Posts Tagged ‘Right to keep and bear arms’

Right to Bear Arms: The Legal Question

November 17, 2013

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just curious. The current Court has struck down most recent attempts of states and municipalities to regulate arms. The NRA wages legal and electoral campaigns against anyone who breathes a hint to restrain a “right to bear arms“. The U.S. Congress, as well as the President, refuses to consider any restrictions.


The Supreme Court in the past few decades, has trashed the Constitution and allowed lots of infringing against the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Finally Illinois forced the issue with an obvious hit against the collectivist misinterpretation, and ruled that it was an individual right, not a state militia right.

[Cue the snicker sound track here.] After all, if the right to bear arms is a right of governments and not a right for individuals, then the Second Amendment really means, according to this insanity:

Does it say this?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the [government???] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Cue riotous laughter at that…].

So to protect the “security” of a

Dred Scott, whose famous case to gain his free...

Dred Scott, whose famous case to gain his freedom began as a lawsuit filed in St. Louis in 1846 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“free” state, the right of the government to bear arms shall not be infringed. Under this misinterpretation, the Second Amendment would presumably include the right to “bear” nuclear weapons.

So, are Steve and I permitted to own (keep) and use (bear) nuclear weapons (again, sorry, Norm, you were born on the wrong side of the pond)? If not, why not? That is, if I can keep and bear an AK-47 or AR-15 why not a thermonuclear device?

—-
There are MUCH WORSE people than you or Steve that already own (as in possess the use of) nuclear weapons.

#1. For example, one person who could throw nuclear weapons at somebody right now include one who arranged a massacre in a theater in which 130 innocent people died:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20067384
…But some 130 hostages died – most not at the hands of the gunmen and women, but apparently because of the effects of the gas….

#2. Another group killed an estimated 5,000 with over 10,000 hurt critically, all in cold blood to stop a peaceful protest.. The troops they sent in were ordered to shoot anybody that got in the way; they were brought from distant bases (presumably so that they would not include too many who would worry about relatives being among the victims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

#3. Another one has arrogated to himself the illegal and unconstitutional “authority” to order secret kills on anybody he wants to anywhere in the world and has done it with full public knowledge. He (and his subordinates in command) continue their and unconstitutional and interventionist wars in five foreign countries.

For survivors, he has put command-and-control death panels in their future. Special treatment for special friends.

Rational people would demand all means possible to defend themselves against these obvious pathological maniacs, ruthless killers. And the list above is of the ones currently in possession of the worst nuclear weapons in the world. It does not include criminal dictators and rulers from the past or the future.

I’m serious. I admit that a reasonable person would not want Jason to have a tight rubber band, much less a nuke, but seriously should that be a limitation (no matter how logical and reasonable)? Instead is there case law which delineates what is protected by the 2nd amendment and not? Perhaps case law defines “arms”, which means that there would be a line in the sand; what is that line? I.e., what is protected and what is not?

—-
Case law is worse than useless when it numbs the mind of erudite attorneys at law and of citizens who accept it. Case law changes on the whim of those who make it, including 100s of reversals by the most respected Court in the world, the U.S. Supreme Court. Their ruling on the Republicans’ Civil RIghts Act in the 1960s reversed the Dred Scott case, for which you cannot find one little phrase of justification in even the slaver-protecting Constitution. (Justification was provided by the horror they felt at the prospect of blacks being able to carry arms, because if they are free men they carry arms).

2nd Amendment: 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.


And some people out there in the cackling industry actually try to pretend it means that governments have the right to arm themselves!

Imagine that! Next thing they’ll pass a law that says chickens shall lay eggs and water shall flow downhill!

At least those amendments and laws would make lots more sense than the sewage pouring forth from looters’ governments today!

//

//

Self-defense and possession of the tools thereof is a natural right of every individual

November 9, 2013

Self-defense is a natural right of every individual, and the right of a father and mother to protect their children. This is the basis for the right to bear arms, as having the means with which to defend yourself comes with the right to bear any weapon you need to defend yourself. The Bill of Rights is merely a list of explicit declaration of that right. THIS is the number One basis for the natural RIGHT to bear arms. SELF-DEFENSE means the right to defend yourself against BOTH other individuals (criminals) and other groups of criminals (governments, including your own).

