"'CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DISARM US'"

***UPDATED, 08/25/2013, SEE BELOW STARTING AT 3 ASTERISKS***

DOES THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION NEED "MODERN INTERPRETATION"?
HAS THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'PEOPLE' CHANGED?
LET'S SIMPLY READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT! AND LET US PAY HEED TO WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THAT SECOND AMENDMENT SAID ABOUT IT, HOW THEY DEFENDED IT, TO THE MAN, WHILE THEY WERE YET ALIVE!
LET'S SIMPLY TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR OWN WORDS.

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize
Congress...to prevent the people of the Unites States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." ~SAM ADAMS, in
the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug. 20, 1789.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are
not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms... The tree of liberty
must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots
and tyrants."  THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith,
1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.
[NOTE: See full text of this letter below , "THE TREE OF LIBERTY"]

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our 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

"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only
defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?"  ~PATRICK
HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates at p. 48.

"A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of
exercises, I advise the gun.  While this gives moderate exercise
to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to
the mind.  Games played with the ball and others of that nature,
are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
~THOMAS JEFFERSON, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed.,
1967)

"No free man shall EVER be debarred the use of arms."  THOMAS
JEFFERSON, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, T. Jefferson
Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

THOSE WHO HAMMER THEIR GUNS INTO PLOWSHARES WILL PLOW FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT!
(attributed to Jefferson, but I find no verifiable source)

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
~Thomas Jefferson 

"What, sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."  ~Rep. ELBRIDGE GERRY of Massachusetts, Annals of Congress, at p. 750 (August 17, 1789).

"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. " ~Noah Webster

"A free people ought...to be armed..."  ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, speech
of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14,1790.

LET US NOW READ THIS 2nd AMENDMENT:
As passed by the Congress:

    "'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.'"

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

    '"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.'"

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE TWO DOCUMENTS? A COMMA, ONE COMMA, AFTER MILITIA, IS MISSING FROM THE SECOND DOCUMENT, AND THREE CAPITAL LETTERS WERE CHANGED TO LOWER CASE...THE M IN MILITIA, THE S IN STATE, THE A IN ARMS.

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was written by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives. [ For further reading, see http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/constitution/constitution.htm]

The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an EXISTING RIGHT and do NOT create a NEW one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.
NOW, WE WANT THAT SAME COURT TO CHANGE THAT RULING?
THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE COURTS FROM MAKING NEW LAWS!!!
THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE COURTS FROM MAKING NEW LAWS!!!
THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE COURTS FROM MAKING NEW LAWS!!!

In the gun control debate, should there be a conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments? Blackstone, in his Commentaries, alludes to this right to rebel as the natural RIGHT of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". [  William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, Chapter 1 "the fifth and last auxiliary right...when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".]

Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation, As Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:

   "' [I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[The Federalist Papers No. 29, Alexander Hamilton, concerning the militia.]

THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ARMED INSURRECTION! THEY SPOKE OF THAT RIGHT MANY TIMES IN THEIR LETTERS, SPEECHES, JOURNALS!

In the Declaration of Independence, for example, those men described in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government"!
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE...TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT"!!!
I ASK YOU AGAIN, HAS THE DEFINITION OF 'PEOPLE' CHANGED?

The INDIVIDUAL right to arm was both retained and strengthened by the 'Militia Act' of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.
[ U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such. PART of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the AUTHORITY of training the Militia]

NOT UNTIL 1787 DID THE QUESTION OF A "NATIONAL" MILITIA ARISE!
 Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to do the following:
1~ provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
 2~ raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
3~ provide and maintain a navy;
4~ make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
5~ provide for CALLING FORTH the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
6~ provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such PART of them as MAY be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia...

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS:
Some representatives to that 1787 meeting MISTRUSTED proposals to enlarge FEDERAL powers! They were concerned with the inherent risks of CENTRALIZING power.
Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary. He was confident that the federal government could NEVER raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome A STATE MILITIA! He was WRONG!
Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias!  They feared that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the states' militias, could wind up with overwhelming military force at its disposal through its NEW power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation of the FEDERAL government with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and EVEN engaging in a FEDERAL military takeover.

HASN'T THAT HAPPENED? AREN'T STATE MILITIAS VILIFIED, ACCURSED, SCORNED, EVEN LISTED AS 'POSSIBLE TERRORISTS' BY OUR OWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOW?

James Madison capitulated to adding that bill of rights, and drafted what ultimately became the official Bill of Rights, proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791.

 Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states, in part:
"'...but every State shall ALWAYS keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.'"
HOW PLAIN IS THAT? HOW SIMPLE!

But let's look at how that changed!
In stark contrast, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    "'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.'"

