Those Forgotten and Ignored 13 Words

Those Forgotten and Ignored 13 Words

Why we need our citizen militias back…

By Mark Reynolds AKA Courageous Lion

How about we take a close look at the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights. And not just a cursory look, but rather an honest, critical, deeper look.

“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.”

Well regulated , meaning to run smooth, be disciplined , well supplied. Militia meaning the body of people consisting of lawful citizens in a free state of existence. Security , meaning to keep safe . Necessary meaning needed , essential Free state, meaning the collective of states, the whole nation. The right , meaning those essential liberties that all people have regardless of government. The people, the lawful citizens in a free state of existence To keep, meaning to own and posses And bear, meaning to carry on or about ones person either open or concealed.
Arms , meaning weapons Shall not, meaning must not, will not be infringed, meaning restricted , retarded , or suppressed in any way whatsoever.

Therefore, a well regulated, smooth running ,well supplied, disciplined Militia being necessary, essential, needed, for the security, safety, of a free state, the whole nation, for national security. The right, liberties, of the people, free and lawful citizens, to keep and bear arms, shall not, must not , will not be infringed, restricted suppressed.

Now if you suppress, restrict or infringe upon the rights and liberties of the people to keep, own, and bear arms, open or concealed you are compromising national security. The crime of jeopardizing national security is treason.

Referred to in modern times as an individual’s right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the “true palladium of liberty.” In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/48–1826) described as the “last coup de grace” that would enable the states “to thwart and oppose the general government.” Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen.

The US Constitution does not give us any rights, and that includes the 2nd Amendment. Rather, it affirms rights that already existed, espoused in the “Bill of Rights”, in order to safeguard them. Note that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t given by the language above. Instead, our right to keep and bear arms, which existed outside of any Constitution, is protected from infringement. The word NECESSARY is used in one place in the Bill of Rights and only in one place. Those first 13 words which were eviscerated in 1902-1903 with the “Dick Act” and following legislation that pretty much converted the voluntary state militias into a part of the federal army known as the National Guard. Those 13 words may be the most important 13 words in the whole Constitution. We should be working to get them back into effect.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …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. —Elbridge Gerry, Fifth Vice President of the United States

“The army…is a dangerous instrument to play with.”
George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, April 4th, 1783

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787

“Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”
James Madison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809

“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787

I believe the US Constitution makes clear the prohibition against a standing army. If you look at Article 1 Section 8 you will find this:

To declare War ,(this is NOT the Presidents jurisdiction! President states he can act defensive only and then Congress steps in) grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (which could help keep us OUT of wars!), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years ;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

Note the time frame for the appropriation of funds for an Army. TWO YEARS. And of course if we were at war, they could extend it another two years after the first two years were up. Note the continual use of the Militia. The VOLUNTARY militia would have soldiers for an ARMY called out of it to defend the nation in case of invasion or insurrection.

If a state started a voluntary militia patterned after the original intent, would you join? If our country was invaded would you be willing to arm up and help defend your state and the nation? I suspect that the ranks would be over run with volunteers.

Realize this…standing armies, after all, do not always only practice defense. And don’t give me the line, “Our military would never turn on the people” b.s. because if you are a student of history, every time a country turns tyrannical the military is used on the people. As a matter of fact the Founding Fathers fought THEIR military at Concord Green because it wasn’t the United States yet!

Once established, a government’s bureaucrats and leaders as well as the military and even laymen all face a different set of incentives. Those with a job related to the military have an incentive to keep their job. My late father was a employee of Rockwell International which is part of the military industrial complex. Talking to him about the subject of ending standing armies was futile. In a lot of cases, they probably would love to see their power expanded and their pay and benefits increased. Their support for war then, is the ideal way for achieving their goals. Most likely incentives like this could convert a champion of peace into a war-loving bureaucrat. It’s a lot easier to rationalize a war if your job depends on it.

The Militia Act of 1903, known as “the Dick Act” named after it’s writer, created the National Guard out of the Organized Militia and created the Reserve Militia, to consist of males 17-45, those eligible for the draft. On the way to doing totally away with the organized militia. This removed more control of the Militia from the States but provided additional funding for training, equipping, and manning the force. It was the National Defense Act of 1916 that fully modernized the National Guard, provided Federal funding for training, drills, annual training, and equipping. It did, however, stipulate that in return, the War Department and the Army gained far more control over the Militia; for example, the Army was now able to dictate what types of units would be raised in each State. The Act also removed the issue of Militia serving outside the United States by stating that when called into Federal service, the National Guard would be considered Federal troops. So can we quit calling the National Guard the militia?

