"...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...."If you want to know about the intent of the Second Amendment, go to GunShowOnTheNet. If you want historical fact to back up your debate with the anti's, go to GunShowOnTheNet. E. David is a freedom and liberty lover, and a freedom fighter. I see his work all over the net, fighting ignorance and injustice. Check him out, you will see what I mean.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Sunday's Blog of the Week
E. David Quammen, the force behind GunShowOnTheNet, is a solid librarian of historical facts and quotes concerning the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. GunShowOnTheNet is a blog well worth your time, and E. David is a man with a true fire in his belly for freedom and liberty. A recent post and example of his work:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Thank you J.R., I'm honored. The true credit goes to the Lord, however. I just try to be a willing tool in His hands. Left to my own devices, I'd mess up a wet-dream!
For much more info. on the Second Amendment, the main site is the one to go to; GunShowOnTheNet.com. The blog mainly covers new discoveries, as well as my rants when they come to a boil. The website covers our Right from Origin:
“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”
"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"
Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Origins
Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Precedent
The Right
As well as much more information.
Thank you, once again, for your kind words and the exposure! Have a good one! I'll add your blog onto the 'Gun Blogs' page.
I was hoping you would make it easy on everyone and add those links.
You have done well and I look forward to reading more.
What part of "well regulated" do gun nuts not understand, however?
As for me, I carry the constitution in my purse. But not a gun, I'm the type of dufus who would shoot herself by accident, even with training.
My grandmother, however, shot a killed a man who tried to rob my grandfather in their store. Even in her 70's she carried a tiny little ladies pearl handled revolver (don't remember what kind) in, of all places her bra (she was billowy and matronly, and you couldn't tell.)
My nephew, on the other hand was killed in an accidental suburban teenage gun death. He was no doubt foolish, but then again, the young are always foolish.
mudkitty said...
"What part of "well regulated" do gun nuts not understand, however?"
How about this part:
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:
Amendment II -
Declaratory clause;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Restrictive clause;
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Further proof here:
'for the common defence' (?)
And here;
"A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preëxisting claim to rights in the people. They belong to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution."
- George Nicholas, June 16, 1788, The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3].
"If the clause stands as it is now, it will take from the state legislatures what divine Providence has given to every individual--the means of self-defence. Unless it be moderated in some degree, it will ruin us, and introduce a standing army."
- George Mason, The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), June 14, 1788
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
- Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
(Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the Federal treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803).
And there is so much more, if necessary.
I think you and I may agree more than you think we do. Let me phrase the question another way. How would you well regulate guns and bombs, etc., seeing that a well regulated melitia is nessesary.
Because you know the old saying, guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
(sic)
It was not that long ago when a 13 year old could walk into a store and purchase a firearm. There was no mystique to a firearms, it was a tool that the 13 y.o. could use to help put dinner on the table, share a past time with his family and go plinking with friends.
Firearms were not regulated, criminals were.
The goal is to punish criminals who commit acts of violence. And I do mean severely punish violent criminals. If a person can not be trusted in society with a firearm, then that person should not be a member of free society.
I am very sorry to hear about your nephew. That does happen too often these days, in a large part due to the mystique that surrounds firearms. I received my first firearm when I was 7 y.o., the rifle and the ammo stayed in my room, as they were mine. My father and a man named Jay Boone taught me to respect firearms and how to safely handle a firearm. I a family has a firearm in the house, they need to take the mystique away from that gun. Letting small children assist with cleaning after a day at the range. My daughters helped me reload when they were young. Teach them from an early age the four rules of handling a firearm. Teach them to shoot, and folks will go a long way towards preventing accidental shootings involving children.
I know. I hear ya.
I just got to tell ya, I cringe at the thought of some seven year olds with guns and ammo. Maybe a 10 year old. And yes, I know, it's subjective.
My first job was babysitting, but can't really say, now, cuz I'm "aunt to the world" since I have no children of my own...and I can't really think of a single seven year old that I trust with a firearm, much less a bomb or a grenade. Arms are more than the romantic guns of the wild west.
