Private Property and the Second Amendment

10 Mar

$205 Million drug money seized by the Mexican ...

$205 Million drug money seized by the Mexican Police and the Drug Enforcement Administration in Mexico city — largest single drug cash seizure in history (2007) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you Google “Mexican Drug Violence,” you’ll find over 4 million hits.  The headlines on the first page tell a grim story:


•  Mexico’s drug violence epidemic moving closer to capital . . . – The spread raises fresh concerns that Mexico’s new administration is unable to combat the drug cartels.

•  Mexico drug wars; graphic pictures . . . .  . . . . Mexican authorities have turned to bizarre rituals including voodoo as they attempt to win the …

•  At least 26 dead in latest round of Mexican drug violence.  – At least 26 people were killed in Mexico in the past 24 hours in apparent drug-related crimes . . . .

•  LA Times (“Mexico Scrambles as Violence Threatens Tourism Zones”) the violence that has claimed an estimated 70,000 lives since December 2006.

The Mexican drug war kills lots of Mexicans.  Most are members of drug gangs.  Many are ordinary people caught in the crossfire or subjected to extortion by the gangs or the Mexican police.

If 70,000 Mexicans lost their lives to the drug war in six years, that’s over 10,000 killed per year.

Over the last decade, the recent Middle East wars have killed about 630 Americans per year, while the Mexican drug war has killed over 10,000 per year.  By that measure, the Mexican drug war is 15 times as deadly as America’s excursions into the Middle East.

Seems serious, no?  But from the Mexican government’s perspective, the real problem is not that 70,000 peons have died.  The real problem is that the drug war is interfering with commerce.

According to the LA Times (“Mexico Scrambles as Violence Threatens Tourism Zones”),


“As deadly violence that has haunted Mexico for years threatens tourist zones, government officials and trade executives are scrambling for ways to minimize damage to an industry that is a top income-earner and employer.

The LATimes also reports in “Mexican towns, once frozen with fear, now frozen in time” that,


“In Guerrero state, drug criminals who terrorized farming communities have left a cluster of more than 20 ghost pueblos, abandoned towns from which residents fled . . . .  More than 1.6 million Mexicans left their homes because of drug violence from 2006 to 2011 . . . .  All of this is due to organized crime.”

Tourism is off.  Farmers are leaving their farms.  Villages are being abandoned.  Some cities are suffering economic downturn because people are simply afraid to go out on the streets to eat in a restaurant and risk being killed in gangland crossfire

It’s one thing to whack some peons, but when the drug smugglers start to impact Mexican commerce, something’s got to be done.

The first step in solving any problem is to properly diagnose the problem and its causes.


What causes Mexican drug violence?

Mexican politicians like to blame Mexican drug violence on two causes: 1) American drug prohibitions; and 2) American abundance of firearms.  Let’s examine:


1) American Drug Laws.

Because drug smuggling includes the risks of being jailed, shot at and possibly killed, it qualifies as “hard, dangerous work”.

So, why, would anyone engage in the “hard, dangerous work” of drug smuggling?

For the money, of course.  The smugglers deem the risk (of being shot, killed, jailed) as worth the reward (big bucks).

And why are smuggled drugs so profitable?  After all, marijuana (often called “weed”) is, in fact, just a “weed”—a plant.  Cocaine is a distillation of chemicals found in an ordinary cocoa plant. Opium and heroin are derived from poppies. None of these plants are exotic.  None are particularly hard to grow or in short supply.  So why are they or their ingredients so valuable and therefore profitable—at least in the US?

Because they’re prohibited by law in the US.

What’s the price of marijuana in countries where its use is legal or generally tolerated?  A fraction of the price in the US where marijuana use is prohibited by law.  What’s the price of cocaine in Colombia where cocoa trees flourish?  A fraction of the price in the US where cocaine is prohibited by law.   What’s the price of opium in Afghanistan where poppy fields flourish?  A fraction of the price in the US where opium is prohibited by law.

