|
"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to wait their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too--and meanwhile they must suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of a law itself, by sort of tacit implication, permits self-defense, because it is not actually forbidden to kill; what it does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, inquiry passes on the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who is used arms in self-defense is not regard is having carried with a homicidal aim."
- Marcus Tulius Cicero, (106-53 BC). In a prepared speech for the trial of T. Annius Milo in 52 B.C.
**********
"The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war."
- Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan", (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651.
**********
At the time of the founding of America as a British colony. The laws of the American Colonial governments and rights of the people were, in part, founded upon the English Constitution, Common Law, and various charters and compacts.
The first recording of the Liberties of the American people, in the Massachusetts colony, was in 1641. In this document lawful self defense is defined. In addition, you will discover clear indication of the origins of our present day Constitution. As well as proof that our early colonial laws were indeed founded on the laws of God and that America has always been a Christian nation:
4. If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.
- The Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641
**********
"The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it."
- John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Government" - Chapter 11 - Of the Extent of the Legislative Power. (1690).
As early as the mid-1700's the colonists were becoming dissatisfied with the arbitrary rule, of both the crown and many of the various colonial governments. The rights of the people were left up to the interpretations of the crown, as well as to the various state and municipal governments. Which of course was just cause for increasing discontent on the part of the colonists.
The first apparent major breakthrough, as far as the American Right to Keep and Bear Arms is concerned. Was by Mr. Samuel Adams, in a collaborative work with Benjamin Franklin, titled 'The Rights of the Colonists', (actual title; 'The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting'). In the report, dated Nov. 20, 1772, Adams and Franklin assert that Self-Preservation is the First Law of Nature and that it was not only a right but a duty;
Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains....
...In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators...
...The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants...
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave...
The Rights of the Colonists parallels very closely, with the words of a cousin of Samuel - Mr. John Adams, which were written almost ten years previously;
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
- Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763
And, Samuel Adams has written on the topic previously as well in 1769;
"...This was the fate of a race of Kings, bigotted to the greatest degree to the doctrines of slavery and regardless of the natural, inherent, divinely hereditary and indefeasible rights of their subjects.--At the revolution, the British constitution was again restor'd to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards pass'd into a law, and stands as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects. "To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually violated or attack'd, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law--next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances--and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." These he calls "auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property": And that of having arms for their defence he tells us is "a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."--How little do those persons attend to the rights of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault with a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence at any time; but more especially, when they had reason to fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation against the violence of oppression...."
- Boston Gazette, 27 Feb. 1769.
The well respected Judge Blackstone, referred to earlier by Samuel Adams, seemed to think that it was a Natural Right;
"This law of nature, being coeval [existing at the same time - ed.] with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these."
"...The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765–1769.
As did Mr. Jefferson early in his legal career;
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance."
- Thomas Jefferson, Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376.
As well as George Mason;
"The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth."
- George Mason, 1772 [Robin v. Hardaway, General Court of Virginia]
The first President of our country seemed to concur about the Law of Nature as well;
"...That our Ancestors, when they left their native Land, and setled in America, brought with them (even if the same had not been confirmed by Charters) the Civil- Constitution and Form of Government of the Country they came from; and were by the Laws of Nature and Nations, entitled to all it's Privileges, Immunities and Advantages; which have descended to us their Posterity, and ought of Right to be as fully enjoyed, as if we had still continued within the Realm of England...."
- George Washington, "Fairfax County Resolves", July 18, 1774
**********
**********
"The presumption is founded on a law of nature. We know of no more universal instinct than that of self-preservation, -none that so insistently urges to care against injury. It has its motives to exercise in the fear of has its motives to exercise in the fear of pain, maiming, and death. There are few presumptions based on human feelings or experience that have surer foundation than that expressed in the instruction objected to."
- Mr. Justice McKenna, delivering opinion of the U.S Supreme Court in Baltimore & P R CO v. Landrigan, 191 U.S. 461 (1903). Decided December 7, 1903.
**********
"... Indeed, this is conceded by counsel for the government, for in their brief ( after referring to certain decisions of this court) it is said: ..."
"...'Even though such right be a natural or inalienable right, the duty of protecting the citizen in the enjoyment of such right, free from individual interference, rests alone with the state...."
- Mr. Justice Brewer, delivering opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hodges v. U.S., 203 U.S. 1 (1906). May 28, 1906.
