I've been reading the Isaacson Biography of Ben Franklin and in it there is mention of Franklin's actions in Pennsylvania during the mid 1700s relative to forming private, non government sponsored/controlled militia to provide protection to the people because the largely Quaker government of the time were pacifists and refused to authorize the taking of arms to thwart French and Indian raids against private property owners.
Franklin recognized that the government could not always be counted on to do what was right by the citizenry. However, if able to defend themselves he felt the citizenry had the ability, and the right, to act in their own best interest.
Within weeks of Franklin's pleas, over 10,000 citizens had organized themselves into 100 separate, self governing militias and they stopped the threat of raids from the north.
Franklin was of the opinon that "the middling people" needed to have the ability to protect themselves separate and distinct from the government.
When I read the second amendment as written:
"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."
I ask myself "Is it mere coincidence that immediately after the right of free speech the framers sought to deal directly with the necessity of people arming themselves?" Absolutely not, it flows directly from the experience and wisdom of our founding fathers. Specifically, in this instance, Ben Franklin. The keystone to the 2nd Amendment are these words - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
Many may obsess all day over what a "well regulated militia" is, but the fact remains that those words are merely a preamble to the main point - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". However, looking at the actions of Franklin specifically we can conclude that the framers view of militia meant something outside of the government.
I now have a totally different concept of what the framers were getting at. Knowing the historic context makes it very clear that "well regulated" militia can only be formed when common people have the means to participate, which means they must be allowed to bear arms. (Franklin asked that all militia elect their own officers and see to their own organization - does that not define "well regulated" and distinguish it from "angry mob"?)
Nowhere in the second amendment does it say "government sponsored or controlled" militia.
I also read McCullough's historic novel 1776 recently. In it the role of federal and state rights are revealed in practice. In those days our government was an affiliated band of 13 colonies who sent volunteer militia to fight. These men came as loosely organized militia from their own towns, and signed enlistments to fight for freedom on behalf of the governing body in Philadelphia. The enlistees never gave up their rights and when their enlistments were over they were free to take their weapons and return to their homes and militia.
I've heard many antigun folks raise the the claim that the term "militia" was used differently in the days of the constitution and did not mean that individuals should possess firearms (though nearly all did during colonial times). Balderdash!
Reading the historical background regarding gun ownership and the rights of the people to arm and protect themselves simply reinforces the fact that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (as well as many other jurisdictions) is severely compromising our constitutional rights regarding gun ownership.
Shame on us and all other freedom loving citizens for allowing our elected officials to transform our constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms into a "bestowed privilege".
Franklin recognized that the government could not always be counted on to do what was right by the citizenry. However, if able to defend themselves he felt the citizenry had the ability, and the right, to act in their own best interest.
Within weeks of Franklin's pleas, over 10,000 citizens had organized themselves into 100 separate, self governing militias and they stopped the threat of raids from the north.
Franklin was of the opinon that "the middling people" needed to have the ability to protect themselves separate and distinct from the government.
When I read the second amendment as written:
"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."
I ask myself "Is it mere coincidence that immediately after the right of free speech the framers sought to deal directly with the necessity of people arming themselves?" Absolutely not, it flows directly from the experience and wisdom of our founding fathers. Specifically, in this instance, Ben Franklin. The keystone to the 2nd Amendment are these words - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
Many may obsess all day over what a "well regulated militia" is, but the fact remains that those words are merely a preamble to the main point - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". However, looking at the actions of Franklin specifically we can conclude that the framers view of militia meant something outside of the government.
I now have a totally different concept of what the framers were getting at. Knowing the historic context makes it very clear that "well regulated" militia can only be formed when common people have the means to participate, which means they must be allowed to bear arms. (Franklin asked that all militia elect their own officers and see to their own organization - does that not define "well regulated" and distinguish it from "angry mob"?)
Nowhere in the second amendment does it say "government sponsored or controlled" militia.
I also read McCullough's historic novel 1776 recently. In it the role of federal and state rights are revealed in practice. In those days our government was an affiliated band of 13 colonies who sent volunteer militia to fight. These men came as loosely organized militia from their own towns, and signed enlistments to fight for freedom on behalf of the governing body in Philadelphia. The enlistees never gave up their rights and when their enlistments were over they were free to take their weapons and return to their homes and militia.
I've heard many antigun folks raise the the claim that the term "militia" was used differently in the days of the constitution and did not mean that individuals should possess firearms (though nearly all did during colonial times). Balderdash!
Reading the historical background regarding gun ownership and the rights of the people to arm and protect themselves simply reinforces the fact that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (as well as many other jurisdictions) is severely compromising our constitutional rights regarding gun ownership.
Shame on us and all other freedom loving citizens for allowing our elected officials to transform our constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms into a "bestowed privilege".
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
)
