Regarding Tench Coxe, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the govt was unable to supply militias with all the firearms they needed. Thus, they expected that each militiaman would supply his own personal rifle or musket and ammunition, for militia service. Furthermore, the Founders deliberations for the Constitution were concerned with national defense and maintaining internal social order, not with usage of firearms for personal reasons. Thus, Coxe's statement provides no support for your contention.
If the there is a fundamental right to own firearms for self defense in the home, based on English Common Law, then I think the 9th Amendment covers that.
Hello and thank-you for the analysis. In the book "On Virginia" by Thos. Jefferson he states that "all able-bodied men between 18 and 54 are AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED IN THE MILITIA"
Stop using the word “Government” as if we are talking about some kind of omnipotent megalith. Government is nothing but an abstraction of the mind, a legal fiction. We are talking about Government Actors. Government Actors are “people” that occupy positions of public trust who are charged with the preservation of public justice. Government Actors are servants, not masters. They are fiduciaries whose powers are delegated and limited. Government doesn’t grant me jack shit.
The reality may be even starker. What if our constitution isn't really a controlling document for our government? The pope ceded all the lands back to the crown after the revolution. In 1871 the USA became a corporation (when the government went bankrupt). The real controlling documents for the USA company are thought to be secretly held by the Bank of England, but no one knows. What we know is the USA company has paid lip service to the constitution while ignoring it in practice. Policy is what rules corporations. It was corporate policy in 1871 to make changes to the title and contents of the constitution unlawfully. Specifically, the title of the constitution said FOR the USA and now it's OF the USA. Changing the title like this is very important in contract law. It changes the constitution from a controlling document into a relic. In contract law, prepositions matter. So the policy of the USA corporation is to ignore the constitution and to do whatever would benefit the owners of the corporation, of course. That's how corporations work. They don't have laws or borders, they have policies. That's why the USA company ignores its laws and borders. That's why a corporation can never be a representative republic, and is why our government is so cynical and pernicious with regards to the rights of the populace. It doesn't believe we have any rights at all. They treat us as subjects of the crown of England which the Pope has owned for several hundred years. The movie Elizabeth is the story of how the pope came to dominate the crown and the entire west became a vassal state for the pope and his agents (frogs in Rev. 20) https://palamambron.substack.com/p/a-fruitful-meditation-of-rev-20-the
I figure I have the choice of defending myself and my property and family against all invaders. Otherwise why live? I don't need to fight over a constitution that the perps will just trounce as they see fit.
In today's vernacular, maybe it could be rewritten. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED so that they can if so desired establish well regulated militias for the security of a free state of existence.
Well done. If more folks would realize this. I addressed it sometime back and just re-released my August one with some updates due to the recent call for more restrictions that violate SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This one was at Lew Rockwell last year Those Forgotten and Ignored 13 Words: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/08/mark-reynolds/those-forgotten-and-ignored-13-words/ and this is my WHY THE MILTIA? post. I think you and your readers will find that they add to the debate. https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/why-the-militia I am surprised so many people are hung up on a standing army when the founding fathers did NOT have that intention in mind in the least bit. And yet there was one almost right away.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States...
Further, the law also includes female citizens but only if they are members of the National Guard.
The law specifies that the Militia consists of two parts: an "organized militia" which is the National Guard; and an "unorganized militia" which is everybody else.
This is a very well written article and touches on a concept entirely removed from contemporary American culture, and that is the constitution not granting rights to the people, but merely recognizing those rights and restraining the federal government, and after the passage of the 14th amendment, restraining the federal and state governments. I think the author missed one point. Article I section 10 specifically outlaws the states from keeping standing armies. "No state shall, without the consent of congress,....keep troops or ships of war in times of peace". I suppose one might argue that congress consented as it is the national guard, but it does seem to form the standing army the founders feared.
I think it should be added that the word "arms' has also been misconstrued. There is zero mention of firearms in 2A, and while those are definitely "arms', they are not the only thing to fall in that category. Private citizens used to own cannons, and I see no stipulation barring ownership of a modern version such as RPGs or 50 cal belt fed machine guns. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear and if I want an F-16 fully armed, the only thing that should stop me is the cost.
You have correctly defined the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution. Too many people think the US constitution applies to the States. It does not. It is incumbent on ever American to secure their rights in their individual State constitution.
VA has a right to keep and bear arms, ignored by their politicians.
CA has zero rights to a firearm
AK has a privilege that can be taken away at any time
This is absolutely shit writing. No minds will be changed with verbose, overwritten, self obsessed garbage like this. The writer loves his mouthful of prose more than the topic. Nothing more despicable and fully boomer than this: take a valid argument and destroy it with ego and pathetic show off bullshit. No wonder we’re fucked.
Regarding Tench Coxe, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the govt was unable to supply militias with all the firearms they needed. Thus, they expected that each militiaman would supply his own personal rifle or musket and ammunition, for militia service. Furthermore, the Founders deliberations for the Constitution were concerned with national defense and maintaining internal social order, not with usage of firearms for personal reasons. Thus, Coxe's statement provides no support for your contention.