The profit potential in drugs like marijuana, cocaine, and opium is huge in the US precisely because the US government has passed laws to make them illegal.  If drugs were legalized, the profit potential would evaporate and no sane man or organization would engage in the hard, dangerous work of driving tunnels under the Mexican-US border. If drugs were legalized, the amount of violence associated with “drugs” (actually, with “drug profits”) would also vaporize. (How many people are killed each year for a legal carton of cigarettes or a legal six-pack of beer?)

The major addictive ingredient in all “illegal drugs” is exorbitant profits.  If those drugs were legalized, their enormous profit potential disappears and so does the incentive to smuggle and, often, even use drugs.

Mexican gangs aren’t fighting among themselves and with the Mexican police so they can get high.  They’re fighting for control of the $13 billion market for trafficking drugs into the US.

America’s legal prohibitions against such drugs is the cornerstone and cause for their profitability and also for the resulting violence as gangs fight for those profits.

Thus, America’s drug prohibition laws are correctly viewed as a major cause for the drug war violence in Mexico.



2)  American Firearms

Mexicans have a constitutional right to have firearms.  However, one report claims that there’s only one gun store in all of Mexico (in Mexico City), and the bureaucratic and administrative process of actually acquiring a firearm is virtually “impossible” to negotiate.  The net result of Mexican gun control laws is that the Mexican people are almost completely without modern firearms.

In a recent report on “U.S.-Mexican Cooperation,” the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wrote, “The United States supplies 90% of the weapons that are confiscated in Mexico, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.”

Another CFR report claims that 95% of all cocaine smuggled into the US flows through Mexico.

Thus, Mexico smuggles 95% of all cocaine into the US—where cocaine is prohibited by law.  And America smuggles 90% of all firearms into Mexico—when gun ownership is prohibited by law.  America smuggles guns into countries where they’re illegal—and therefore highly profitable.  Other countries smuggle drugs into the US where those drugs are illegal—and therefore highly profitable.

If it weren’t for the Mexican and US government’s prohibitions on drugs and guns, we wouldn’t see the drug wars, gun wars or organized smuggling between Mexico and the US.  Both governments’ prohibitions on drugs and firearms cause those items to become particularly profitable and then grounds for violent struggles to capture those profits.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but the fundamental cause of drug violence in the US and gun violence in Mexico is each nation’s government’s legal prohibitions.

Look at the story of U.S. alcohol prohibition in the “Roaring Twenties”.  That prohibition resulted in huge profits in alcohol, and huge violence as gangs fought to control the alcohol market—same thing as today’s drug control and gun control laws.  When the prohibition laws were repealed, the huge profits in alcohol disappeared and the violence ended.  That’s proof that it wasn’t the alcohol that caused the violence.  It was the prohibition laws that caused the violence organized crime.

Nevertheless, it’s fashionable for Mexican politicians to blame the 70,000 deaths caused by the Mexican drug wars on:  1) American drug laws; and 2) American gun laws.


3. A third cause?

I suggest that there may be a third cause for Mexican violence:  Mexican Gun Control

Just as American prohibition on drugs makes drugs enormously profitable in the US, Mexico’s prohibition on arms makes firearms enormously profitable in Mexico.

Could it be that Mexico’s gun control policies are as responsible for guns being highly profitable in Mexico just as Obama’s gun control threats have been responsible for spurring increased demand and higher prices for guns in the US?  Absolutely.

More importantly, could it be that because they’re unarmed, the Mexican people are forced to not only abandon farms, villages and towns, but even parts of their economy?  Could the “organized crime” that plagues Mexico have grown to become so large and so “organized” if the Mexican people had sufficient firearms to fight the criminals?

The Mexican government—especially the police—are corrupt from top to bottom.  The “mordida” (the “little bite”; a bribe) is a Mexican institution.  Mexican drug smugglers could not exist without the support of the corrupt government officials who are more interested in receiving bribes than dispensing justice.

As a result, there are two gangs in Mexico: the government and the drug smugglers.  Both of these gangs are armed.  Both gangs seek to exploit the unarmed Mexican people.

The drug-smuggler-gang won’t protect the people and neither will the government-gang. Both gangs are bent on robbing the people.  When we see the government-gang fighting the drug-smuggler-gang we are watching a struggle that’s morally identical to a turf war between the Bloods and the Crips.

