Scholars
Second Amendment
Tue Feb 10 23:10:05 2004
67.2.181.34


To: Larry Lawson
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: REPOSTS #3 on May 20, 2002


"I'll print what you say here Steve but you and I KNOW that they'll soon be TAKING any guns PERIOD regardless of what 'laws' they've written."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry,
If that ever does happen (confiscation of arms) then it is up to each individual to decide what to do next! I have researched the issue of OUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS long and hard. According to Our Founding Fathers, the Government DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE AWAY ANY UNALIENABLE RIGHT, BECAUSE THESE RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM GOVERNMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! The Second Amendment Translated into today's terminology reads: "A Well Armed Citizenry, being necessary to Safeguard Our Freedoms and to Overthrow an out of Control or Tyrannical Government, The RIGHT of EVERY PERSON to OWN and to CARRY FIREARMS equal to those of the Military, SHALL NEVER BE DENIED or REGULATED IN ANY WAY." How can I support such a statement? Read on:


The meaning of the 2nd Amendment



The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Protects an Individual's Right to Own and Carry Firearms. I dont have to need a gun to own one, any more than I need a TV or a Car to own one of those. The 2nd Amendment says I can have them. It doesnt say I have to show a need and it doesnt limit the number I can own. My Right to Arms is an Unalienable Right, given FREELY from the Creator. "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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."



Yet, many today say that the 2nd Amendment isnt about individuals owning guns. Its about the state having guns. It says youre only allowed guns if youre part of the militia. The 2nd Amendment is about the National Guard. It says it right in the amendment. Its for the militia.



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Its about having a well-regulated militia. Militiathats military. Its not about you.



The National Guard didnt exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. It came into existence over a century later. What? I said the 2nd Amendment isnt about the National Guard. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. The act that created the National Guard wasnt enacted until 1903. I can tell you that when the Founding Fathers used the word militia, it meant something different to them than what it means to many today.



What is the militia?



Youve got to understand what the militia is. In May of 1792, five months after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, the Militia Act was passed. That act distinguished between the enrolled (or unorganized) militia and the organized militia. Before the passing of that act, there was only the enrolled (or unorganized) militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, inclusively, and it is that militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers. It couldnt refer to the organized militia because it didnt exist yet. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that this body of citizens is armed and thats why the Founding Fathers thought to place it in the Bill of Rights. Legally, both militias still exist.



Read the Militia act. It will explain what the militia meant to the Founding Fathers. It will also show that the 2nd Amendment came before the Federal law that created the organized militia, and provide evidence that what they referred to as the enrolled militiathe body of citizenswere allowed to arm themselves. In fact, read this quote from the New Hampshire State Constitution written in 1784, 7 years BEFORE the adoption of the 2nd Amendment and the passing of the Militia Act: "Composition of the Militia - The Unorganized Militia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the State who are 18 years of age or older, who are, or have declared their intention to become, citizens of the United States".



Some may say that all that happened 200 years ago, that the Militia means something else today. It means the military. But even if we decide the word means something new to us, you cant use the new definition to change the intent of the Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we cant go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it.



Why we dont need the 2nd Amendment



But even if the 2nd Amendment referred only to the National Guard, the state police, or some other uniformed military or police organization, wed still have the right to keep and bear arms. We dont need the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because the Founding Fathers believed we had that right. They spoke about it and wrote about it. And thats enough. Wrong, you say? Can you find anything in the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution that says an individual cant have arms? The question is not whether you think the Constitution allows individuals to carry guns but whether or not theres anything in it that says they cant? Please understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. Its not even a complete list of our rights.



Natural Rights



The Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Or, that our rights came from or where at the pleasure of government, able to be granted or taken away at a moments notice. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent. They believed everyone had these rights regardless of where they lived. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed, but were denied. Its a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government. In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government wont protect them? Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...? Its a question as to whether the rights of a citizen are at the pleasure of the government, or if they have them, but they are being denied. Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didnt have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist? The answer, according to the Founding Fathers, is yes; we would still have those rights. Were just being denied them. And this is the way we must look at the Constitution. In reality, rights are only an ideal held in one's mind. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and thats how this country was set up. Rights are something that comes with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, our rights will still be there. Again, from the New Hampshire State Constitution written in 1784: "Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All persons have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.



Then why have a Bill of Rights, you ask? Many have asked this very same question. Men like Alexander Hamilton asked it. He and many others thought having a Bill of rights was dangerous. They were afraid that the existence of a Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution implied that the government not only had the right to change them, but that any rights not listed there were fair game for the government to deny. And, as a matter of fact, thats exactly what has happened. The government seems to have set itself up to be an interpreter of our rights; it acts as if it is also the source of our rights, and whatever rights werent mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the government has seen fit to declare exist only at its discretion. Thus the reasons for the 9th and 10th Amendments. Its important to understand what they say and know why they are written the way they are because they tie in with how the Founding Fathers viewed our rights and how they expected us to view them. They were put there to quell the fears of men like Hamilton who were afraid that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be usurped by the government. The 9th says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people. The 10th says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Meaning any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp. So its enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didnt even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights.



Then why do we have a Bill of Rights? Because even though Hamilton and others feared having one, most of the Founding Fathers were sure that without one the government would eventually take all of our rights. If the Congress or even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. And if you dont believe it, read what the Founding Fathers said in their papers, their letters, and their debates in both Congress and the state legislatures. Think about it. Weapons have always been important. In Greece, Rome, and even under Anglo-Saxon law, when slaves were freed, part of the ceremony included placing a weapon in the mans hand. It was symbolic of the mans new-found Freedom.



What the Founders said



"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense". That was said by John Adams in A Defense Of The Constitution. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms". That was said by Samuel Adams, John Adams second or third cousin, during Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788. Here are some by Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government". And, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". He wrote this as part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776. Here is Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccariaa Milanese criminologist whom he admired who was also his contemporaryin On Crimes and Punishment: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man". I think its pretty clear that Jefferson felt we had the right to keep and bear arms for both personal protection and as a safeguard against tyranny. Heres one by Thomas Paine that comes from his Thoughts On Defensive War written in 1775: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them".



What about the Father of our Country, and first President, George Washington? He said: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interferencethey deserve a place of honor with all that's good". That was from a speech he made to Congress on January 7, 1790. And, in response to a proposal for gun registration, Washington said: "Absolutely not. If the people are armed and the federalists do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government".



"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them". That was by George Mason when the Constitution was being debated. And just who was George Mason? Hes the most underrated and unsung of all the Founding Fathers. Jefferson drew on him when composing the Declaration of Independence; his doctrine of inalienable rights was not only the basis for the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776, but other states used them as the models for their own Bill of Rights, and James Madison drew upon them freely while composing the Bill of Rights for the United States. Even though a Southerner, Mason recognized the evils of slavery and the fact that slaves were entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity. He also feared the Constitution because it didnt do a better job of limiting the powers of the Federal government. He believed local government should be strong and the Federal government kept weak. He firmly believed in the power, the rights, and the integrity of the individual. He was the most vocal of the Founders on individual rights, and the other Founding Fathers recognized him as a force to be reckoned with. Without him, I can guarantee you that the United States would not be as free as it is now.



Defense against tyranny



Heres a quote by Elbridge Gerry, a representative to Congress from Massachusetts during the debates over the Bill of Rights. Hes also the man for whom gerrymandering is named because, as governor of Massachusetts, he tried to rig districts to favor his party. In this quote he was specifically referring to what we now call the 2nd Amendment: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the mi