Posted on 10/26/2017 7:24:35 AM PDT by rktman
In September of 1774, Dr. Joseph Warren wrote the Suffolk Resolves.British statesman Edmund Burke cited the Suffolk Resolves as a major development in colonial animosity, which eventually led to the Declaration of Independence.
The Suffolk Resolves stated: “That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations … and that the inhabitants of those towns and districts … do use their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of war as soon as possible, and do, for that purpose, appear under arms at least once every week.”
On Oct. 26, 1774, the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts reorganized their defenses with one-third of their regiments being “Minutemen,” ready to fight at a minute’s notice. This followed the example of the earliest known militia in history – Ancient Israel, where every man was armed and always ready at a moment’s notice to defend his family and his community.
E.C. Wines wrote in “Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, with an Introductory Essay on Civil Society & Government” (NY: Geo. P. Putnam & Co., 1853): “Moses’ constitution made no provision for a standing army. … The whole body of citizens … formed a national guard of defense. Thus the landholders (and every Israelite was a landholder) formed the only soldiery, known to the Mosaic constitution.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
NON print version:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/the-2nd-amendments-very-ancient-roots/?cat_orig=diversions
While people point to the repressive Crown measures as leading to the Revolutionary War, the fact is the shooting started when the Brits went for the colonists’ arsenal. Without it, the colonists knew they were nothing; now we are citizens, while Brits are still SUBJECTS.
Yup. And as I recall, one of the first to be killed by the red coats was a black man who was willing to fight for the freedom of the soon to be U.S. Correct as needed if my memory is bad.
Crispus Attucks was a black man killed (I believe in the Boston Massacre); the Concord/Lexington fighting (the shooting war) started later. Attucks and others had some kind of altercation with British troops; their deaths mobilized many against the Crown early on.
THEN it is necessary that the means to preserve life and liberty, especially in the case of imminent and immediate threat, be readily at hand.
THUS, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because to infringe the means of preserving a right is to deny the right itself.
The logic is ineluctable and unbreakable; if you deny the right to keep and bear arms you are denying the very root notion at the founding of this country.
BUT THERE IS WAY THAT YOU CAN MAKE A SHOULDER FIRED SEMI-AUTO CROSS-BOW AND A WAGON MOUNTED FULL AUTO CROSS-BOW
bttt
Thanks for the jog.
Don’t forgot those bronze-age assault chariots with blades attached to the wheels. They could mow down a whole crowd of civilians, and you didn’t need to pass any background check to own one!
Don’t even get me started on the “chariot-show loophole”!
Hear ye, hear ye. Real USAians must have firearms.
We fail to remember many of our Country's Founders and this gentleman is certainly one of them. A Harvard graduate and physician, a reasonably wealthy member of Boston society, he joined with Paul Revere, John Hancock, Sam Adams in the famous group, "The Sons of Liberty". He helped write the report on the Boston Massacre, served as a prominent member of the Massachusetts's Committee of Correspondence and became President of Massachusetts' Provincial Congress.
It was he who coordinated the 'midnight rides' of Paul Revere & William Dawes that led to the FIRST battles of Lexington & Concord. He, himself, slipped through the British blockade lines to fight the Regulars on their return to Boston.
Although he became a General in Massachusetts Militia, when the troops were mustered for the Bunker Hill (Breed's Hill) Battle, he declined command to serve as a common soldier on Breed's Hill. He was killed at the British third and successful assault. The British initially stripped him of his clothing and buried him in a ditch but later, showing their hatred and contempt for such an adversary, returned and mutilated the body, including decapitation. When, 8 months later, after the withdrawal of the British from Boston, his body was identified by Paul Revere from an artificial tooth that he had made.
ohhhh, ... what they would do to a bunch of NATIFA, BLM and SnowFlakes , oh boy.
I read the first part and scanned the rest of
it. It appeared to me that the author was a little
too stuck to a ‘guns in the hands of the militia’
argument which suggests that weapons be kept at an
armory in the eyes of the gun grabbers. No thanks.
I prefer to hitch my star to what the ‘Father of the
Constitution’ had to say about gun ownership in
The Federalist #46. James Madison informs us that
ARMED CITIZENS would comprise local militias. And,
in true American braggert style he proclaims that
Americans are armed while Europeans have had their
weapons confiscated by their tyrannical leaders.
Without the support of society and protection of the law, life in those times eas guaranteed to be brutal and likely short. The worst punishment next to being killed was to be banished. An outlaw is not, despite the way we use it today, someone who operates outside of the law, it means someone who no longer has the protection of law. So an outlaw is a particularly bad form of criminal but not all criminals were outlaws.
Even then a criminals weapons werent taken when outlawed because it was understood that to take the banished persons weapons was the same as killing them. They no longer had the protection of the law so someone could go out and try to kill them but even then it was understood that a man, like any animal, has the right to defend himself.
How far back before that the natural law was recognized I dont know that anyone can say but its not important really. The understanding that under natural law everything had a right to defend itself pre-dated the US and its militias, or Roman times, and did not come to us via any culture known in the Middle East.
(At this point someone jumps in and points out that many of the peoples of Europe are believed to have migrated from areas in and about the Middle East and that may well be but those peoples laws may predate known Jewish militias unless you argue back to Noah and that becomes a discussion of faith, not history.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.