Doesn't seem like much of a change at first glance, but this changed way too much!
American political thought DURING the years of the Revolution was a well-justified concern over political CORRUPTION and governmental TYRANNY. Even the federalists, accused by their opponents of creating an oppressive regime,  ACKNOWLEDGED the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers THEMSELVES saw that the PERSONAL right to bear arms was a potential check against tyranny.

It is very interesting to go read the debates that ensued over this fear of a centralized new government becoming tyrannical!
Theodore Sedgwick, representing Massachusetts, said"[It is] a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 97 (2d ed. 1863)]
Noah Webster added his thoughts on the subject:

    "'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 pretence, raised in the United States.'"
[Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787), Reprinted in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Published During Its Discussion by the People, 1787–1788, at p. 56 (Paul L. Ford, ed. 1971) (1888)]

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding those gathered with him there of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein. [Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 425 (3d Ed. 1937)]

After the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed adding to the Constitution.
[James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library, Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe]

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention of June 5, 1788, argued for the DUAL RIGHTS to arms and resistance to oppression:

   "' Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.'"
[Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788]

Samuel Adams said that the Constitution:

    "'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; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.'"
["United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson – The Ratification Debates". Law.umkc.edu. ]

The proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the very first session of the newly forming Congress.
THIS IS WHERE IT GETS REALLY INTERESTING!
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House in late August 1789. These debates focused primarily around the risk of "mal-administration of the government" using a "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia, like Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the start of the American Revolution. These important concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

    "'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.'"

The next day, August 25th, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

    "'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Vol. 1: p. 63.]

BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH IT WENT!
By late August, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a SEPARATE amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."
[Letter from Roger Sherman to Simeon Baldwin (Aug. 22, 1789) quoted in Bickford, et al., p. 16. See also a letter from James Madison to Alexander White (Aug. 24, 1789) in "Madison, Writings", pp. 418–9.]

On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

    "'A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'"
 [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Vol. 1: p. 71.]

The Senate returned to this amendment one final time on September 9, 1789. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.
[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Vol. 1: p. 77.]

The Senate then slightly modified the language AGAIN and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The FINAL version, passed by the Senate, was:

   "' A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, BUT the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

    "'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.
[Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Vol. 1: p. 305.]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, and was ratified by 3/4ths of the States.

There were early warnings that the right of the citizenry to bear arms would come under fire. From across the Atlantic, Blackstone himself said of English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by DISARMING THE BULK OF THE PEOPLE , is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."
[Tucker, p. 490 and Kopel, David B.. "The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century". ]
Interesting to note in footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker also said that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was NOT subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Article 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" and "whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually TAKEN AWAY FROM the people of England."
Tucker also criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very WEALTHY, leaving the POPULACE effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty."
[Tucker, p. 490 and Kopel, David B.. "The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century"]
ANOTHER WARNING came in 1825, by William Rawle, an American lawyer in Philadelphia, appointed in 1791 as U.S. district attorney in Pennsylvania, in his "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America".
   "'No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.'" [Rawle, pp. 125–6]

Rawle, long before the 14th Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the SECOND Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them!

Joseph Story (1779 – 1845) was an American lawyer/jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 until his death in 1845.
This Supreme Court judge stated that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was clear:
   "'The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a 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. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.'" [Story, Joseph (1833). Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution. Harper & Brothers. pp. §1890.]

~THE TREE OF LIBERTY~
YOU MUST UNDERSTAND WHAT JEFFERSON IS SAYING!
HE DID NOT MINCE WORDS!
GUARD WELL YOUR LIBERTIES, YOUR INHERENT RIGHTS, PEOPLE!
YOU ARE THE MILITIA, YOU ARE THE PEOPLE THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO!
HANG ON TO THAT RIGHT WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT!
IF REVOLUTION IS NECESSARY TO RETAIN OUR FREEDOMS, JUST AS JEFFERSON SAID IN THIS LETTER, IT IS PAST TIME FOR A NEW ONE!
LISTEN, PLEASE LISTEN TO THE VOICES OF THOSE WHO WERE THERE!!!
IT WAS NEVER, NEVER THE INTENTION OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS BE DISARMED!
THE SIMPLICITY OF THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES NO "INTERPRETATION"!
THE WORD 'PEOPLE' STILL MEANS 'PEOPLE'...WE, THE PEOPLE!

"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." ~ Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787 [ PTJ 12:356-7. Letterpress copy at the Library of Congress. ]

Thomas Jefferson also said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia.  Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American... [T]he 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,  Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788,
a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He wrote under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."  ~George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
~Richard Henry Lee, signatory to the Articles of Confederation, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." ~Zachariah Johnson, Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" ~ Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." ~Thomas Paine
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
"Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse."
~Patrick Henry

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"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 invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it
was passed." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Johnson, June
12, 1823, found in The Complete Jefferson, p. 322

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large or considered as individuals... It
establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
ALBERT GALLATIN of the NY Historical Society, October 7, 1789.

