to be Independent. A few such we have in Carolina, observe them, they are Men of property called sensible & good Sort of Men. They are cunning Men, & their cunning is exceedingly baneful to a cause which in their hearts they wish well. If we lose that Cause it will be the effect of their timidity & their pernicious examples. Whether their wishes to enjoy their Estates in quiet will succeed I know not-I rather beleive they will drag a few years of life through painful reproaches & reflections- but I say, Such Men in this State & that of New York abound-& unless the progress of Burgoyne & his junction with Sir William Howe is Speedily prevented they will have room to expand to join the Enemy & to reduce the friends of Freedom to the utmost hazards & difficulties. . . . .These extraordinary circumstances hurt a few people, I am one among the hurt, but they by no means threaten immediate ruin to America, yet from them these property Men denounce our destruction & are very industrious to impress the minds of weak people with the most direful apprehensions. Some Steps have been taken by the Executive power to remove such Men from the Capital, weak & feeble attempts & hitherto without any good effect. We are not yet Sufficiently distressed to make us Sufficiently in earnest. An old friend of mine now a rigid Tory, complained to me of the friends of Liberty who had on the 4 July broke the Glass Windows of such quiet people as had refused to illuminate their Houses upon that anniversary. In reply I expressed my concern for the ill timed destruction of Glass and added for his consolation, that he might depend upon this as a type of broken bones to that Glass unless they soon reformed or removed out of the Country.”
- Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, 5th August 1777.

Hypocrisy in action....

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States,
WEDNESDAY, April 18, 1832
.
"...The accused admits that he was greatly excited by these provocations, and that, under the influence of feelings thus excited, he did, on accidentally meeting the said Stanbery, assault and beat him, the accused being unarmed with any other weapon than a common walking cane, and believing the said Stanbery to be, as he in fact was, armed with pistols; that the meeting took place several hours after the adjournment of Congress, about 8 o'clock in the evening, on the Pennsylvania avenue, and nearly half a mile from the Capitol, and on the opposite side of the avenue from where Mr. Stanbery's boarding-house is situated; and that, at the time of this occurrence, he was neither seeking for, nor expecting to see the said Stanbery...."
.
The "accused" was none other U.S. Representative Samuel Houston. The offended party was U.S. Representative William Stanbery.
.
Oh, I get it now.... It is good for them, but not for us. Hmmmm, hey, wait a minute! Aren't these people our servants?

Troll?

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"

- Thomas Jefferson

.

The following is the final response that I had made to the article, linked in the headline, titled A Civil Rights Victory. What the author of the article calls 'Victory', I call fallacy. For the first time in my life, I've been called a 'troll'. And this, for asserting that our right is a Natural, Inherent and God-given one. That it was never intended to be "Infringed" upon, and that government has no Constitutionally delegated authority over our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. While the author contends that the government has every right to infringe, so long as it's plausible. Go figure.

.

"...Human nature is subject to failure, that is a fact. Are you perfect? I know that I, sure as hell, am not. Nor, do I know of anyone that is.

.
The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms was designed as the FINAL check, in the system of ‘checks and balances’. Government(s), not just ours, have historically been the cause of the most amount of bloodshed throughout history. One just needs to examine the last century to see the truth in that; Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc., etc., etc.

.
"And, genocide HAS happened here in the U.S. as well. Consider the American Indian. A ponderance of the treatment of the African American should be enough for anyone. But, in addition to that, the Irish, Chinese and various other immigrant populations were treated horribly as well. So the fact is, that it CAN and HAS happened here.

.
"One of the main original purposes of this country, was the idea of a place that those whom were persecuted could come to. We were held out as a place of refuge from the tyranny and usurpations of government. We promised people Freedom and Liberty, provided that they abided by the laws of the land. The supremacy of the laws were what was held up as a shining beacon of hope. That man could be free and self-governed.

.
"Everyone makes misstakes, that is human nature. Even those in government. The punishment was supposed to fit the crime. Presently, government faces little to no penalties if they, (its agents), do something wrong. With the population, it is selective punishment, depending on how much money you have. Tell me, is that not corrupt? How can a government be trusted, that doesn’t even police itself? And yet, we are supposed to trust their arbitrary decisions? When they themselves don’t even follow the laws of the land?