So, given that both gangs exist only to exploit the people, who will truly protect the people except for the people, themselves?  And how can the Mexican people protect themselves against either of the gangs that are armed, if the people are disarmed?  Without their own firearms, the Mexican people will be robbed and exploited by one or the other of the two gangs who still have firearms.

Mexican gun control is at least partially responsible for the rise Mexican Drug War.  If they people had adequate access to firearms, they could do what their government has largely refused to do:  shoot or at least intimidate the drug smugglers.

Without firearms, the Mexican people cannot expect to avoid being robbed and therefore have no effective right to private property


The right to own private property

I believe that the essential feature of any prosperous economy is the right to own private property.  If I work hard, I can acquire my own land, home, automobile, etc., and hold those items as private property to the exclusion of all others.  Therefore, in a society where we can all own and hold our own private property, almost all of us are motivated to work hard. The result is usually a maximum of whatever prosperity is possible for a nation, given its level of natural resources, education, etc.

But what happens to the prosperity of a nation where there’s no right to private property?  What is your incentive to work hard if you won’t personally receive the benefits of your labor?   The only persons who have an incentive to work in a society that doesn’t guarantee the right of private property are government officials and employees who are motivated to work hard in order to control and exploit the property earned by the vast majority of the people.  Without a right to private property, the fundamental “work” is not production, but institutionalized theft.

The former Soviet Union operated a collectivist society which denied the right to private property.  Result?  The people of that society refused to work hard.  Instead, they joked:  “They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.”  Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed and ceased to exist.  Much of the reason for that collapse was a system of government that denied the right to private property and thus denied the people a legitimate incentive to work hard.


•  I can’t prove it, but I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to a nation’s prosperity.


Because, being shot takes all the fun out of theft.   So long as I have a weapon, robbers—including the government—are much less likely to steal my private property.  On the other hand, once a man or a nation is disarmed, it’s so much easier for government to steal his wealth and his labor.  (Look at Mexico.  Whole communities are being abandoned, at least in part because the people are disarmed.)

We can look back at history to see how many governments imposed gun control that didn’t then rob or even kill its own people.  If we do, we’ll see a strong correlation between gun control and 1) high taxes (theft), 2) denial of the right to private property (theft), and 3) a fundamental conflict between those who are in the government and those who are not.

Those who want prosperity but think they can have it without the right to private property, are ignoramuses and fools.  Those who think that the right to private property doesn’t ultimately depend on the right and duty to “privately” and “personally” defend your private property from robbers and government, are ignoramuses and fools.  Those who think they can adequately defend their private property against robbers and government without the right to keep and bear arms are ignoramuses and fools who’d surrender their own prosperity and that of their neighbors based on an irrational fear of arms.


•  Look at Mexico.  Mexico has gun control and 70,000 deaths by guns in the past six years—about 11,000 homicides per year.   America also has about 11,000 homicides by guns each year.  But America’s population is almost three times that of Mexico’s.  Thus, Mexico—with strict gun control—has almost three times the rate of gun-murders as the US.  And, despite our government’s best efforts, the US still has a much higher standard of living ($50,000 per capita annual income) than Mexico’s ($15,300 per capita annual income).

The comparison between the US (with the right to keep and bear arms) and Mexico (with strict gun control) is not an aberration.  Jews For the Preservation of Firearms reports that after gun control was established:

1) the Ottoman Empire (1915-1917) killed over 1 million Armenians in two years (500,000+/year);

2) the Soviet Union killed 20 million of their own people between 1929 and 1945 (over 1 million killed per year);

3) Nazi Germany (1933-1945) murdered 20 million civilians—almost 2 million per year;

4)  Nationalist China (1927-1949) killed 10 million—almost 500,000 per year;

5) Not to be outdone, Red China executed between 20 and 35 million civilians during 16 years in three separate purges between 1949 and 1976—perhaps as many as 2 million per year during each year of the various purges.

Similar results can be found in smaller nations like Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, and Rwanda.  Not one of the nations opting for gun control recognized private property rights.  Not one of the nations opting for gun control achieved prosperity while gun control was in effect.

According to political scientist political scientist R. J. Rummel, “In the 20th century, democide [murder of civilians by their own government] passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death.”

