>Now, you’ve brought up mentions of the militia in nearly every reply, which has given me the impression that you’re a militia member, or you’re some sort of advocate.
>And while we’re at it, let’s not confuse this with our nation’s Armed Forces.
I’ve been all of these.
>It’s an “Act”, not a part of our Founding Charter, or of the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, or the individual writings of the Founders, nor of Thomas Paine, or of anyone who spoke to our people’s cause of freedom in that day.
But it is directly related, through Art 1 Sec 8; and also I wouldn’t be surprised if the SECOND Congress DID contain some of the signatories of the Constitution.
>In other words, it’s not a part of our nation’s Founding Principles.
But the post that I gave, regarding my State’s Militia, apparently *IS* part of its founding principles. (No such annotation is given for an amendment.)
You have argued that the a state/governmental requirement is antithetical to a Constitutional-based society; I have given, from my own state, contrary proof (as it is impossible for a portion of the Constitution to be unconstitutional).
Now, as to the supposition that this is antithetical to the overall United States Constitution I direct your attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments which state that powers not explicitly given to the federal government are retained by either the state or the people; and it is the state and/or the people that instituted the requirement/definition of the militia.
Please state how that is contrary to the founding principals; which to quote in part: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” {Simply because you do not agree with *HOW* the people, or past generations, organized its powers does not mean that it is “unconstitutional” or contra-constitutional.}
Friend, we seem to be on different planes here. We’re nearly having separate conversations.
My entire point is that the fundamental American principles of freedom and liberty are senior to even our Founding Documents. These basic concepts and ideas came before the construct of an agreement hammered out between men.
Our “unalienable rights” have existed throughout time immemorial, and are as immutable as any law of physics. They weren’t formulated, nor were they granted by the Framers.
Laws, statutes, ordinances, edicts, treaties, orders, rules, contracts, and even constitutions are are agreements hammered out by men to organize themselves. Within those agreements, we may all agree to grant some measure of control and authority to the organizing bodies we call governments, but at no time should that control or authority be confused with “rights”.
To return to the original premise of this argument, let me state again; It’s inconsistent with the American people’s native understanding of our inalienable rights to allow our government the power to force us to purchase health insurance, a firearm, or any other thing that the government may deem necessary, fit, or proper.
Free men have the power of choice. Slaves do not.
If you have to use force to make men stand and fight for each other, then that culture has already passed the point of no return, and isn’t worth fighting for.