.
"Why should I trust a government like that? Why should I bend to their will, when they don’t even follow the law of the land themselves? Do you know why the colonists first revolted? I mean, what set off the powder keg? The British were ruling arbitrarily, and not following their Constitution and Bill of Rights. The straw that broke the camels back was their attempt to disarm the colonists.

.
"A Constitution is fact, and must be regarded as THE fundamental law. Our Supreme Court is now utilizing foreign legal decisions in their rulings. They, and the other two branches took an oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the U.S. But, instead it has been, and is given reckless disregard. The court is deciding what parts of the Constitution apply, and what doesn’t. Which was not their intended purpose. They are charged with assuring that the legislative branch doesn’t overstep the bounds imposed upon it. As anyone should plainly be able to see, that is NOT happening.

.
"This scenario has played itself out repeatedly throughout history. It has been the cause of death to millions of people. They that don’t learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it. And as it appears now, were in for one hell of a show.

.
"I don’t know about you, or anyone else, but I want freedom. And I don’t want to be arbitrarily ruled by a corrupt government. The only way it can change, is if We The People MAKE it change.

.
"The founders came up with an excellent system of government. They studied all the way back through history in order to formulate it. It was admired and copied around the world. Not anymore. Now, we are hated, despised and feared. Why? Because we left off our founding principles and have allowed ourselves to become corrupt.

.
"It is not as if we were not warned about it either. We were given a clear direction of path, and we have strayed off from it. Thinking ourselves more wise, enlightened and more modern. Look where it has brought us. We have over TWENTY MILLION illegal aliens in our country. These people have caused a huge spike in are crime rates. Our prison systems are cram packed full of them. Who is paying for this? Who will be paying for it for generations to come?

.
"If you don’t see that we have a very big problem going on, then I feel sorry for you.
If we return to what made us great to begin with, does it not follow to reason that we can be great yet again? Or, even greater still? The ‘status quo’ is NOT working, we need to return to what DID work - our founding principles.

.
"Or, we can just continue debating and arguing while we watch it ALL swirl down the toilet. The choice is up to We The People - not the perverse minions in our government. What is our choice to be?"

Journals of the Continental Congress, NOVEMBER 22, 1777

“...Congress took into consideration the report. . . . in a resolution of Congress of the 10th of September last, and the same being read and debated by paragraphs, was agreed to, as follows:
.
“Pursued by the injustice and the vengeance of the King and Parliament Great Britain, these United States have been compelled to engage in a bloody and expensive war. Amidst much great every distress that they have yet experienced may befal them, it will be their consolation to appeal to Heaven for the rectitude of their measures; since they have her influence they have had recourse to arms, not from ambition or the lust of power, but to resist actual invasion and boundless rapine, and to secure to themselves and to their Posterity the common rights and privileges of human nature: the blessings of freedom and safety that they have had recourse to arms.
.
“Aided by venal foreigners and domestic traitors, the war has been prosecuted by our implacable foes with their utmost force and vigour, and aggravated by more than savage barbarity.
.
“Congress, nevertheless, supported by the virtue, patriotism and good faith of their constituents have hitherto raised all the necessary supplies on the publick credit confidence of their fellow citizens, without burthening them with taxes or pecuniary contributions, have hitherto raised all the necessary supplies on the public faith For these purposes....”
.
Wow, they had Brady's even back then! (In other pages of the Congressional Journal, it describes what they did to those traitors as well. Some of which wasn't to pretty).

George Washington to Charles Cornwallis, January 8, 1777

“My Lord: Your Lordship's Favor of Yesterday was delivered to me by the Officer who met your Flag of Truce.
.
You may be assured, that no molestation will be offered to the Convoy of Money and Stores, which Genl. D'Heister means to send to the Hessians taken at Trenton, or to the Surgeon with Medicines for the Wounded at Princeton, by any part of the regular Army under my command: But I cannot answer for the Militia who are resorting to Arms in most parts of this State, and exceedingly exasperated at the Treatment they have met with, from both Hessian and British Troops...”