The argument that the Second Amendment was to protect the right of governments to bear arms is a ridiculous argument. Consider it for a moment. Without the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution already says Congress even has the power to raise whole armies and to support them. So they needed an amendment to say the governments had the right to have an army? Are you kidding?

If the ACLU applied the same reasoning to the other first nine amendments, they would not bother, like they said about the Second.

If you apply the same reasoning to the First Amendment that Infringers of the Second say about gun control, they would say that only people with a government issued permit should be allowed to say anything (free speech), all religions would be illegal except for government-approved ones (an old Soviet law, that), and that only government-approved people, and that you could only use the Fifth to avoid incriminating yourself if you were a high government official.

–Trutherator

 

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

There is a BIG difference between “right to vote” and the “right to bear arms”

September 15, 2013
Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthe...

Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthews c. 1891 after an original by Thomas Sully (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The “right to vote” is only a corollary of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. In fact, voter requirements are necessary to protect that right, and that includes taking reasonable measures to prevent a person from voting twice, making sure the person is eligible according to age, citizenship, and so on. If you cannot trust that these reasonable measures are taken, then you cannot trust that your vote counts as such.

The “Blessings of Liberty” were mentioned in the Preamble to the US Constitution as one of the purposes of said Constitution, but Patrick Henry and some of the other more astute among them did not regard them as enough, which is why they demanded the Bill of Rights, which explicitly declare a list of what they thought of as the most sacred natural individual rights.

The “right to vote” is is not a “right” in the sense of an individual’s liberty. You can respect all the natural rights of an individual –the right to the free exercise of one’s religion, the right to free speech, the right to free press, the right to peaceably assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arms, to BE secure (not “feel” secure) in their persons, papers, and property, and so on.

Those are an individual’s rights. The individual’s rights are a law higher than any particular government or tribe or nation, or any laws. The “rule of law” is the idea that any government, or the people entrusted with governing, should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

The right of speech is absolute. If the SCOTUS had respected the right to bear arms with the same attitude they brought to the right of free speech, they would never approve “reasonable” restrictions on it.

What would be a “reasonable” restriction on the right of free speech? There is none.

But even there, we see the addiction of people in government (an institution that has a monopoly on the legal application of force). The laws that criminalize thought, also known as “hate speech” laws, are a case in point. Tax laws that make special rules and set up special privileges and restrictions and provide concessions of speech, these are another example. Why should a charity have a censorship muzzle, why should any group of private citizens (unions, corporations, hobby and professional associations) have any restrictions at all on their individual rights?

Jesus Christ’s lesson to his disciples, then and now, were in what he said about the tax collectors of the day. His apostles conceded that the tax collectors’ own children did not pay taxes, so he said, “Then are the children free”. He told his disciples to pay the tax, not because of some Romans 13 principle (–ARE YOU LISTENING, PREACHERS?–), but “lest we offend them” (Matthew 17).

Taxpayers pay for elections. They are not free.

People who do not help pay for their vote do not have the same stake in protecting individual rights as to those who have something to lose. They also do not have the same stake in the rule of law.

In the long run, historically, it is better materially to be beholden to a private business in a free market economy, than to be beholden to a government. Over the long run, if it did not buy loyalty, government would not protect the poor from poverty at all, or from anything else.

For example, when caring for the poor came in conflict with caring for the party hierarchies, it is not hard to guess who gets the care priorities, with all the rationalizations and justifications. Instead of going to the one who pays for it, it goes to the one that I told you to give it to. Which way is more “just”?

Again, a good guideline is always the Golden Rule, in dealings both with individuals, and it also works among nations.

Why the right to defend yourself includes defense against your government

June 10, 2013

Make no mistake: The INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms is not just a constitutional right, it is a NATURAL individual right that SOME of the Founders demanded be recognized along with the other NATURAL rights recognized in the Bill of Rights as a condition for ratification.

In other words, U.S. citizens to not get their right to bear arms from any constitution. They get it as a natural birth-right along with all the other individual human beings in the world, every one of them. Jews, Arabs, Gypsies, Armenians, handicapped, women, short men, tall men, ugly men and handsome, Cambodians, Chinese, ALL of us.

