“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Now  I   am no  Constitutional  Attorney, as is  supposedly the  case  with  Obama.  However,  I  do  prefer straight forward language  as  opposed  to the  spin  that   Attorneys, legislators , politicians,  etc, etc  apply  to everything and  make it  illegible  to the  everyday   Citizen.  It  seems to  me  that  George  Mason  one of  the  framers  of the  Constitution  put it  rather  clearly and  concisely   when  he  stated……”Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers.”…..during Debates in Virginia Convention on the Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

It  would  stand to  reason that  being  one of  the  Gentleman  directly  involved  with the  framing  and ratification of  the  Constitution  that  specifically protects  the  rights  of  the  People to  bear  arms.  Who  better to know  it’s  true  meaning than  one  who was  actually  there and directly involved in the  process?  It  seems  rather  ludicrous  to  have  any  number  of  supposed   scholars trying to  decipher  what  was  intended  when  it is  written  in plain   English  for  all to see.  Unless of  course  the  reason  for  said debates is  nothing  more  than  an  attempt  to   circumvent the  Constitutional  basis  for  the  2nd  amendment  and   infringe upon the rights of t he  People.

This is  quite  clear and  leaves no  doubt  as  to  its  meaning.  Nor  does it  leave  room  for interpretation as  it  spells it  out  fully.   The  Militia  consists of  the  Whole people.  End of   discussion  end  of  debate,  i don’t  care   who you are  or  what  your  title  is .  It is  time to   shut  up and  allow the  People  the rights afforded  them under the  protection of  the  Constitution and the  Bill  of  Rights.  That  means   those  control freaks  in search  of pushing others  around and  the  tyrants  who want  to   change  everything to their  advantage  so that  they  can  continue  looting the  Peoples  money and  destroying  this Nation unfettered by those  pesky  little  laws.  Any questions?????

     Image Source    Click To Enlarge  

Militia Q+A

Fire Arms And Liberty

Copyright (c) 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.

---

Q: What is the Militia?

A: It was best defined by George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who said, “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers.”

Q: If they’re the whole people, why do we need a special word like “militia” to refer to them?

A: The Militia is the people in a certain capacity, as defenders of the community and enforcers of the law. In that capacity, they are expected to have and use the tools needed to perform that role: personal weapons, and particularly firearms.

Q: Isn’t that what we have the military and police for?

A: Yes, we do hire some of us to perform these duties on a full-time, paid basis. But that does not relieve us of the power or the duty to perform those duties when the situation calls for it.

Q: Power? Don’t the military and police have powers ordinary civilians don’t have?

A: Yes, the police have special powers to enforce certain regulations, like traffic regulations, that civilians don’t have. And the military can engage in combat operations on foreign soil representing the United States. But all citizens have general powers to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the laws, the three duties of the Militia, just like the military and police. They just don’t do it on a full-time, paid basis.

  

      Image Source

Full text of the Constitution

• Original Constitution
• Bill of Rights
• Subsequent Amendments
• Unsuccessful Amendments

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose,^[1][2] scope,^[3] and effect^[4] of the amendment has been controversial^[5][6][7] and subject to numerous interpretations.^[8]

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that “[bearing arms for a lawful purpose] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”, but also stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government”, as the right was not yet been made applicable to the states.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment “[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia^[9][10] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.^[11]

In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.^[12]

Text

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.^[13] One version was passed by the Congress,^[14] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States^[15] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.^[16]

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution which states a purpose.^[17]

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

‘Well regulated militia’ does not mean gun control

• second amendment
• February 24, 2013
• By: Anthony Martin

Citizens train with firearms on gun safety, self-defense, and home defense, in keeping with the Second Amendment provision of a “well regulated militia,” or a disciplined, well trained people’s militia.

Credits:

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Common errors in thinking have characterized the argument among progressives that the term “well regulated militia” as contained in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates national gun control laws and various restrictions.

Such thinking, however, cannot be verified by the historical record.

How do we know that this is the case? How can we be certain that the Framers did not wish to impose cumbersome national gun restrictions and controls on the firearms rights of the citizens?

The text itself, understood within its historical context and the philosophy and written explanations of the Framers themselves, provides the answers.

The Second Amendment is part of an overall Congressional bill known as “the Bill of Rights” — the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The first 10 amendments were presented to the states as one entity for approval. Although originally the bill contained more than 10 amendments, the states whittled them down to 10, the ones on which they all could find common agreement.

Read Full Article Here

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

GUN OWNERS: FIGHTING WITH AN UNLOADED GUN

By: Devvy
March 30, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Since the unspeakable horror in Newtown, CT, last December, the lackeys who serve the ruling elite have stepped up efforts to ban specific types of weapons. There has never been any question the desired goal is to disarm we the people because the Second Amendment is the only thing standing between us and those who wish to rule us with an iron fist.

