Jump to content
KillBird

Who is the Militia? And who does the 2nd apply to?

Recommended Posts

On 1/19/2019 at 8:51 PM, KillBird said:

And I rest my case.

I watched this video twice.  The narrator did give it a good try; he even impressed me with the part of about computers and the First Amendment.  It is an analogy I will incorporate into my own spiel.  Now, I'd like to do a critique of what this man said and maybe someone here will rewrite that script, correct the errors and update the information.

 

First, and foremost, George Mason was not the Father of the Constitution or the Second Amendment OR the Bill of Rights.  That honor goes to James Madison.  Madison made some pro-gun statements followed up by action.  For example, Madison stated:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

Let us go one further.  In order to make it unequivocally clear what Madison meant, he nominated Justice Joseph Story to the United States Supreme Court.  This is how Story felt relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms:

 

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

 

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." 
-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840 

 

Finally, I agree with that man that when it comes to understanding the terminology "well regulated," we must carry ourselves back to that time and understand the language.  Likewise, he said something that was a product of being inadequately trained here.  In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used the word unalienable.  Consequently, when the United States Supreme Court ruled and interpreted the Second Amendment, they used and interpreted the word unalienable.  After the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Courts began using what was then a synonym and the guy in the video used it.  That word is inalienable.  

 

The courts, (including the United States Supreme Court) then reinterpreted the meaning of the Second Amendment by ascribing a different meaning to the word, inalienable.  Without a long dissertation, unalienable Rights were (according to the Declaration of Independence) preexisting Rights bestowed upon you by a Creator and not subject to the laws of man since unalienable Rights are above the government.  Under original intent, the government does not grant you unalienable Rights.  After the 14th Amendment the courts began using the word inalienable and today, inalienable rights are mere revocable privileges given by government.  And, as long as we speak the language of liberals, the government can take your firearms IF you make an argument about inalienable rights BECAUSE inalienable rights can be limited via Due Process.  The Right to keep and bear Arms cannot be infringed when presented as an unalienable Right since a different body of case law governs unalienable Rights.  The government is the grantor of inalienable rights; UNALIENABLE Rights are preexisting, God given Rights.    And that is my rant of the day.  God Bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Danite said:

I watched this video twice.  The narrator did give it a good try; he even impressed me with the part of about computers and the First Amendment.  It is an analogy I will incorporate into my own spiel.  Now, I'd like to do a critique of what this man said and maybe someone here will rewrite that script, correct the errors and update the information.

 

First, and foremost, George Mason was not the Father of the Constitution or the Second Amendment OR the Bill of Rights.  That honor goes to James Madison.  Madison made some pro-gun statements followed up by action.  For example, Madison stated:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

Let us go one further.  In order to make it unequivocally clear what Madison meant, he nominated Justice Joseph Story to the United States Supreme Court.  This is how Story felt relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms:

 

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

 

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." 
-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840 

 

Finally, I agree with that man that when it comes to understanding the terminology "well regulated," we must carry ourselves back to that time and understand the language.  Likewise, he said something that was a product of being inadequately trained here.  In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used the word unalienable.  Consequently, when the United States Supreme Court ruled and interpreted the Second Amendment, they used and interpreted the word unalienable.  After the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Courts began using what was then a synonym and the guy in the video used it.  That word is inalienable.  

 

The courts, (including the United States Supreme Court) then reinterpreted the meaning of the Second Amendment by ascribing a different meaning to the word, inalienable.  Without a long dissertation, unalienable Rights were (according to the Declaration of Independence) preexisting Rights bestowed upon you by a Creator and not subject to the laws of man since unalienable Rights are above the government.  Under original intent, the government does not grant you unalienable Rights.  After the 14th Amendment the courts began using the word inalienable and today, inalienable rights are mere revocable privileges given by government.  And, as long as we speak the language of liberals, the government can take your firearms IF you make an argument about inalienable rights BECAUSE inalienable rights can be limited via Due Process.  The Right to keep and bear Arms cannot be infringed when presented as an unalienable Right since a different body of case law governs unalienable Rights.  The government is the grantor of inalienable rights; UNALIENABLE Rights are preexisting, God given Rights.    And that is my rant of the day.  God Bless

 

 

Thanks for the input and updating and totally agree, it is unalienable rights, not inalienable.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I live, every city and every surrounding county has declared a mandatory quarantine.  It's really strange that we're sitting on a powder keg and we are not discussing this stuff this week.  Makes me feel like I'm preaching to the choir and the seats are empty in the church.  Our stock has been checked, the security protocols addressed, and a dry run of evacuating the house has been done.  All we need now is some conversation and some semblance of a plan while we address who the militia is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...