From then on, the National Guard has served with distinction in all the major conflicts of the United States. Oh, they were just used for “major conflicts”. Another way of saying UNDECLARED WAR. So what was originally supposed to be a voluntary force garnered from the organized militias of the several states in a declared war or national emergency has been morphed into a “division” of the Standing army.

Need I say any more about standing armies? Of which we have in force and existence today rampaging all over the world involved in conflicts that are none of our business? Oh wait, they are involved in “conflicts” which in most cases are the people running our government’s way of doing business. Sort of like a bully taking the lunch money away from a smaller kid in a public school.

Seriously, and I repeat… those first 13 words of the second amendment may be the most important 13 words in the whole Constitution. We should be working diligently to get them back into effect.
The founding fathers understood clearly what the word NECESSARY meant as well as the word SECURITY . And if you think about it the carrying of arms is NECESSARY FOR SECURITY to exist. Just recently we saw how someone taking the word NECESSARY to heart was willing to supply SECURITY for the people in his vicinity when a mass shooter began a rampage. Now imagine THOUSAND, no MILLIONS of citizens who have taken the step to volunteer into state militias in all 50 states and are carrying arms on or about their person to supply the SECURITY NECESSARY for a free state of existence for those they are in the immediate vicinity there of.

The militia is mentioned as the goal for the protection of our right to live under the security of a free state of existence and thus to keep and bear arms —and yet it is not a requirement to be a member. The word VOLUNTARY comes into play. Obviously all living and breathing people have a right to their lives and thus a corresponding right to defend that life by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY .

A helpful analogy from an unknown author goes like this: “A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books, shall not be infringed.”

In this example, it should be easy to see that the right to read and compose books is not reserved only to those that are registered voters or well-educated. Instead, the goal is a well-educated electorate, for which tools of education are needed. Likewise, our right to keep and bear arms is protected in the event a well-regulated militia is needed to defend our free state of existence, and/or our country.

For anyone, any officer of the court, any law enforcement, any senator, any congressman, any president to make an effort to disarm and take away the peoples right to defend themselves, their county, their state, their country is tantamount to treason and they place themselves in a state of war against those that they become an aggressor against. After all, all law is enforced through the barrel of a gun.

If we were to get back to voluntary militias a lot of the empire building that the behind the scenes rulers of the United States engage in would grind to a stop. We would have state militias made up of men and women between the ages of 17 and 45. There would be incentives to be in the militia such as are now with military members like militia member discounts at stores. Help with loans, help with arming members for instance. Those who are not actual members could offer voluntary assistance in helping train and arm those who are unable to arm themselves. At my age I could no longer volunteer to be a member, but I could assist in training and arming younger militia members. I believe that many of our country men would join a volunteer militia today to get the training and to be able to stand in the gap whenever they are out and about in society. Can you imagine millions of trained militia members in our society being everywhere at all times and what kind of deterrent it would be against any kind of armed crime that may happen?

What I would love to see is a state governor to do some research and reinstate a REAL voluntary state militia patterned after the Founders version, which is patterned after the many years old Swiss tradition. Not some group like the Texas Guard or the Florida Guard which is state only sponsored, but not really trained in military response. They are not armed and basically act like a force to help the actual standing army version, “National Guard” in case of state emergencies. The first governor to bring back A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state would become a legend and many other governors, mostly “red state” governors would most likely follow suit. And then we will have back in force and effect…A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

You can expect an outcry of citizens in “blue” states if their governors don’t follow suite with a national effort to re-establish the state militias.

I end this with this quote from John Locke, one of the men the founders of our system of justice read:
“He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him, it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life; for I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he got me there, and destroy me, too, when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e., make me a slave. to be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.” ~ John Locke - Two Treatises Of Government

Ask yourself…are we not being placed in a state of war with all of the thousands of violations and infringements on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? I think you know the answer. We need to change that and get those first 13 words back into force and effect. Let me know what you think…

8 Likes

That is /was a very good read of what I was taught and you and the words are spot on,and is fact there was never supposed to be a standing Military,they were supposed to be volunteers from the CITIZENS only for as long as it took,then they were to return to their life, in fact thinking about it I cant remember when they started to have a standing Military,was it about the time that all the representatives started to get paid to be a representative of the Government,I know Lincoln disbanded the committee of safety during the Civil War and never reinstated it

5 Likes

Big government reads, “shall not be infringed” and finds ways to go around it.

4 Likes

An alternative interpretation is that the Founders feared an unruly, tyrannical militia and wanted to preserve the peoples’ ability to resist such “unregulated” forces. Consider that during Reconstruction, citizen “militias” like the KKK sprang up to oppress Blacks, and local Southern government agencies restricted firearms ownership by Blacks.