If the there is a fundamental right to own firearms for self defense in the home, based on English Common Law, then I think the 9th Amendment covers that.
Hello and thank-you for the analysis. In the book "On Virginia" by Thos. Jefferson he states that "all able-bodied men between 18 and 54 are AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED IN THE MILITIA"
Now for those under 18 and 55 and older...well...
Stop using the word “Government” as if we are talking about some kind of omnipotent megalith. Government is nothing but an abstraction of the mind, a legal fiction. We are talking about Government Actors. Government Actors are “people” that occupy positions of public trust who are charged with the preservation of public justice. Government Actors are servants, not masters. They are fiduciaries whose powers are delegated and limited. Government doesn’t grant me jack shit.
Note that Mr. Brian wrote this incomplete explanation on the 1st of April.
That was excellent. A complete and simply understood explanation.
The reality may be even starker. What if our constitution isn't really a controlling document for our government? The pope ceded all the lands back to the crown after the revolution. In 1871 the USA became a corporation (when the government went bankrupt). The real controlling documents for the USA company are thought to be secretly held by the Bank of England, but no one knows. What we know is the USA company has paid lip service to the constitution while ignoring it in practice. Policy is what rules corporations. It was corporate policy in 1871 to make changes to the title and contents of the constitution unlawfully. Specifically, the title of the constitution said FOR the USA and now it's OF the USA. Changing the title like this is very important in contract law. It changes the constitution from a controlling document into a relic. In contract law, prepositions matter. So the policy of the USA corporation is to ignore the constitution and to do whatever would benefit the owners of the corporation, of course. That's how corporations work. They don't have laws or borders, they have policies. That's why the USA company ignores its laws and borders. That's why a corporation can never be a representative republic, and is why our government is so cynical and pernicious with regards to the rights of the populace. It doesn't believe we have any rights at all. They treat us as subjects of the crown of England which the Pope has owned for several hundred years. The movie Elizabeth is the story of how the pope came to dominate the crown and the entire west became a vassal state for the pope and his agents (frogs in Rev. 20) https://palamambron.substack.com/p/a-fruitful-meditation-of-rev-20-the
I figure I have the choice of defending myself and my property and family against all invaders. Otherwise why live? I don't need to fight over a constitution that the perps will just trounce as they see fit.
In today's vernacular, maybe it could be rewritten. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED so that they can if so desired establish well regulated militias for the security of a free state of existence.
Well done. If more folks would realize this. I addressed it sometime back and just re-released my August one with some updates due to the recent call for more restrictions that violate SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This one was at Lew Rockwell last year Those Forgotten and Ignored 13 Words: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/08/mark-reynolds/those-forgotten-and-ignored-13-words/ and this is my WHY THE MILTIA? post. I think you and your readers will find that they add to the debate. https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/why-the-militia I am surprised so many people are hung up on a standing army when the founding fathers did NOT have that intention in mind in the least bit. And yet there was one almost right away.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States...
Further, the law also includes female citizens but only if they are members of the National Guard.
The law specifies that the Militia consists of two parts: an "organized militia" which is the National Guard; and an "unorganized militia" which is everybody else.
This is a very well written article and touches on a concept entirely removed from contemporary American culture, and that is the constitution not granting rights to the people, but merely recognizing those rights and restraining the federal government, and after the passage of the 14th amendment, restraining the federal and state governments. I think the author missed one point. Article I section 10 specifically outlaws the states from keeping standing armies. "No state shall, without the consent of congress,....keep troops or ships of war in times of peace". I suppose one might argue that congress consented as it is the national guard, but it does seem to form the standing army the founders feared.
The problem now is American struggles under jewish tyranny...
It's a NO-BRAINER, the Bill of Rights (with 2A) provides rights (not privileges) for the PEOPLE, while the main body of the Constitution provides guidelines for arming the military: https://amuedge.com/the-role-of-the-u-s-constitution-and-the-armed-forces/
I think it should be added that the word "arms' has also been misconstrued. There is zero mention of firearms in 2A, and while those are definitely "arms', they are not the only thing to fall in that category. Private citizens used to own cannons, and I see no stipulation barring ownership of a modern version such as RPGs or 50 cal belt fed machine guns. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear and if I want an F-16 fully armed, the only thing that should stop me is the cost.
You have correctly defined the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution. Too many people think the US constitution applies to the States. It does not. It is incumbent on ever American to secure their rights in their individual State constitution.
VA has a right to keep and bear arms, ignored by their politicians.
CA has zero rights to a firearm
AK has a privilege that can be taken away at any time
This is absolutely shit writing. No minds will be changed with verbose, overwritten, self obsessed garbage like this. The writer loves his mouthful of prose more than the topic. Nothing more despicable and fully boomer than this: take a valid argument and destroy it with ego and pathetic show off bullshit. No wonder we’re fucked.