If a heavily armed local population is a danger to so-called “community safety”, then the INDIVIDUALS that have to live in such a population has an even stronger case for their individual right to bear arms and protect themselves, including, if necessary, forming militia to defend themselves against the Great Enlightened Overlords of the Great Enlightened United Nations and other Dictators’ Clubs who believe that they have to protect the community from itself.

The “leading democratic states” are exposing themselves today as ENEMIES of human rights protections and enemies of the “peaceful resolution” of conflicts. They pretend to work for the people while they are looting them by the force the guns of the armies of the law, confiscating the fruits of the labor of the people. If you don’t like it and speak out you will go to prison.

Bush, Obama, pick your bad guy. Here in the supposedly most “enlightened” ahem, “democratic state”, The USA, let’s see how safe we are. Let me count the ways in which we can feel safe without the means to defend ourselves against crime and tyranny:

The Patriot Act,

self-written search warrants,

warrantless seizures,

NDAA,

CISPA,

PIPA,

SOPA,

indefinite detention without charges,

suspension of habeas corpus,

whimsical kill lists,

presidential say-so kill orders,

DOJ propaganda telling law enforcement officers across the country to watch out for returning veterans, and Ron Paul supporters and constitutionalists,

enemies lists of conservatives getting harassment from IRS and federal gun-slinging agencies,

warnings against listening to anybody speaking against government,

one singer sentenced by a judge to psychiatry for speaking against music industry tycoons,

Bush caught on video saying he “will not tolerate” conspiracy theories,

MK Ultra,

Carnivore,

Echelon,

Total Information Awareness,

deliberate syphilis infections in Memphis and Guatemala,

“free speech zones” (meaning there are “no free speech zones”),

campaigns against “hate speech” (meaning speech they hate),

laws against speech by content (censorship),

laws against freely speaking about the health benefits of herbs, vitamins, supplements, alternative medicine,

historical massacres of Indians,

persecution of Mormons,

raids on peaceful small religious communities (East Texas) with “social workers” told to get children to denounce their parents,

Ruby Ridge,

Japanese detention camps,

Cross-burning and Jim Crow laws,

Massacre in middle Texas with tanks belching fire,

magic bullets and assassinations,

Watergate,

Whitewater,

Whitewater pardons,

Jim McDougal died after being denied his medicine,

Vince Foster,

Travelgate,

Filegate,

Benghazi denial of security requests, orders to stand down, coverup,

Fast and Furious,

Miss Arkansas announced fear for her life,

Unprosecuted Juanita Broaddrick rapes,

Unprosecuted rape denunciations by Miss Arkansas (denouncing her fear for her life causing her to previously say it was constitutional,

Paula Jones harrassment,

Abuses of the IRS, harassment of organizations of many different political philosophies,

Abuses by the IRS against common citizens,

IRS code passed by CONGRESS that presumes one is guilty if accused unless the accused can prove his innocence,

Massive privacy intrusions into email, web posts, voice calls, into Americans and others everywhere,

United States President George W. Bush shakes ...

United States President George W. Bush shakes hands with U.S. Senator Arlen Specter after signing H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 in the East Room of the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hundreds of federal agencies with armed agents,

Dred Scot,

A very massively historical bloody “civil war”,

Demonstrators against the draft shot down in cold blood on the orders of Abraham Lincoln,

Riots and looting history,

Drones,

Attacks against the right of self-defense with gun laws,
Goetz,

Attacks against children in “gun-free” zones..

Are we safe yet?

Since when should we have to tell the rulers a “good reason” for using our constitutional rights?!

March 10, 2012

Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional « CBS Baltimore:
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/md-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/

Score one for the good guys. But do not doubt that they will keep coming at us. Now, more than ever, as we approach the grand climax of history, the pivotal point, the forming of the world dictatorship.

From Founding Fathers’ Own Mouths, What is a Well-Regulated Militia?

February 6, 2012
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the ...

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s a collection of quotes from the revolutionaries who were there at that moment in history when the United States Constitution got ratified, together with the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

First of all, note that the clause that uses the term “well-regulated militia” is only the justification, the basis, that provides the necessity for the second clause. Secondly, see in the great number of comments made by the signers and authors of the Constitution, that explain what they meant by a “well-regulated militia”: common civilian citizens like farmers that had weapons and knew how to use them well, well-trained in their use.