Efforts to nullify the Second Amendment have been stepped up with the usual cast of clowns releasing more flatulence than a massive herd of cattle:

• Rev. Jackson: Some ‘Anti-American People’ Arming Themselves in U.S.Have ‘Confederate Ideology’
• Michael Moore: ‘Calm Down, White People, and Put Away Your Guns’
• Politico Reporter: LaPierre Is ‘Tired, Old White Guy That Is Clinging on to Something of the Past’ (Another empty-headed female)
• Belafonte blasts ‘white America’ for black gun crimes -NAACP forum used to attack 2nd Amendment ‘carnage’ in cities

Al Sharpton: “People Do Not Have The Right To Unregulated Rights In This Country”

“Sharpton and other black leaders were meeting and then held a press conference. In that press conference, Sharpton said, “Absolutely, I mean if you look at the Second Amendment it was that you would have militia to protect yourself in case the government came and attacked citizens. First of all, if the government were to come to disarm you, you would not be able to use an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Let’s be serious. We’re in a world of drones now so the Second Amendment would not help you in that area. It is absurd to try to cite that.”

What’s absurd is that buffoon speaking on an issue he knows nothing about.

Then, we have victims of mind melt; their brain has been washed by the relentless propaganda dished out to Americans on a daily basis for decades:

Des Moines Register publishes gun-ban column advocating deadly violence against NRA, GOP leaders

“In a column that appeared after the shooting with the headline “Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns,” he proposed a new liberal agenda: repeal the Second Amendment, declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal, and well, make violent threats to Republican leaders and NRA members. The Des Moines Register published this junk on December 29.

“I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control,” he wrote. Is that a threatening James Byrd reference? “And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures,” he continued. This was how he spelled out the other agenda items, which included killing NRA members who wouldn’t surrender their arms:” (Rest at link above)

Naturally, Butch Napolitano’s thugs from the Department of Fatherland Security ignored promoting the murder of NRA members.

Over the past few years, great effort has been made to reach out to sheriffs across the country as the tyranny coming out of the Outlaw Congress and various unconstitutional agencies continue to terrorize Americans over things like raw milk. Actually, Jack McLamb’s association, Police & Military Against The New World Order, has been at it for more than a decade. Jack is a former police officer himself; a real gentleman. Former sheriff, Richard Mack, has been out there working hard, reaching out to sheriffs around the country.

They have been very successful. So successful, in fact, the carnival barker WH press secretary, Jay Carney, spewed this vomit with a straight face:

“CNSNews.com asked, “There have been 381 sheriffs that have signed on saying they would not enforce gun laws they believed were unconstitutional. Would the administration have a problem if local law enforcement did not enforce whatever gun package were to pass?”

“Carney responded that he had not seen the list of sheriffs. “I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law,” Carney told CNSNews.com. “As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.”

I sincerely appreciate the work of Jack, Richard and all the sheriffs in this country who have stepped forward to show their support for the Second Amendment. However, the word sheriff appears no where in the U.S. Constitution making that office vulnerable to politicians who react with hysterical emotion instead of reason and logic.

Delaware leads nationwide move to strip county sheriffs of power

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures – Texas:

“The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws. What’s more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders. A gun lobbyist told Secrets, “Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states.”

The bill is H.B. 2127. Pray tell, Ms. Davis – just how do you intend to remove any sheriff in this state? They are elected by the people. One can hope that since our state legislature is controlled by Republicans, both houses, with a Republican governor, that bill won’t stand a chance. Texans might want to call their state rep and tell him/her you’re outraged Ms. Davis has introduced such a bill.

It’s not just a nationwide effort to limit their power, but to abolish the office of sheriff altogether. Mark my words, it’s coming.

Then, there are the imbeciles who have zero understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment:

Utah Governor: “Utah Will Adhere to the Law” and Obey Federal Gun Laws

“As courageous state legislators enlist in the fight to repel the federal government’s assault on the Second Amendment, the governor of one western state is telling a liberty-minded state representative to stand down. Governor Gary Herbert of Utah recently called a pro-gun rights bill sponsored by a Utah state representative “an exaggeration” and encouraged the lawmaker to “adhere to the law.” This is not the level of support citizens of the Beehive State would expect from the man they elected to lead their state.”

Since 2005, Dr. Edwin Vieira has been trying to educate gun onwers and lawmakers about the constitutional militia. I’ve been trying, but running into a brick wall from individuals who simply ignore the history of the militia and the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Responses I get from private militia members here and in other states is “we don’t need the stinking state”. Such geniuses. I hate to break it to you fellas, but as “private” militias, you have zero legal authority to do anything other than target practice.

