Gun Rights Lesson

(continued)

On August 24, 1789, seventeen articles comprising the Bill of Rights passed the House of Representatives which the early politicians wanted to become foundational law as part of the Constitution.

A bill is a proposal which requires congressional approval to become law and bills can become law without becoming part of the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is very difficult and requires a huge number of congressional votes. Once part of the Constitution these articles became the law of the land over all the United States and are very hard to change.

The same August day 65 Americans, who had been chosen as Congressmen (because they were all men) proposed the following Article as a Constitutional Right:

“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.”

Everything about the Right to Bear Arms had only to do with a “Well Regulated Militia” of the citizens who could use guns at their disposal to defend, Not Themselves and Their Families From Each Other, but for “The Best Security of a Free State.” For this reason, the first approved draft stated clearly “but no one religiously Scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Scrupulous: Adjective (of a person or process) diligent, thorough and extremely attentive to details, very concerned to avoid doing wrong.

The framers of this article were obviously thinking only about “well regulated” and “scrupulous” ownership of guns for the purpose of Defending The State.

Once 26 Senators got the proposed bill they saw problems in its wording. They were all wealthy men who had been chosen by other wealthy men, not elected by the people, to control the power of the people through their elected Representatives - the House of Representatives.

These wealthy men wanted more command over the people, more ability to Force men to fight in wars that the wealthy men didn’t want to fight in themselves. So, the Representatives of the Wealthy (the US Senate) took out the part where no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, Shall Be Compelled to render military service in person. If only C-Span had existed so we could have heard the argument on the Senate floor that day and seen what really went on. Senator Caleb Strong from Massachusetts spoke: “How shall we ever muster enough men if we cannot force them under conscription?” Senator John Henry from Maryland responded: “Shall we then force men to fight unrighteous wars with which these men are not in agreement? Shall we force them to fight the wars we start between ourselves?”

File: 1501115737757.jpg (151KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 388x443px

SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED

Most Senators agreed with Strong’s way and took out the part that would have Never Allowed A Military Draft Of Any Type. Thus, during the more recent Vietnam War, thousands of Americans died, who otherwise would have lived had they used their Constitutional Right not to be compelled to render service to fight a politician’s war. IF the House’s first proposal for the amendment of the right of a citizen to bear arms only for Well Regulated Military Service had not been changed people could have refused to fight foreign wars or any war for that matter. People could refuse to fight for unjust governments and their wars.

Remembering the important part of the original House proposal “no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service In Person” shows how inhumane and evil the 65 Congressmen were. They didn’t want to be forced into war themselves but they could compel their slaves, indentured men and others who weren’t considered a legal “person” to fight their wars or they could pay someone to fight for them. But they wouldn’t allow a law to force their “own” person to bear arms for the State. This is key in understanding the full and original intent of the Right to Bear Arms: For the State, Under the Direction of the Government, Only For A Well-Regulated Militia.

Think how many Americans own guns and are most of them scrupulous? Do most own a gun being diligent, thorough and extremely attentive to details, very concerned to avoid doing wrong? Or do they protect themselves from other Americans by taking the Law and Order, the Constitutional purpose into their own unscrupulous hands?

File: THumP.jpg (52KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x500px

Americans who believe it should be the right of Every Citizen regardless of whether or not that citizen is scrupulous to bear arms, deserve every part of the broken, violent society they are experiencing, which will worsen as time goes on.

ALL arms of every type, should and must be strongly and properly regulated by a righteous government. The Humanity Party® has proposed this Article to the US Constitution that would completely change American Society and culture.

http://humanityparty.com/proposed-constitution.html#u5383-62

So it's another party of leftist faggots. Gotcha.

File: 1490740236261.jpg (387KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1280x800px

>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.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
>free State, the right of the people
>State, the
>,
There now fuck off.

>>136744014
but how do i know you won't shoot me in an SSRI induced psychosis because my dog took a shit in your yard?

File: 1502221510136.jpg (327KB, 1500x919px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1500x919px

>>136745227
If I do you fight me off with your gun.

>>136746047
>If I do you fight me off with your gun.
I can't, I'm dead.

>"Americans who believe it should be the right of Every Citizen regardless of whether or not that citizen is scrupulous to bear arms, deserve every part of the broken, violent society they are experiencing, which will worsen as time goes on"

So close to a redpill. They just have to think... What parts of society are violent and broken? What citizens are statistically more unscrupulous when it comes to using firearms?

So the whole article was about how the original draft would have prevented the government from conscripting what we would today call "conscientious objectors"? And this somehow proves that the individual doesn't have the right to bear arms?

>>136746932
it shows the context is defense of the pre-military State, not self defense. those serving in the military today do not bear arms for self defense.

>>136747930
It changes literally nothing. Even the current IIA is justified that way. They both state the same thing: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

I guess it's just preaching to the choir though, of course. Find something that you think affirms your way of thinking and then parade it out in front of all your fans and supporters. It still changes nothing.

>>136748408
it destroys the fantasy many /pol/tards have that the State is a domestic enemy.