Just the simplest form of logic would make it clear. Why in the world would anybody include, in a list of the rights of the people, a right for the government to bear arms??!! Hello?? This is la-la land. It is an Orwellian Doublespeak when people do not even think about this and instead get lost because we’ve come so far that too many people don’t understand they were talking about a citizenry that was so well-armed they could take on its own government’s armies?

Well, thank God that at least in the USA of 2012, most of the soldiers in the American military have not been subsumed into mindless robotic obeisance, but still have some understanding of the people’s rights. But there are other armed domestic government forces, and the Second Amendment was meant to recognize the people’s individual right.

They were especially interested in having individual citizenry well-armed enough to be able to take on whatever government might be in power.

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.


But first, a warning from Solzhenitsyn, a WWII veteran in Stalin’s Army and also a veteran of Stalin’s gulags:

“How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) Russian Novelist and Historian


And now a word for the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, that “shall not be infringed”:

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.”
Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789 Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823

“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Jacob J. Brown (1808)

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson

“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.”
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright in 1824

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson (attributed without source)

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 defend them in the best manner they can.”
Samuel Adams

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.

“The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46 January 29, 1788

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

“[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”
James Madison, In his autobiography

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President

“The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…”
George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington

“Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia is put in the hands of Congress?”
Patrick Henry (1736-1799), 3 Elliot Debates 48.

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry

“Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

Noah Webster American Patriot (1758-1843) (Author of America’s first dictionary)

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
Noah Webster (1758-1843) American patriot and scholar, author of the 1806 edition of the dictionary that bears his name, the first dictionary of American English usage.
Defined the militia similarly as “the effective part of the people at large.”
Source: An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Tench Coxe (1755-1824)
“The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as “the Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, February 20, 1788

Daniel Webster (1782-1852) (Secretary of State under three U.S. Presidents)

“God grants Liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.”
Daniel Webster (1782-1852) in a speech on 3 June, 1834

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

“…[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

“…if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to ‘bind me in all cases whatsoever’ to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?”
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789; spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750

“Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
“M.T. Cicero” 1788

“The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people.”
Saint George Tucker (1752-1827) Lawyer, Judge and Professor On Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D \

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Joseph Story (1779-1845) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845. His Dad was one of the Sons of Liberty who took part in the Boston Tea Party and fought at Lexington & Concord in 1775. The above quote was from 1833

“[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.”
Joel Barlow (1754-1812) Politician and Poet, Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe: Resulting From the Necessity and Propriety of a General Revolution in the Principle of Government (London, 1792, 1795 and reprint 1956).

“If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms never, never, never! You cannot conquer America.”
William Pitt, Speech, November 18, 1777

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
Richard Henry Lee (1732-1894), State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

“It’s the misfortune of all Countries, that they sometimes lie under a unhappy necessity to defend themselves by Arms against the ambition of their Governors, and to fight for what’s their own. If those in government are heedless of reason, the people must patiently submit to Bondage, or stand upon their own Defence; which if they are enabled to do, they shall never be put upon it, but their Swords may grow rusty in their hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it.”
John Trenchard (1662-1723)
Source: and Walter Moyle (1672-1721), “An Argument, shewing; that a standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free Government and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy,” (London, 1697)

“Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people… entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.”
A Framer Anonymous ‘framer’ of the US Constitution Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson Source: June 25, 1788, Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.646 (Philadelphia, 1836)

“For we may not think ever to keep that people in subjection which hath always lived in liberty, if they be not disarmed.”
Jean Bodin (1530-1596) French Jurist and Political Philosopher, in Six Books of a Commonweale, 1606 AD (R. Knolles translation, pg. 615, 1606)

“Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”
Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author commenting on the lack of protest with which Japanese tolerated governmental corruption, Los Angeles Times, 10/15/92

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945) Adolph Hitler’s head of the SS in Nazi Germany

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4

“…By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
President John F. Kennedy

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler’s
Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all the elimination of the so-called subversive elements…. They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
Italy’s Fascist ruler, Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, Italian Senate Speech, June 8, 1923