**********
"'The fundamental rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to him as a free man and a free citizen, now belong to him as a citizen of the United States, and are not dependent upon his citizenship of any state . . . . The Amendment [Fourteenth] does not attempt to confer any new privileges or immunities upon citizens, or to enumerate or define those already existing. It assumes that there are such privileges and immunities, which belong of right to citizens as such, and ordains that they shall not be abridged by state legislation. If this inhibition has no reference to privileges and immunities of this character, but only refers, as held by the majority of the court in their opinion, to such privileges and immunities as were, before its adoption, specially designated in the Constitution, or necessarily implied as belonging to citizens of the United States, it was a vain and idle enactment, which accomplished nothing, and most unnecessarily excited Congress and the people on its passage. With privileges and immunities thus designated or implied no state could ever have interfered by its laws, and no new constitutional provision was required to inhibit such interference. The supremacy of the Constitution and the laws of the United States always controlled any state legislation of that character. But, if the Amendment refers to the natural and inalienable rights which belong to all citizens, the inhibition has a profound significance and consequence.'"
- Mr. Justice Field, (concurred in by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley), U.S. Supreme Court, [Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230, (p. 95)] As quoted in Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
**********
"Who then, it is asked, will pronounce a verdict of guilty upon him if he stops reasoning and follows the first impulse of nature: self-preservation; and further, whether, while technically he is wrong in his resistance, he is not more sinned against than sinning; and yet again whether the guilt of those who voted the unnatural sacrifice is not greater than the wrong of those who now seek to escape by illadvised resistance."
- Mr. Justice [Oliver Wendell] Holmes, delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Frohwerk v. U S , 249 U.S. 204 (1919). Decided March 10, 1919.
**********
"It is asserted that the right of free speech is a natural and inherent right, and that it, and the freedom of the press, 'were regarded as among the most sacred and vital possessed by mankind when this nation was born, when its Constitution was framed and adopted.' And the contention seems necessary for the plaintiff in error to support. But without so deciding or considering the freedom asserted as guaranteed or secured either by the Constitution of the United States or by the Constitution of the state, we pass immediately to the contention, and for the purposes of this case may concede it; that is, concede that the asserted freedom is natural and inherent...."
- Mr. Justice McKENNA, delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in GILBERT v. STATE OF MINN., 254 U.S. 325 (1920).
**********
"...The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 559, 15 S. Sup. Ct. 962. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him..."
- Mr. Justice [Oliver Wendell] HOLMES, U.S. Supreme Court, BROWN v. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
**********
"...What the Court did hold was that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only protected from state invasion such rights as a person has because he is a citizen of the United States. The Court enumerated some, but refused to enumerate all of these national rights. The majority of the Court emphatically declined the invitation of counsel to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment subjected all state regulatory legislation to continuous censorship by this Court in order for it to determine whether it collided with this Court's opinion of 'natural' right and justice. In effect, the Slaughter-House cases rejected the very natural justice formula the Court today embraces. The Court did not meet the question of whether the safeguards of the Bill of Rights were protected against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment. And it specifically did not say as the Court now does, that particular provisions of the Bill of Rights could be breached by states in part, but not breached in other respects, according to this Court's notions of 'civilized standards,' 'canons of decency,' and 'fundamental justice.'
"Later, but prior to the Twining case, this Court decided that the following were not 'privileges or immunities' of national citizenship, so as to make them immune against state invasion: the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436; the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in civil cases, Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90; the Second Amendment's 'right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
"...It was aimed at restraining and checking the powers of wealth and privilege. It was to be a charter of liberty for human rights against property rights. The transformation has been rapid and complete. It operates today to protect the rights of property to the detriment of the rights of man. It has become the Magna Charta of accumulated and organized capital.'..."
- Mr. Justice [Hugo] Black, in dissent, (along with Justices Douglas and Swayne), Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 1947.
**********
""Capitalism is an economic system based on man's right to private property and on his freedom to use that property in producing goods which will earn him a just profit on his investment. Man's right to private property stems from the Natural Law implanted in him by God. It is as much a part of man's nature as the will to self-preservation." (At 560.)"
- MR. Justice Douglas, (in dissent), U.S. Supreme Court, quoting "Arthur J. Hughes' general history text, Man in Time (1964)", in Board OF Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968). Decided June 10, 1968.
**********
"Rights of the citizen declared to be --".
**********
The ONLY time a citizen of these United States can be legally disarmed, is if they are imprisoned according to valid usage of law and then government is obligated to provide protection for them. Otherwise, the citizen is in the state of nature and entitled to be able to defend themselves.
Anything else would be Repugnant to the United States Constitution, and the Laws of God, and Nature.
The perverse usurpations against our Rights, by government(s) that were formed by us. For the express purpose of protecting those very Rights, must cease immediately. All laws that have been passed, regardless of perverse precedence applied. Which are unconstitutional in their nature, must be declared Null and Void, by the TRUE rule of law. Our Freedom, our Liberty, and the very lives of ourselves and progeny absolutely depend upon it.