Get that?  According to Mr. Rummel, during the 20th century, more people were murdered by their own government than were killed by a foreign government in the midst of a genuine war.

Virtually all of these two hundred million deaths of civilians by their own governments came after the people had been sufficiently stupid and/or self-destructive to agree to surrender their arms to their government.

Simply put, if Mr. Rummel’s studies are correct, gun control caused more deaths in the 20th century than war.

Think international war is bad?

Domestic gun control is worse.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect us against our own government. It doesn’t only protect our freedoms and our lives—it also protects our right to private property, our prosperity and standard of living.

Lose your guns; lose your private property; lose your personal and national prosperity; and, maybe, lose your life.   Bet on it.

No one really wants you disarmed except the gangs (private or governmental) who plan to rob you.



Tags: , , , , , , ,

30 responses to “Private Property and the Second Amendment

  1. palani

    March 10, 2013 at 3:23 PM

    Don’t skip over the fact that the per capita homicide rate in Puerto Rico exceeds that of Mexico.

  2. Peg-Powers

    March 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM

    The one-world plan is working isn’t it. The die is cast. The nation’s borders have been erased, but most U.S. citizens refuse to admit it, and they continue to play the phony game with walls, gates and security patrols. Govco is USING the Mexican drug violence to push 1,000 people each week out of Mexico and into the benevolent arms of our southern states.

  3. Anon4fun

    March 10, 2013 at 5:12 PM

    Adask: “Lose your guns; lose your private property; lose your personal and national prosperity; and, maybe, lose your life.”

    This has proven correct in many parts of the world. However, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with private property or personal and national prosperity. At least not in terms of what the 2nd Amendment, and the Bill of Rights which contains it, actually say. Let us remain unpersuaded by those who prefer a “flexible” interpretation of the Constitution.

    The 2nd Amendment actually says it’s about “the security of a free state” (of the Union), specifically by means of the state’s militia. The deliberations before the amendment’s adoption confirm this intent repeatedly and with abundant clarity.

    If you are well armed enough to answer the call of your state’s militia, you are well armed enough to kill a deer or protect your person and property. So we lose nothing by reading and supporting the actual text of the amendment.

    Contrariwise, if we let the bad guys misrepresent the 2nd Amendment as being anything other than military in purpose, we place ourselves in danger of being unable to maintain “the security of a free state” (of the Union) if the need to do so, as anticipated by the Founders, ever arises.

    • Adask

      March 10, 2013 at 5:26 PM

      I agree. The 2nd Amendment offers no association between the right to keep and bear arms and private property. I am merely offering some conjecture that the the right to keep and bear arms may nevertheless include the “unintended consequence” of support for the right to own private property.

    • pop de adam

      March 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM


      A common definition of the word/term “state” is condition, as in the status of something. Often it is used as an adjective as in “this glass is molten”, molten being the glasses state. Perhaps at times an adverb as in “a state of being”, being being in the condition/status of being(existing). The combination “Free state” becomes an adjective/adverb modifying another adjective/adverb? whether through incrementalism or outright sophistry it has morphed into the noun many people use without much consideration. Often we define things to constrain their meaning to clarify them, but this binds the meaning also. We can define state as condition and status and bind some meaning to it, but what of free? Free to most means to be without constraint, bondage or imposed status. How can these two terms coexist in the same phrase? This reminds me of the oxymoron: “sovereign citizen”. You are free so long as you accept the definition provided by the state’s or populace’s definition.

      I think it may just be a phrase, I don’t really think it can be reconciled. Free is not having my toes stepped on, therefore in reciprocosity I don’t step on others toes.

      Then again, maybe they really meant “free state” as in no charges, bills, taxes or obligations, and we really are meant to secure it as such. Maybe all these words and mangled definitions were simply meant to manipulate people.


      • Anon4fun

        March 10, 2013 at 7:45 PM

        Out of context, “free state” could mean a lot of things.

        However, if you read the debates and early drafts of the 2nd Amendment, it is clear that “state” refers to a state of the Union. I don’t think “state” is used any other way in the Constitution. At least, if the authors meant something different in this case, they would have clarified.

