CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[danielpalos]

Josf,

I am not sure what you mean. There are no Individual Rights declared in our Second Article of Amendment without appealing to ignorance of the first clause and the law as a result.

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.

The first clause clearly establishes the context for the second clause; should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues.

In any Case, the first clause can Only be safely ignored if our Second Amendment had been stated thusly, "A well regulated militia being unnecessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." in order for the subject and the object to agree. Then, there would have been some color for the interpretation rendered.

The People and the Militia are synonymous. Thus, Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State; not rights in private property.

Here is a State supreme law of the land for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen 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 shall not be infringed.

Both clearly state that some sort of regulation (i.e. police power) is available and necessary and proper.

And, that is besides the point of the subject of Arms being socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[Josf]

"I am not sure what you mean. There are no Individual Rights declared in our Second Article of Amendment without appealing to ignorance of the first clause and the law as a result."

Long before you began forming your versions of the meanings of laws, so as to suit whatever goal you have in mind, as an individual, people have acknowledged the indisputable fact that evil people use words to deceive people. Your interpretation, according to you alone, is an example of one individual having one opinion, at one time, of the meaning you intend to put in the words written in the form of something called the Second Amendment.

You have your viewpoint. I have my viewpoint. Now there are two viewpoints. You arrive at my door to take my arms, and you will get my answer to your request to interpret the Second Amendment your way. You hire criminals to take my arms, according to what you think is right, and the same answer is offered in return by me.

If that is difficult for you to understand, that is fine by me, go ahead with whatever you, and your army of criminals, may care to do with your investments with your time and energy.

"Both clearly state that some sort of regulation (i.e. police power) is available and necessary and proper."

Red Coats, Nazis, Bolsheviks, and the people making up the Khmer Rouge all tried the same word play as you and your ilk are trying now. You see how it goes on your own dime. Any suggesting by you affirming that your false, deceptive, interpretations of words are orders that I have to obey without question constitute your willingness to aid, abet, lend moral and material support to criminals hiding behind counterfeit badges.

Your words, the more you write, dig your own confession into hell on earth. That is all your doing. My advice is to think better, act better, and begin on a new path that does not follow the ilk of Red Coats, Nazis, Bolsheviks, Chinese Communists, North Korean Communists, the Khmer Rouge, and any other criminal groups making false claims of moral authority, they all have one thing in common, you included, you dig your own graves.

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe you have a point; but, I always ensure I am the one resorting to the fewest fallacies as a moral and ethic.

You are confusing inalienable rights to acquire and possess private property (and that capital profit motive) with keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union.

It is a simple fallacy of composition.

Please explain how the Terms Acquire and Possess may be commuted to Keep and Bear. They are not synonymous unless we reduce our supreme law of the land to mere fraction of the law. Ninth-tenths of the law is inadequate for our supreme law of the land.

 

[Josf]

"You are confusing inalienable rights to acquire and possess private property (and that capital profit motive) with keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union."

That constitutes an accusation. Were we the people in these federated states currently facing enemies foreign and domestic rioting in the blood of the innocent, then your accusation may somehow turn into a charge of treason by you. If so, then my way of looking at things affords me a Grand Jury, of the people, by the people, and for the people, selected by lot, in order for your accusation to mass muster, to then afford me trial by jury, and then the trial jurists, representing the whole country, have my permission to hang me by my neck until dead, because they determine the facts concerning guilt or innocence in this case. I trust, after I offer my reasons, that those 12 randomly selected jurists, vetted by me during voir dire, that they will understand my reasoning, because they are my peers.

I will be innocent of any charge by you concerning what the meaning of words are in times of severe trouble.

On the other hand, were I to consider your ignorance, or your apathy, or your willfully - and with malice aforethought - constituting you aiding, abetting, lending moral and material support to the enemies of free people, and my duty was to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the common laws of free people, then in my opinion you would be in a fix, of your own making.