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual
discretion... in private self defense..."  JOHN ADAMS, A Defense
of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (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.

More recently, on pages 144-5 of his book, "LIBERTY DEFINED" , Representative Ron Paul, a strict CONSTITUTIONALIST, writes,
      "'Gun-control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. But that is simply an impossibility. The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those who wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Paradoxically, gun control clears a path for violence and makes aggression more likely, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government. I don't really believe "gun-free" zones make any difference. If they did, why would the worst shootings consistently happen in gun-free zones such as schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, the antithesis of a gun-free zone. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society. Even if you don't like guns and don't want to own them, you benefit from those who do. '"

"'When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia,” it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so. The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed.

Gun control makes people demonstrably less safe--as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation’s capital, where the individual’s right to self-defense has been most severely curtailed.'" (Source: Weekly column,“Texas Straight Talk”, Mar 12, 2007)

***UPDATE, 08/25/2013***
Bob Barr, a former member of Congress, reports on what you were NOT told about that UN "Arms Treaty" your own CONGRESS loved enough to accept for you!
He ought to know, he was part of that pig herd...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/19/barr-the-un-comes-after-americas-guns/?page=2
August 19, 2013
<<According to experts familiar with this process, the mere act of signing the treaty — a responsibility that would fall to Secretary of State John Kerry — would “obligate” the U.S. government as a signatory not to act “contrary to” its terms. Those “terms” are, to quote Ross Perot, the “devil in the detail” — found not only within the four corners of the document itself, but in companion, foundational documents on which it is based.

For example, a 2006 U.N. report (authored by an American academic, Barbara Frey) lays out with frightening clarity where advocates of the approach reflected in the Arms Trade Treaty are coming from. According to this Eurocentric worldview, there is no “right” to self-defense, and the national government is obligated to restrict civilian ownership of firearms, including determining which citizens properly “understand” firearms and might, therefore, be permitted to possess them.

Another important but little-known set of documents that reveal the true purposes of the treaty were crafted by the U.N. Coordinating Action on Small Arms. These include the International Small Arms Control Standard, which is developing “modules” on gun control to serve as “model legislation” for countries that sign on to the treaty. The most relevant of these is the one titled, “National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons.”

One need read no further than the introduction to this missive to understand its goal. The operative focus is strict regulation of civilian possession of firearms by the “central” or national government. This is necessary because “some civilians misuse small arms” by using them illegally or “improperly stor[ing]” them. The document bases this notion of government control of firearms and ammunition on “international law” — an inaccurate interpretation of such body of laws, but one that fits conveniently the U.N.’s agenda.

From this global perspective, the International Small Arms Control Standard module then directs, in excruciating detail, the manner in which national governments should restrict access to firearms and ammunition:

Restricting civilian possession of firearms only to those “at the lowest risk of misusing them.”

Limiting sales and other transfers of firearms only to commercial transactions at licensed “sales premises” (in other words, no transfers at gun shows).

Only persons licensed and periodically relicensed by the national government could possess firearms.

All firearms must be registered with the national government.

All persons wishing to possess a firearm must pass a rigorous exam administered by the national government.

All firearms must be stored in locked containers separate from ammunition, and “bolted to a heavy or immovable object.”

Only a predetermined number of firearms and rounds of ammunition may be possessed by a properly licensed civilian.

Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.

Possession of a firearm may only occur after a seven-day waiting period.

No civilian could own or possess a firearm for self-defense unless he first demonstrates a clear and convincing need.
BAM! THERE IT IS!

Individuals licensed to own firearms are subject to periodic and random inspections of their homes or businesses.

In order to be granted a license to possess a firearm, an individual must secure recommendations from “responsible members of society,” attesting to their “suitability to possess a small arm.”

The above list is by no means exhaustive of the restrictions in the U.N. model legislation, which is designed to limit the possession of firearms and ammunition to the smallest possible number of civilians, and it provides clear insight into where this process is going. If Congress fails to take swift action to prohibit the administration from implementing any part of the Arms Trade Treaty or taking any action pursuant to it, we now know exactly where we are headed.>>

HATE TO SAY, "I TOLD YOU SO!" BUT, DAMMIT, I DID!

GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N.!!!



 LISTEN!
STAND UP AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!
IT IS NOT ABOUT "ASSAULT WEAPONS" ANYMORE!
IT'S ABOUT BEING DISARMED!
IT'S ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!
IT IS NOT ABOUT MILITARY-TYPE WEAPONS!
IT'S ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO CONFRONT THE MILITARY IF THE NEED ARISES!
IT'S ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION BEING SHREDDED YET AGAIN BY A CONGRESS THAT HAS NO RIGHT TO GO AGAINST IT, A CONGRESS THAT SWEARS AN OATH TO DEFEND THAT DOCUMENT, JUST AS SHE STANDS!
LISTEN TO THOSE WHO WROTE IT!

                         "An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."