Last summer I wrote four working papers and one bill for our state legislature. One of the working papers is to reconstitute the constitutional militia. They were given to members of the legislature. Did I get any support from the militia groups in Texas? Not one that I’m aware of; after all, “We don’t need the state.”

Our legislature is going to do nothing about a constitutional sound money bill, Agenda 21, revitalizing the constitutional militia or the Seventeenth Amendment. I sent every Republican (they control both houses) a letter directing them to those working papers and the one bill I wrote .I included Dr. Vieria’s nine page presentation to the Montana banking committee on a constitutional sound money bill. It cost me about $350.00 for the printing and postage. I might as well have burned the money and not wasted my time. Despite efforts to get the word out to active groups here in Texas, few did anything in contacting state legislators and senators to get three bills written; I wrote one with the working paper. Because there was no pressure, those four issues will not be addressed by our legislature this session. Our legislature goes out of session May 27, 2013, until January 6, 2015. By then it will be too late. Don’t Mess With Texas is nothing but empty words.

I’ll say it again: militias around the country are doing great work in planning and preparing for disasters to help first responders. They are responsible, patriotic folks. But, there is a difference between the constitutional militia and private ones:

Are you doing your constitutional duty for “homeland security”?

“All this is no merely quaint story-telling about men attired in knee-britches and three-cornered hats, or the anachronistic and academic stuff of Colonial re-enactors and museums at Lexington and Concord. This is what “the Militia of the several States” actually were, codified in every relevant statute of every Colony and independent State throughout a period of almost 150 years prior to ratification of the Constitution. And therefore this is what “the Militia of the several States” still are, because that term incorporated in the Constitution must be interpreted in light of its historical antecedents as known to the Founding Fathers, and continue to be given the selfsame construction until the Constitution is amended (which, with the assistance of Providence, in this particular it never will be). See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920). The only possible difference to be countenanced today actually amounts to an expansion: Now, with the legal emancipation of women, “the Militia of the several States” arguably includes all able-bodied females, who might be called to serve in some capacities in the most critical, last-ditch situations of State and National defense, freeing men for more arduous duties.

“So, constitutionally YOU very likely–indeed, almost surely–are a member of “the Militia of the several States” in the State in which you live. And, if so, the Constitution imposes a duty on YOU to keep and bear arms in the Militia for the defense of your State and Nation, because that is the meaning of the Militia: the people in arms, and therefore the people with arms. And, most importantly, their own arms: their own private property in their own personal possession.

“Moreover, because the duty to keep and bear arms is of constitutional stature, each individual enjoys an absolute constitutional right as against every level, department, or branch of government–National, State, and local–to fulfill that duty. Inasmuch as the Constitution requires all of We the People eligible for the Militia to possess their own private arms in their capacity as a governmental institution, then on no account, for no reason, and by the application of no power can any level of government disarm any of them. Indeed, to argue that any other branch of government may disarm the one branch of government that the Constitution specifically requires to be armed is so illogical as to verge on insanity.”

Private militia have no power despite the nasty, patronizing emails I get from men:

***************************************************************************************************************************************************

Constitution.org

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Militia

The meaning of “militia”

The word “militia” is a Latin abstract noun, meaning “military service”, not an “armed group” (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning “army” or “soldiery” was “volgus militum”. Since for the Romans “military service” included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as “defense service”, associated with a “defense duty”, which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

When we are alone, we are all militia units of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one’s duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty.

Militia Duty: Defend. Co-operate. Prepare.

To understand the above motto is to understand the foundation of society and legitimate government and law.

What distinguishes those engaged in militia from an army

1. The authority for militia is any threat to public safety.
2. Those active in militia are usually not bound for a fixed term of service, or paid for it.
3. Those active in militia cannot expect arms, supplies, or officers to be provided to them.
4. No one has the authority to order militia to surrender, disarm, or disband.

……

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded sense of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse… A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.” — John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), “The Contest In America,” Fraser’s Magazine, February 1862

…..

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. — John F. Kennedy

…..

It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. — Thomas Paine

Related articles

• Alter(nate) Reality: The Inconvenience of Enumerated Rights (thetruthaboutguns.com)
• Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution (conservativeread.com)
• PAUL: A duty to preserve the Second Amendment (washingtontimes.com)
• SCOTUS decisions on the 2A (givemeliberty01.com)
• Popular Standard Shotgun could be banned under Proposed Bill [Assault on the 2nd Ammendment] (familysurvivalprotocol.com)
• What Part of the Second Amendment Is So Hard to Understand? (illinoisreview.typepad.com)
• From HuffPost: Does The US Constitution Prevent Gun Control? (theobamacrat.com)
• Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment (freedomoutpost.com)
• Our Bill of Rights: Limiting federal power (humanevents.com)
• Learning Outcomes and Test Items (alwayslearning112.wordpress.com)