Yes Ma'am, it is subjective. My own grandson, who is 7, is not ready. It will be a long time before he gains much in the way of responsibility. Just raised different than we were.
I can still teach him gun safety.
Safty First!
muditty - Did not mean to come across as cold and uncaring. I to am sorry for the loss of your nephew. It is indeed a tragedy when one dies a senseless death at the hands of a thoughtless person. And the perpetrator should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If they are not caught in this life, they will surely face judgment in the next.
In answer to your question;
"How would you well regulate guns and bombs, etc., seeing that a well regulated melitia is nessesary."
You answered it yourself. The tools of the militia are regulated by congress, (i.e. - 'bombs' and other tools of mass destruction). That is one of their delgated authorities.
However the tools for Self-Defense, of the citizen and those whom they bear relation to, are beyond the legitimate control of congress. In fact, ALL government was strictly prohibited from exercising ANY control whatsoever over that Right. And the citizen is to be like armed, as the military forces in the hands of an usurping government, that the citizen(s) may have to fight.
The ONLY power they have, is for punishment of CRIMINAL or negligent MISUSE of that Right. There is ample Constitutionally correct precedence which prove this assertion.
The Laws of Nature are what govern the use of Self-Defense. If someone steps outside those bounds - they will 'get theirs', so to speak.
Our Constitution was/is founded upon "the transcendent laws of nature and of natures God". And NOTHING gets past the 'Big Guy'. The old axiom; "You reap as you sow" comes into play.
Hopefully, if the civil law is operating as it was intended, the prepetrator will get caught and punished. If they happen to escape justice in this life, then they will surely pay in the next.
I've witnessed people face 'Godly Justice', and it isn't pretty. He is the Master of payback.
EDG - no problem, I don't think you come off as cold, or uncaring at all. My nephew Nathan's death was accidental, by his own hand. Like I said he was foolish, but the young so often are. What happened was; a kid in the neighborhood figured out where his parents kept their hidden firearm (in a shoe box on a high shelf in the garage.) He took his friends, including my nephew, to show off and have a look, and they were passing it around and playing with it - just goofing off...and Nathan had to have been clearly careless, because the gun went off accidentally when he was playing with it. Stupid, huh?
I've occasionally speculated that they were playing Russian Roulette (which is ilegal, right?) But none of the kids admitted to it.
So that's what happened. Another Pleasant Valley Sunday.
Thank you all for you kind thoughts, however.
I'm a flaming liberal, but I like this blog a lot.
*****
I know that Congress is vested with creating and enacting legislation...I carry the constitution in my purse, always remember that. I'm well aware of the legislative process and of ALL the amendments, not just the 2nd.
Some of my question were rhetorical. And lacking any belief in any gods, the "natural law" argument never works on me.
mudkitty said..."And lacking any belief in any gods, the "natural law" argument never works on me."
And hence you discover the reason WHY Jefferson and the other founders, used the words "laws of nature AND of natures God."
They were well aware there were people that had difficulty believing in someone they couldn't see or touch. Nature is plainly self-evident to all, and requires no belief system.
Well, obviously I have no truck with nature, but I don't believe in gods since gods are supernatural deities.
But yes, Jefferson was a deist. I don't think there's any question about that.
Sorry to be the bearer of, what might be to you, bad news, but;
"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature...."
- Thomas Jefferson, 'God and Jefferson'
Well, most people who knew Jefferson at the time, felt the statement to be rhetorical. It's not like he was a bible literalist.
mudkitty said...
Well, most people who knew Jefferson at the time, felt the statement to be rhetorical. It's not like he was a bible literalist.
Actually, Jefferson adhered to the teachings of Jesus in the bible.
He despised 'religions', and the spreaders of false doctrine. Which is one of the main reasons we have he problems we see today.
People have a tendency to judge what they see the 'religionists' do. As being representative of God/Jesus. When in fact these 'religionists' only truly represent themselves and lies.
There is a huge difference between 'religion', and true spirituality.
Post a Comment