Ageless Wisdom Of The Founders
Gun grabbers like to ask the question: “Why do you need an ‘assault weapon?’”
As the Department of Homeland Security so aptly put it in its own request for proposal for 7,000 .223 cal. select fire weapons, they are for personal defense.
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.—Amendment II
Some of the recent attacks on the 2nd Amendment and lawful gun owners by the gun grabbers have focused on the meaning of the words in the Amendment. Particularly, gun grabbers have zeroed in on what the Founding Fathers meant by the words “well regulated Militia.”
“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.” -2nd Amendment
Infringe— to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. (Merriam-Webster)
In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of Americans signed online petitions seeking to peacefully secede from the union.
It was a purely symbolic move and the wrong way to go about seceding, but that was not truly their aim. The goal for many of them was simply to express their frustration that the next four years will see more government growth, expanding bureaucracy and a growing regulatory burden, and an understanding that neither party seems to represent their wishes.
The Union was formed as a confederation of States that joined together voluntarily. It was the States that joined together, not the people.
The Founders saw the States as checks on the Federal government. They understood that the Federal government would attempt to assume more power than it was granted by the Constitution. So the Senate was devised in Article I, Section 3 in such a way as to give the State legislatures Senate-appointing powers. This made the Senators accountable to the States rather than special interests.
After years of bristling under the rule of a monarchy, Americans were loath to create another monarchy. Antifederalist Philadelphiensis warned that the U.S. Constitution was creating an executive with even more power than a king.
The political class loves to pit one class against another. It does it in rhetoric to win elections. It does it in policy to win campaign donations from and provide favors to special interest groups.
Because of it, rather than a Nation united, we are a Nation divided.
As we approach another Presidential election, we face a Morton’s Fork. On the one hand is the Marxist President Barack Obama who in speeches has committed himself to empire America and to policies subjecting Americans to trickle-up poverty while he and his cronies enjoy the perks of power. On the other hand is the corporatist/fascist Mitt Romney who has pledged to grow the military-industrial complex while growing America’s debt almost as fast as Obama.
In October 2009, while the Barack Obama Justice Department was watching guns purchased from U.S. border gun stores “walk” into Mexico straight into the hands of narcoterrorists, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.
“The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”
During the Constitutional Convention, there was much discussion about the chief executive, how much power he should have, how long his term should be and whether there should be more than one. In fact, the lack of a chief executive was considered one of the glaring weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
Save Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson — who advocated for a strong chief executive similar to a monarch — delegates were most concerned that the executive would turn into a virtual king. During the Philadelphia Convention, Charles Pinckney said he was “for a vigorous executive, but was afraid the executive powers of the existing Congress might extend to peace and war, &c.; which would render the executive a monarchy of the worst kind, to wit, an elective one.”