I think the founders were more fearful of a standing army because they had dealt with one and saw the results of numerous standing armies all throughout Europe. I’m sure it is true that the possibility exists of tyrannical militia groups as you described. And yes, even to this day black Americans are being denied personal protection in places like Chicago and New York and yet all of the gang bangers are armed to the teeth and even now are putting up videos of their “Glock switches” on the internet! Wonder why the ATF isn’t going after them? Skeerrred a bit maybe?

2 Likes

Good read, would read again.

1 Like

While I completely agree with the sentiment above about the importance and purpose of the citizen militia to our Nation’s security I do want to continue to remind people that the second amendment does not establish the concept or scope of militia nor does it require one’s ability or willingness to be a member in order to affirm their right to keep and bear arms.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16 of the US Constitution establish congress’ role in regulating the militia. The first 13 words in the Second Amendment are simply a preamble stating one very important reason why the following active clause affirms that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. But it is not the only reason. The people get to choose how and why they exercise that natural right.

2 Likes

However, WITHOUT the militia in force and effect, how does ONE MAN enforce the constitution on traitors? The militia had the ability to convene grand juries and indict criminals in government for violations of oaths of office. What do we have today to enforce the oath? NOTHING!

1 Like

The vital thing about the second amendment is that it affirms the rights of millions of American citizens to posses the arms necessary to defend themselves and their families from tyrants, traitors and anyone else who threatens to harm them. It is the massive potential of that currently unorganized and individually controlled strength that is clearly causing so much fear among the kleptocrats and crony capitalists who have been fleecing the American people for the past several decades.

I believe it would be much easier to corrupt and control a more formally organized militia. It is the freedom and ability of individuals that gives the USA its strength.

2 Likes

And the PROBLEM is that one man will be committing suicide by cop. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. I consider the Founding Fathers to be rather intelligent and if they put those 13 words in there it was because they felt they were NEEDED. To debate otherwise with the quotes and information available is nonsense. And obviously they began to violate their own beliefs in a standing army almost immediately. Every hear of the Whiskey Rebellion? It wasn’t the militia that put it down. And it hasn’t been the militia involved in 233 years of warfare since the founding of the country.

It is not one man. It is millions of people with the tools needed to defend themselves. It is suicide for the kleptocrats to keep stealing from the masses. Eventually their judgement will come. That is why they are trying so hard to control and disarm all the law abiding people right now as their Ponzi scheme is clearly running out of steam.

As to those 13 words. I have heard it stated and think it reasonable to believe that those words were most likely placed in the 2nd amendment in order to persuade the reluctant politicians of the day to ratify it. There were likely many kleptocrats back then who feared their grip on power would be threatened by an armed populace. So stating one of the reasons that most everyone at the time could agree on to allow people to keep and bear arms made it harder for those kleptocrats to vote against.

Those 13 words are simply a preamble giving one of the many reasons why the right to keep and bear arms is vital to the people and our nation. Many of the other reasons were likely assumed to be obvious at the time. The ability to serve in the militia was most certainly never meant to be a prerequisite for a person to be able to exercise their natural right to defend themselves, their families and their neighbors.

I think the need for a well regulated militia is a worthy debate. But arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is somehow legally tied to a well regulated militia creates a dangerous precedent that never existed in the first place. That attempted argument is currently being used by the anti self defense crowd to remove all our rights. If they succeed the existence of a formal militia or lack thereof becomes a moot point.

2 Likes

Why don’t your try reading the article and then get back to me. Apparently you haven’t. And YES it is one man. Tell me how many people defended the Branch Davidians? And they had more than one man. Tell me how many people defended Randy Weaver and his family.
YES, we HAVE the tools, but do you think that “they” are going to go after all of us at once? No, they will pick off people one, by one, come with many agents or officers and it will be YOU against them. I can think of two incidents where bullets didn’t fly because a lot of men showed up. The Bundy Ranch and the wildlife preserve in Oregon. MANY of those guys ended up in court dealing with criminal charges. Thank goodness the jury had some sense. Why are you having such a hard time comprehending this? So unless you can figure out a way to ORGANIZE a lot of resistance against the tyrants if they come after you…it IS one man. Even leaderless resistance or “The war of the flea” is one man or a very few working together to take down the tyrants.

“But arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is somehow legally tied to a well regulated militia creates a dangerous precedent that never existed in the first place.” And where can you find me making that argument? I’m convinced you didn’t read the post. If so you missed the point. The MILITIA is legally tied to the right to keep and bear arms, not the other way around. WITHOUT the people having the right to bear arms there never could be a militia. The MILITIA is NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a free state of existence.