        The same debates and early drafts, as confirmed by the preamble to the Bill of Rights (another find of the Adask School), tell us that “free” mostly refers to freedom from unwarranted exercise of power by the federal government.

        Thus, a “free state” in the 2nd Amendment is a state of the Union that secures its (meaning its people’s) freedom by keeping the federal government’s tendency toward “misconstruction or abuse” of power in check through force of arms, i.e the state’s militia.

      • Yartap

        March 10, 2013 at 8:58 PM


        You have the meaning of the 2nd Amendment wrong!!!! As it applies TODAY, forget the past – Anon4fun, it seems and is that many of the “states” are trying to take away your Right to bear arms. The federal government is talking about gun control. It is the states that are placing gun control bills up for vote. If it is only about a state militia, as you say, how are YOU, without a firearm due to a state restriction (gun control), going to stop the Federal Government to preserve and keep this “free state?”

        As I have said and the constitution has said and implied, it is the federal government that is also responsible for preserving the 2nd Amendmant’s “free state.”

      • Yartap

        March 10, 2013 at 9:03 PM

        A National, state, county or city government that will restrict you right to bear arms does not care nor desire to protect your security.


      • Yartap

        March 10, 2013 at 9:59 PM

        James Madison’s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:
        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a FREE COUNTRY but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
        From this first offering of the 2nd Amendment, are we to under stand “state” in the final version to actually mean “country?”

        His second version replaced “country” with a capitalized “State” or “free State.” Does this mean individual states or the United States? It means the United States, the collective country. The Founder understood State to mean a country. This capitalized “State” is found in the Bill of Rights within the Constitution.

      • Yartap

        March 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”

        Question: Why does a Militia keep a State secure and free?

        Answer: It basically starts with understanding the difference between a merchant/farmer militia or minute men army verse the “standing army” or professional army as we have today. The Founders did not want a standing professional army. This is also why Congress only had the power to fund a ground army for ONLY two years. NO STANDING PROFESSIONAL ARMY! But, today, we have the standing military, IRS, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, FEMA, etc. All standing, alive and well. Oh, and those “state” militias have all become the NATIONAL Guard.

        Now, ask yourself, “With all these standing armies, and the central banks starting wars so as to loan money for the cause, how is your freedom?”

        Being a solder for more than two years is not as the Founders want for our SECURITY, but rather, it is a life long CAREER within the military industrial complex! A merchant/farmer militia man thinks and has in his mind production, sales, building for his livelihood. But the professional solder has continuous WAR upon his mind, and this is what he or she is trained for. Do you see the difference between standing and militia? To justify a standing army, one must have wars and rumors of wars, real or created. A perpetual Standing Professional Army can become and is a danger to our security.

    • Sparky

      March 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM

      Re:> “the security of a free state.” , describe what a “securely free state” is as much as possible.”

  4. palani

    March 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM

    The duty of a State to protect her People, and her Right to command their obedience, and to protect them from the consequences of obedience depend on each other.
    These are the Essence of Sovereignty, and the tests of its existence.
    The existence of either right implies that of the other two.
    The duty to protect results from the right to command.
    The right to protect results from the duty to protect.
    The duty to command (or control) results from the right to protect.
    The right to command results from the duty to command.
    And so on all round the circle again.

    • Sparky the dullard

      March 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

      palani,you’re a dandy,

      @ “The duty of a State to protect her People, and her Right to command their obedience, and to protect them from the consequences of obedience depend on each other.”

      I’m glad you did not say, protect ITS people. Anyway, how would you say your above sentence would be worded IF the following definition is still valid.

      “The People, that entire body called, The State.” Well’s v. Bain, 75 Penn. St. 39′

      BUT,HOWEVER,etc., we also have,e.g.,“That intangible thing called, a, STATE, (<caps are my emphasis) however extensive “its” powers, can never appear or be represented or known in any court in a litigated case, except by and through "its" officers.” Justice Harlan,, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123. (italics are my emphasis)

      Is the above statement by Justice Harlan true or false in your opinion? I fail to see how,regardless of whether it's dicta or dictum, how has anything to do with whether his statement is true or false. But I'm still learning, I hope.