**********
"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
- Ben Franklin
**********
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
- Samuel Adams, letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
**********
"The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833.
Those whom allow themselves to be governed by fear,
will soon find themselves under its absolute rule.
2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com
pustekuchen webmaster2006
pustekuchen webmaster2006
pustekuchen webmaster2006
pustekuchen webmaster2006
http://www.gunshowonthenet.com/page38.html (1 of 19) [12/13/2007 1:18:30 AM]
http://money-law.blogspot.com/2006/12/three-deans.html (1 of 6) [12/13/2007 1:27:02 AM]
http://money-law.blogspot.com/ (1 of 68) [12/13/2007 1:26:50 AM]
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=2816 (1 of 12) [12/13/2007 12:42:35 AM]
http://www.decodesystems.com/tib0203-exploded.gif
Gun Show On The Net.com - Home Page
http://www.gunshowonthenet.com/page38.html
http://www.gunshowonthenet.com/index.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html
You understand an animal has no immortal soul...
==========================================
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource 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. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, (Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!), without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28, Dec. 26, 1787.
**********
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this even an era in their history."
- John Adams, "Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States", 1787.
**********
“ . . . demonstrated the impracticability of forming a bill, (Amendments - Bill of Rights), in a national constitution, for securing individual rights, and showed the inutility of the measure, from the ideas, that no power was given to Congress to infringe on any one of the natural rights of the people by this Constitution; and, should they attempt it without constitutional authority, the act would be a nullity, and could not be enforced.”
- Theophilus Parsons, Jan., 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (MASSACHUSETTS), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 2]
**********
"Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34, Jan. 4, 1788.
**********
"...Thus, Mr. President, an attention to the situation of England will shew that the conduct of that country in respect to bills of rights, cannot furnish an example to the inhabitants of the United States, who by the revolution have regained all their natural rights, and possess their liberty neither by grant nor contract. In short, Sir, I have said that a bill of rights would have been improperly annexed to the federal plan, and for this plain reason, that it would imply that whatever is not expressed was given, which is not the principle of the proposed constitution.""
- Samuel Tenny, ("Alfredus" Essay 1), Jan. 18, 1788, quoting "Speech of Mr. [James] Wilson in the Pennsylvania Convention on the subject of a Bill of Rights". [Freeman’s Oracle, Exeter, 18 January 1788.]
**********
"....The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution....
"...The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself...."
"...A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void...."
"It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other."
PUBLIUS
- James Madison, The Federalist No. 43, Jan. 23, 1788.
**********
"...The limits of a letter would not suffer me to go fully into an examination of them; nor would the discussion be entertaining or profitable, I therefore forbear to touch upon it. With regard to the two great points (the pivots upon which the whole machine must move,) my Creed is simply,
1st. That the general Government is not invested with more Powers than are indispensably necessary to perform the functions of a good Government; and, consequently, that no objection ought to be made against the quantity of Power delegated to it.
2ly. That these Powers (as the appointment of all Rulers will for ever arise from, and, at short stated intervals, recur to the free suffrage of the People) are so distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, into which the general Government is arranged, that it can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an Oligarchy, an Aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form, so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the People.
I would not be understood my dear Marquis to speak of consequences which may be produced, in the revolution of ages, by corruption of morals, profligacy of manners, and listlessness for the preservation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; nor of the successful usurpations that may be established at such an unpropitious juncture, upon the ruins of liberty, however providently guarded and secured, as these are contingencies against which no human prudence can effectually provide. It will at least be a recommendation to the proposed Constitution that it is provided with more checks and barriers against the introduction of Tyranny, and those of a nature less liable to be surmounted, than any Government hitherto instituted among mortals, hath possessed. We are not to expect perfection in this world; but mankind, in modern times, have apparently made some progress in the science of government. Should that which is now offered to the People of America, be found on experiment less perfect than it can be made, a Constitutional door is left open for its amelioration...."
- George Washington, letter to Marquis De LaFayette, Feb. 7, 1788.
**********
"...It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful...."
- James Madison, The Federalist No. 51 Feb. 6, 1788.
**********
“We have one, sir, that all men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity. We have a set of maxims of the same spirit, which must be beloved by every friend to liberty, to virtue, to mankind: our bill of rights contains those admirable maxims."
- Patrick Henry, The Debates in the Several State (Virginia) Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] Friday, June 6, 1788.
**********
"The supporters of the Constitution claim the side of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy, because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it, because we think it a well-regulated democracy. It is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom."