If we were to get back to voluntary militias a lot of the empire building that the behind the scenes rulers of the United States engage in would grind to a stop. We would have state militias made up of men and women between the ages of 17 and 45. There would be incentives to be in the militia such as are now with military members like militia member discounts at stores. Help with loans, help with arming members for instance. Those who are not actual members could offer voluntary assistance in helping train and arm those who are unable to arm themselves. At my age I could no longer volunteer to be a member, but I could assist in training and arming younger militia members. I believe that many of our country men would join a volunteer militia today to get the training and to be able to stand in the gap whenever they are out and about in society. Can you imagine millions of trained militia members in our society being everywhere at all times and what kind of deterrent it would be against any kind of armed crime that may happen?
Now go read the post. Until then, I’m through debating with you.

I don’t see that the 2A or anything else in the Constitution legally ties the Militia to the right to keep and bear arms. The 2A states that a well armed citizenry would be important to maintaining a militia but does not authorize a militia or require them to keep and bear their own arms.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 says that Congress is responsible for organizing and arming the militia. It doesn’t state whether or not the militia gets to keep and bear their provided arms when not actively serving. More importantly it grants pretty much full control of the militia to Congress. Given the current corruption in DC I think those potential millions of militia members would more likely be getting ordered to spend their time squashing any resistance to the Congress critters rule than actually getting tasked with protecting the people.

I think a well trained, equipped and not corruptly controlled volunteer militia could be a great benefit to this country. But in current times it is unlikely that a completely volunteer part time force could fully man and maintain the complex weapons systems in use today. I also fear that keeping the DC kleptocrats from corrupting at least parts of that force into some warped modern day version of the Nazi Brownshirts would be a significant challenge.

3 Likes

Not only is the Right of The People to keep and bear arms not tied to the militia, the unorganized militia is a whole hell of a lot of people that damn sure aren’t the government/national guard/police/military

But that RKBA, of The People, is certainly important to the effectiveness of a militia.

So, yeah, there is also that

4 Likes

If you have not read the post, please do so. I never in any way suggested that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was tied to the militia. The MILITIA is tied to the right of the people to keep and bear arms and is NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a free state. That’s the problem. The NECESSARY part and the SECURITY part. Do you feel secure? Maybe to a degree, but I would feel a whole lot more secure if there were millions of trained militia members walking around in society armed for that very reason. The teachers that could be, the coaches the could be, the UPS drivers that could be, the every day ordinary citizen being trained as part of a WELL REGULATED militia for the NECESSARY PURPOSE OF SECURITY. Get it yet?

You still have not read the POST. It’s OBVIOUS. NO WHERE in that article do I say

The MILITIA is legally tied to the right to keep and bear arms

No where. And I don’t know where you got that out of my comments. If you did, it was in error to be read that way. The RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is legally tied to the militia. WITHOUT THE RIGHT, there could be no militia. How hard is this to understand? And the founding fathers weren’t concerned with your arguments. They had complex weapons systems in their day too.

*"*But in current times it is unlikely that a completely volunteer part time force could fully man and maintain the complex weapons systems in use today. I also fear that keeping the DC kleptocrats from corrupting at least parts of that force into some warped modern day version of the Nazi Brownshirts would be a significant challenge."

What complex weapons systems after training are you referring to? And your fears are unfounded. We already have modern day versions of the Nazi Brownshirts that the DC kleptocrats have created. Actually a number of them. Let’s start with the FBI, then the ATF, how about the IRS. You’ve got to be kidding me!

I have read your whole post more than once as well as reread the sections of the Constitution relating to the Militia. I am not a legal scholar so perhaps I am missing something but I don’t see any language legally tying the right to keep and bear arms to the militia. The 2A appears to state that the right to keep and bear arms is important to being able to have a well regulated militia but it does not mandate militia members must keep and bear their own arms. The constitutions says that Congress is responsible for equipping the Militia. As with the National Guard, Militia members could be expected to get their arms from a central armory. This would be ineffective, and potentially dangerous for the defense of the community but I see no constitutional mandate for it not to happen.

Fortunately the 2A protects the rights of those Militia members to keep and bear their own weapons so they do not have to be defenseless when they are not fulfilling their Militia obligations.

As to complex weapons systems - fighter jets, modern naval ships, anti aircraft batteries, electronic warfare systems, etc., etc. A part time force with maybe a couple weeks of training every year and at most a weekend a month of practice is not going to be anywhere near as effective as a force that receives intensive full time training for several years and regular intensive practice afterwards. Modern warfare is a complex integrated affair with tons of moving parts. I would think modern day skills and tactics are more than a little bit harder to learn and maintain than having a group of men in formation using muskets and cannon.

Any organized group can be much more easily controlled and manipulated than independent free thinking individuals. Which is why the kleptocrats are so afraid of an individuals right to defend themselves. And why they are working so hard to push us all into increasingly divided us versus them organized political parties where they can more easily control and redirect our anger away from the true enemies of a free and fair society.

2 Likes