      • palani

        March 15, 2013 at 6:09 PM

        Should you have missed it my post was a quote from Chitty’s comments on Vattel’s law of nations. Had you noted this then you might be less inclined to argue with a dead man.

  5. Sparky

    March 10, 2013 at 9:39 PM


    IS THAT SO. You can only hold two weapons at a time & that ain’t quite enough to stop any Government much less ALL Governments. OUR right to bear arms & IF enough of US are together & “organized” will be the difference. Otherwise, you & I are just sitting ducks. which means The 2nd Article in addition is for hunting purposes.(:

    • Yartap

      March 10, 2013 at 11:05 PM


      I understand what you are saying. I should have said from the Constitution or in theory, the lack of standing armies which should exist, but do not; the 2nd should protect me, due to the gov. agents fear of reprisals for violating the Constitution and its understood principles.

      Further, if in today’s battle against the govt’s. standing armies, if I should lose the battle against government tyranny, I will remember: Oh, death where is thy victory; and where is thy sting. In death I have victory in Christ. For I believe. Amen!

      • Sparky,the dullard

        March 11, 2013 at 4:49 AM

        ” I will remember: Oh, death where is thy victory; and where is thy sting. In death I have victory in Christ. For I believe. Amen!” (< YES, AMEN !!! it is the end result that matters in all things. This is a wonderful end result blessing, How GREAT thou art YHWH & THANK YOU !!! with all of my heart & soul )

        Yes,well said Yartap.Some U.S. Soldiers were recently asked, would you shoot an American Citizen if it became necessary? I think this is an "odd/strange question when American Citizens are being shot & killed quite frequently by "quasi federal troops,aka city police & County Sheriff deputies.The answer, "We will do whatever is necessary".THAT "ANSWER" to me means, YES IN A HEARTBEAT. People seem to forget about "Fed troops" being sent in to Little Rock,Ark.etc, to "get things back in order." Yartap, dear heart, to me, the gov-co (Frankenstate) includes ALL of the armed forces of the "U.S." & whatever our number may eventually be, when it gets down to the "nitty gritty" that's who we will be up against. I know that we are considered the enemy by the military because they are trained to think this way.They will let us alone if we do not "rock the boat & are good little Subjects. This "spiritual warfare' we ARE in has not shown its true colors YET. Did you ever see the film, "The Exorcist?" If not,DON"T. BUT when the Apostle Paul said We wrestle against "wicked spirits" just wait until they release their full fury by their influence & direct "demonic possession of trained for WAR soldiers. It's beyond belief & comphrension. I have seen a couple of "judges & attorneys" start foaming at the mouth & doing scary things,odd movements, etc. & worse which is only a sign of things to come,I believe. It will be so overwhelmingly evil that only more powerful "Spirit beings" can stop it & I believe you know who that is.Still, we MUST stand firm and ENDURE until the end. May that end time hasten.

      • Sparky the dullard

        March 12, 2013 at 1:43 PM

        Re: Your message on > March 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM
        Thank you !!

  6. Anon4fun

    March 10, 2013 at 10:14 PM


    The security of a free state at least means the security of the freedom of the people of the state. While there is more to it, the debates and early drafts of the 2nd Amendment, as well as the express purpose of the Bill of Rights itself, imply this was the main focus.

    You’ll find that maintaining the security of the freedom of the people of the states is a duty imposed by the people on their state governments in all the state constitutions. The founders, who were elected representatives of the states, actually did their job.


    Original intent is all I am addressing. It is only since the 14th Amendment that the states have had to abide by anything in the Bill of Rights. Originally, the Bill of Rights limited the federal government only. Unless you want to invoke the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment does exactly ZERO to stop your state government from taking your guns. It defines no obligation of the states to recognize a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Like it or not, these are the facts.

    The preamble to the Bill of Rights tells us that its 10 amendments were put there to provide checks against the federal government’s “misconstruction or abuse” of the powers given to it elsewhere in the Constitution. Why would the states limit themselves in a document intended to protect them from the federal government’s undue use of power? That would be incongruous and make no sense.

    Elsewhere in the Constitution, the federal government is given priority over the states in the use of arms, a power that needed to be checked by the state militias. Hence, the 2nd Amendment. This is how checks and balances work. The required counterbalance was on everyone’s mind and was much discussed when the Bill of Rights was being written, so there is no mistaking what the original intent was.

