In addition to the distribution of powers among the three branches of government, they gave protections to the citizens so the governed could ultimately maintain control over those who governed. The First Amendment gave the people a powerful tool by guaranteeing the freedom to assemble freely, speak freely and publish their thoughts.
With an understanding that free governments can be, and had been, overthrown by enemies both foreign and domestic, the Founding Fathers backed up the powers of the First Amendment with the Second Amendment.
A study of the writings of the framers of the Constitution will quickly reveal their collective mindset for including the Second Amendment. They believed that, in addition to a standing army, the security on this nation depended on it's citizens being armed - in the words of the Constitution - a "militia."
Alexander Hamilton summed it up quite well in the Federalist Papers No. 28 when he wrote: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State."
While Hamilton felt that such an event was unlikely, he, along with others, saw how important it was to ensure that citizens were armed and prepared for self defense.
During World War II, both the German and Japanese military leaders expressed how difficult it would be to invade the United States because the ordinary citizens were so well armed. Tojo expressed the fear that Japanese invaders would encounter armed citizens "behind every blade of grass."
So, what is the state of our nation's militia today?
There is a good core group of former active military, hunters, and citizens who have spent their own money on firearms, ammunition and, in many cases, training and practice. Are their numbers large enough and their weapons adequate enough to step up to the plate as our forefathers envisioned?
As long as our enemies think so, then maybe. The problem is, there are forces at work within our own borders who want to strip our militia of all it's weapons and remove from our weaker brothers and sisters the ability to defend themselves.
Instead of having our people armed to defend themselves against everything from the violent street thug to an insurrection, these people want us to be helpless - protected only by the military on some distant shore or by law enforcement in some distant patrol car.
Why are there so many individuals and organized groups determined to deny the mandate set down by the Founding Fathers? Why are they so intent on stripping us of our individual right to self-protection?
Why is it that organizations like The Brady Campaign will not be happy until free Americans are reduced to being subjects of the Federal government?
Alexander Hamilton summed it up quite well in the Federalist Papers No. 28 when he wrote: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State."
While Hamilton felt that such an event was unlikely, he, along with others, saw how important it was to ensure that citizens were armed and prepared for self defense.
During World War II, both the German and Japanese military leaders expressed how difficult it would be to invade the United States because the ordinary citizens were so well armed. Tojo expressed the fear that Japanese invaders would encounter armed citizens "behind every blade of grass."
So, what is the state of our nation's militia today?
There is a good core group of former active military, hunters, and citizens who have spent their own money on firearms, ammunition and, in many cases, training and practice. Are their numbers large enough and their weapons adequate enough to step up to the plate as our forefathers envisioned?
As long as our enemies think so, then maybe. The problem is, there are forces at work within our own borders who want to strip our militia of all it's weapons and remove from our weaker brothers and sisters the ability to defend themselves.
Instead of having our people armed to defend themselves against everything from the violent street thug to an insurrection, these people want us to be helpless - protected only by the military on some distant shore or by law enforcement in some distant patrol car.
Why are there so many individuals and organized groups determined to deny the mandate set down by the Founding Fathers? Why are they so intent on stripping us of our individual right to self-protection?
Why is it that organizations like The Brady Campaign will not be happy until free Americans are reduced to being subjects of the Federal government?
0 comments:
Post a Comment