"Permit me to attend to what the honorable gentleman (Mr. Henry) has said. He has expatiated on the necessity of a due attention to certain maxims--to certain fundamental principles, from which a free people ought never to depart. I concur with him in the propriety of the observance of such maxims."
"...Look at the great volume of human nature. They will foretell you that a defenceless country cannot be secure. The nature of man forbids us to conclude that we are in no danger from war, The passions of men stimulate them to avail themselves of the weakness of others."
- John Marshall, June 10, 1788, The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]. (Mr. Marshall joined the Culpeper Minutemen and was appointed as a lieutenant. He later attained the rank of captain. Mr. Marshall was also the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving from February 4, 1801 until his death).
Mr. Marshall later stated;
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."
- John Marshall, [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
**********
"How can that government be strong which depends on humble supplications for its support? Does a government which is dependent for its existence on others, and which is unable to afford protection to the people, deserve to be continued? But the honorable gentleman has no objections to see little storms in republics; they may be useful in the political as well as in the natural world. Every thing the great Creator has ordained in the natural world is founded on consummate wisdom: but let him tell us what advantages convulsions, dissensions, and bloodshed, will produce in the political world. Can disunion be the means of securing the happiness of the people in this political hemisphere? The worthy member has enlarged on our bill of rights."
"Let us see whether his encomiums on the bill of rights be consistent with his other arguments. Our declaration of rights says that all men are by nature equally free and independent. How comes the gentleman to reconcile himself to a government wherein there are an hereditary monarch and nobility? He objects to this change, although our present federal system is totally without energy. He objects to this system, because he says it will prostrate your bill of rights. Does not the bill of rights tell you that a majority of the community have an indubitable right to alter any government which shall be found inadequate to the security of the public happiness? Does it not say "that no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles"? Have not the inadequacy of the present system, and repeated flagrant violations of justice, and the other principles recommended by the bill of rights, been amply proved? As this plan of government will promote our happiness and establish justice, will not its adoption be justified by the very principles of your bill of rights?"
- George Nicholas, June 10, 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
**********
"It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of EVERY MEMBER of the community, ANY apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to DEPRIVE them of the LIBERTY for which they VALIANTLY FOUGHT and
HONORABLY BLED. And if there are Amendments desired of such a nature as will NOT INJURE the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the DOUBTING part of OUR FELLOW-CITIZENS, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that SPIRIT of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished....We ought NOT TO DISREGARD their inclination, but, on PRINCIPLES of amity and moderation, CONFORM to their wishes, and expressly DECLARE THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND SECURED under this CONSTITUTION."
- James Madison, Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, June 8th, 1789.
In view of the evidence above, it is then made quite clear that the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms is beyond contention. And that this right is an individual God-given, Natural and Inherent Right that is Unalienable. The right was supposed to receive the protection, rather than regulation or interference, from the government. For there had long been fears expressed, quite validly as it turns out, that government could and would become tyrannical:
"In short some Individauls from too much Zeal not tempered Sufficiently with wisdom and foresight, from apprehensions too lively and Judgements a little defective, from a busy Enterprising Disposition not quite enough Controll'd by caution and Circumspection or from some other defect of Capacity very frequently gave too much importance to trifling objects (15) and generally Suggested and urged the Exercise of acts of mere arbitrary power as remedies on every Occasion. Of late this Disposition was become more extensive, and appeared more frequently, and whoever spoke of the Internal Police or rights of the States as restraining the power of Congress was generally exposed to Sarcasm or ridicule. State Necessity was urged on all Such Occasions as Sufficient to Justify every act of power. I who am firmly persuaded that arbitrary Power has a Natural tendency to abuse, and am therefore Jealous of it in any Hands, who have marked the force and progress of precedents and have observed that those which have happened under the direction of Virtuous men have given Authority to Corrupt men to Violate the rights of mankind have always Considered this propensity as dangerous so far as it tended to Establish Precedents of such acts of Power exercised by Congress as are repugnant to or Inconsistent with the purposes of its Institution and the rights of the States."
- Thomas Burke, Letter to the North Carolina Assembly, April 29, 1778,
**********
"The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without. limitation or bounds, how will your militia be afraid? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states Shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.
"The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have."
- Patrick Henry, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Virginia, June 14, 1788. [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]
**********
"I incline to think that unless some such alterations & provisions as these are interposed for the security of Those Essential Rights of Mankind Without Which Liberty Cannot Exist, we shall soon find that the New plan of Government will be far more inconvenient than anything sustained under the present Government."
- Richard Henry Lee to Elbridge Gerry, (Concerning the Bill of Rights), 9/29/1787. [American Memory, Library of Congress, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875 Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24, Page 452]
**********
"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 Nichola
|