    • Yartap

      March 10, 2013 at 10:50 PM

      According to James Madison’s versions of the 2nd, the original intent was for the country and not the states. As I remember the reason for the Bill of Rights was to prevent the government from removing the “individual” God given Rights, and not the state’s rights.

      • Anon4fun

        March 10, 2013 at 11:50 PM

        What is commonly called the “original intent” of a law is the intent of the legislature that enacted it, not the intent of the author who composed its first draft. Madison did write “free country”, but the legislature changed it to “free state”. That oughta tell you something.

        >>As I remember the reason for the Bill of Rights was to prevent the government from removing the “individual” God given Rights, and not the state’s rights.<<

        The 2nd Amendment clearly says the right of arms it mentions belongs to the people. Whereas it was understood that the "well regulated militia" it mentions belongs to the state. Arms are kept and borne by the people to be deployed by their state militias. This was SOP at the time.

        The states created the federal government, and the preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly says it is the states who are adding the first 10 amendments to limit the federal government. So, without even looking, we would expect specific countermeasures against "misconstruction or abuse" by the federal government to be in the hands of the states also.

        Lo and behold, when we actually read the relevant text, this turn out to be the case.

      • Adask

        March 11, 2013 at 9:18 AM

        Whether Madison wrote “free country,” “free State” or “free lunch” is irrelevant. Madison was no god. Madison’s “original intent” was inconsequential. All Madison did was draft some suggestions for a proposed Constitution. Today, I could make similar suggestions for another Constitution. Would that make me a “god”–a “Founding Father”–and author of the Constitution? No.

        What counts is not who drafted and/or proposed the text of the document. What counts is who RATIFIED that proposed document and gave it AUTHORITY. James Madison did not ratify or give authority to the Constitution. All Madison was function like a secretary to draft a letter waiting her boss’s signature. It’s the BOSS and his signature that makes the letter carry authority. That authority does not flow from the secretary, nor did the authority of the Constitution flow from James Madison.

        Who ratified the Constitution? We the People. WE are the authority behind the Constitution. Our authority was expressed in conventions held in the various States of the Union.

        So, whatever our secretary’s/Madison’s personal intent may have been is irrelevant. He had some good ideas, he had some bad ideas, but the “boss” is the one who decided which of Mr. Madison’s ideas would be used and which would be rejected. That “boss” was and remains We the People.

        The “original intent”of the Constitution is whatever the intent of the People was deemed to be at the time the Constitution was ratified. That original intent can be inferred by reading the words in the Constitution and understanding them according to the definitions of words that were common to the People–the bosses–those who ratified and gave the Constitution authority–at the time of ratification.

        We make a big mistake by “worshiping” the “Founding Fathers” as if they were the “gods” who wrought our Declaration of Independence, Constitutions, etc. They just made some intelligent proposals. It was the founding generation of People shot, killed, and ratified the Declaration, Constitution et al who gave those documents authority. Jefferson, Madison, Washington et al were pretty smart guys who made a lot of intelligent suggestions, but the People are the source of those documents’ authority.

      • Yartap

        March 11, 2013 at 8:39 PM


        I for one, do not worship the Founders. I was discussing the progression of the 2nd from free country to free State ( like: “the state of Great Britain,” as found in the Declaration of Independance). I agree that Madison was not the one who gave us the amendment.

        The two points of the Amendment that I am making is that the two principles of the 2nd Amendment is, first, the call for a well congressionally regulated militia is necessary to prevent a national standing army which will give the 50 states security from a Boston Massacre and maintain a free state, free 50 states ( if you wish) or a free nation/ State; and second, arms in the hands of men in God’s image shall stand as having divine right and sovernity.

    • Sparky,the dullard

      March 11, 2013 at 5:15 AM

      Thanks Anon4fun,
      @ >It is only since the 14th Amendment that the states have had to abide by anything in the Bill of Rights. (<Right !!!)
      And as watered down via appropriate legislation & as applies to the constructive citizenry as created by the 39th overall corrupt inspired of Satan Congress,AND all of us are considered to be/ARE this type of citizen a.k.a. Subject. The Creator is Superior to that which is created.