"It is a simple fallacy of composition."

As far as I am concerned those words above constitute libel. I can easily win a case against you, for libel, were it worth my time and effort. That is my opinion. What process works best to peacefully resolve differences of opinion when someone is accusing someone else of damages done in excess of 20 dollars or so?

"Please explain how the Terms Acquire and Possess may be commuted to Keep and Bear."

By what power does your interest in your dubious question turn into something that I might entertain as a cause for me to act in favor of your seditious, treasonous, work?

"They are not synonymous unless we reduce our supreme law of the land to mere fraction of the law."

If you confuse, or any number of people confuse, statute with law, then that is on your account, not mine.

I am very confident in understanding the true meaning of law a such:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

That is simple, easy, understandable, useful, and precisely able to supply the demand for law; and that is not man-made-law (so called) which is statutes.

If you are speaking about Statues, then why would anyone need anything more than Statute Number 1, in America, which is a Declaration of Independence, which is perfectly in line with the law as it exists even if no human being acknowledges the law as it exists. Some people did acknowledge the law as it is, and they gathered, under clear and present dangers, to write a Declaration of Independence. Of course you can, or anyone can, twist the meaning of Matthew 7:12, or twist the meaning of a Declaration of Independence to mean just about anything one day, and the opposite the next day. Falsehood is useful to criminals, and that is not news:

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn - Nobel Lecture

That is an individual who is an authority on your ilk as you and others twist the meanings of words to suit your personal agenda: whatever that may actually turn out to be.

"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."

Words are cheap, words are less painful to the physical body compared to torture, but words can deceive armies, and armies can torture, and mass murder, following criminal orders without question - based upon deception.

Fables about sticks and stones breaking bones aside, a fable written by someone with a criminal agenda no doubt, the actual fact is that fraud is a known, and knowable, discoverable, crime complete with an individual guilty criminal perpetrator and any number of defenseless, innocent, victims.

"They are not synonymous unless we reduce our supreme law of the land to mere fraction of the law. Ninth-tenths of the law is inadequate for our supreme law of the land."

Dig, dig, dig, as you feel happy doing, and you might reach your goal at some time. What exactly is your goal?

My goal is simple. My goal is to work effectively at defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals and do so peacefully while that remains to be a viable option; that is why I write, and that is why I volunteer for jury duty.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Indeed. The SCOTUS can declare laws "unconstitutional". Lately, however, they have been doing what (seems to be) what every other "judge" in this country is doing - legislating from the bench. Read Jefferson's statement above.

If, when the court is leaning to the liberal side - what is to stop them from re-hearing a 2nd amendment case and overturning themselves? These "checks and balances" you speak of have been thrown out the window, for the most part. The executive branch does what it wants, when it wants. The legislative branch sits on their hands and refuses to do much of anything and the judicial branch changes written law at will to satisfy those who appointed them.

It's called "tyranny".

I don't believe that they're being legislative. They're just simply saying things are unconstitutional. However they're changing their mind on things, which is where people get irate. Take gay marriage, it should have changed in 1868, it didn't. For 150 years they allowed things to remain as they were, using their "judgement" to keep things as they wanted, ie, not interpreting the constitution as it should have been interpreted.

So it's not tyranny.

Here's the thing...Tyranny comes in many forms. "changing your mind" is not a judicial term. "Changing your mind" means that you are susceptible to outside forces. When president "a" appoints a person to the SCOTUS - he is expecting that that person will carry his will into the judicial process. When that person retires and president "b" appoints his person - well, you get the point.

In other words - the SCOTUS is merely carrying the legislative process forward for THEIR boss - the president of the US. Make no mistake about it - those clowns in black robes do the bidding of their boss - and no one else. It's just that one must first understand that their boss is one (or both) of the following - the president or the corporate interests who place large checks into their hands at the parties in Georgetown.

Jefferson warned us - and we refused to listen.