      Re: Original intent. I believe EXACTLY as you say in the entirety of your comment,Anon4fun. But "original intent" & what is necessary & proper has been replaced with a cute little thing called "appropriate" which sounds good,but it's BAD.& oppressive.

  7. Pete

    March 11, 2013 at 12:10 AM

    Anon4fun, I believe that a right does not originate from any State, nor does it originate from a piece of paper. By your argument, why would the people limit themselves to their respective States governments, who’s Constitutions are also limiting?

    A right not exercised is a right soon lost. A right not enforced by those who possess it, is also soon

    We also see the word necessary in the second amendment, is it not said that necessity knows no law? Does it not make sense that a State is no more than it’s people, as a church is not a bldg, but
    a congregation?

    Freedom is responsibility, so when you claim to have a right, you best be standing upright when
    you do it.

    Without the right to keep and bear arms, all the others are just so many words.

    • Sparky the dullard

      March 11, 2013 at 4:53 PM

      HAY Pete,
      @ > I believe that a right does not originate from any State,

      May I ask which definition of “State” are you using as it,State, has several definitions. e.g. In West’s Ann. Cal. Gov. Code (2000), § 100, it is written:

      a). “The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof, and, The court, in, Well’s v. Bain, 75 Penn. St. 39, “The People, that entire body called,the State.”

      b). However, “There is also “an intangible thing” called and written as the State which can never appear in any litigated case, in any court, except by and through ITS Officers.”
      It is rather bizarre to call the People, “its”. Isn’t it?

  8. Anthony Clifton

    March 11, 2013 at 7:47 AM

    baa baaa baaa

    who are we

    For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Almighty, to serve him with one consent….



    lean into that one Erin

  9. Anon4fun

    March 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM


    >>I believe that a right does not originate from any State, nor does it originate from a piece of paper.

    The founders would agree. When the Bill of Rights talks about rights, it refers to them as already existing. These amendments do not create rights, they recognize rights.

    >>By your argument, why would the people limit themselves to their respective States governments, who’s Constitutions are also limiting?

    The people can choose to not limit themselves to their state governments, but then we’ve abandoned the legal framework of the Constitution. This would please the anarchist change agents who want the United States dismantled and sold off to their sugar daddies, the NWO billionaire oligarchs.

    The Bill of Rights tells us, in its preamble, that it was added to the Constitution by (fiduciary agents of) the states to limit the federal government. The 2nd Amendment in particular has the remedy for the “misconstruction and abuse” problem addressed by the Bill of Rights in general. And this remedy is to be administered by the states, specifically the state militias.

    >>Does it not make sense that a State is no more than it’s people, as a church is not a bldg, but a congregation?

    A state is its people in a certain capacity under the rule of law. The signers of the Constitution represented the states and We the People. They represented both.

    As the Constitution puts it, the federal government derives its authority from We the People of the United STATES. The founders of this country did not give control of the federal government to the people exclusively. They also gave control of the federal government to the states. For a subset of the people, without authority from the states, to try an overthrow of the federal government established by the states could be considered treason against the states.

    The founders prescribed a lawful manner in which a rouge federal government is to be handled with force of arms. The states, through the state militias, have the job of DEPLOYING arms as a check against “misconstruction or abuse” by the federal government.

    As the federal government was designed to be controlled by both We the People of the states and the state governments, so the check against the federal government set up in the 2nd Amendment involves both We the People (who keep and bear arms) and the state governments through their militias (which deploy the arms).

    All this is confirmed by reading the Bill of Rights and the deliberations to finalize its language.

  10. Yartap

    March 11, 2013 at 8:23 PM

    Section 8, Constitution of the United States.
    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    Section 10, Constitution of the United States.
    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,…or engage in War, …”

    It is about the Fifty States’ Militias verses the Concept of a Standing National Army. The National govt.’s Power “To raise” or “call forth” our “Armies” was to come from the Constitutionally recognized States Militias. Standing Armies within the borders of the nation would cause something like the Boston Massacre. This is why the Posse Comitatus was created, to remove the military from policing actions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s