No, if a president appoints, and expects that person to use their constitutional knowledge to interpret the constitution. In theory the Supreme Court should not be put into factions, because the constitution should be clear enough for them. They're not doing the bidding of the president who put them there at all, or at least shouldn't do.

The fact that justices decide things on a political level is just really sad. That doesn't mean that justices aren't doing what they were put there for though. The Founding Fathers knew that power corrupts, it's the very reason why they made a system which has checks and balances.

The Supreme Court is NOT doing things for their bosses. That is not how the system was made, each part of govt is separate, it is equal, it has powers over others and others have powers over them.

Not how you're describing it. That goes against what the Founders wanted.

No wonder people think the Supreme Court is doing wrong if they don't understand the system.

 

[danielpalos]

"You are confusing inalienable rights to acquire and possess private property (and that capital profit motive) with keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union."

That constitutes an accusation. Were we the people in these federated states currently facing enemies foreign and domestic rioting in the blood of the innocent, then your accusation may somehow turn into a charge of treason by you. If so, then my way of looking at things affords me a Grand Jury, of the people, by the people, and for the people, selected by lot, in order for your accusation to mass muster, to then afford me trial by jury, and then the trial jurists, representing the whole country, have my permission to hang me by my neck until dead, because they determine the facts concerning guilt or innocence in this case. I trust, after I offer my reasons, that those 12 randomly selected jurists, vetted by me during voir dire, that they will understand my reasoning, because they are my peers.

I will be innocent of any charge by you concerning what the meaning of words are in times of severe trouble.

On the other hand, were I to consider your ignorance, or your apathy, or your willfully - and with malice aforethought - constituting you aiding, abetting, lending moral and material support to the enemies of free people, and my duty was to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the common laws of free people, then in my opinion you would be in a fix, of your own making.

"It is a simple fallacy of composition."

As far as I am concerned those words above constitute libel. I can easily win a case against you, for libel, were it worth my time and effort. That is my opinion. What process works best to peacefully resolve differences of opinion when someone is accusing someone else of damages done in excess of 20 dollars or so?

"Please explain how the Terms Acquire and Possess may be commuted to Keep and Bear."

By what power does your interest in your dubious question turn into something that I might entertain as a cause for me to act in favor of your seditious, treasonous, work?

"They are not synonymous unless we reduce our supreme law of the land to mere fraction of the law."

If you confuse, or any number of people confuse, statute with law, then that is on your account, not mine.

I am very confident in understanding the true meaning of law a such:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

That is simple, easy, understandable, useful, and precisely able to supply the demand for law; and that is not man-made-law (so called) which is statutes.

If you are speaking about Statues, then why would anyone need anything more than Statute Number 1, in America, which is a Declaration of Independence, which is perfectly in line with the law as it exists even if no human being acknowledges the law as it exists. Some people did acknowledge the law as it is, and they gathered, under clear and present dangers, to write a Declaration of Independence. Of course you can, or anyone can, twist the meaning of Matthew 7:12, or twist the meaning of a Declaration of Independence to mean just about anything one day, and the opposite the next day. Falsehood is useful to criminals, and that is not news:

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn - Nobel Lecture

That is an individual who is an authority on your ilk as you and others twist the meanings of words to suit your personal agenda: whatever that may actually turn out to be.

"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."

Words are cheap, words are less painful to the physical body compared to torture, but words can deceive armies, and armies can torture, and mass murder, following criminal orders without question - based upon deception.

Fables about sticks and stones breaking bones aside, a fable written by someone with a criminal agenda no doubt, the actual fact is that fraud is a known, and knowable, discoverable, crime complete with an individual guilty criminal perpetrator and any number of defenseless, innocent, victims.

"They are not synonymous unless we reduce our supreme law of the land to mere fraction of the law. Ninth-tenths of the law is inadequate for our supreme law of the land."

Dig, dig, dig, as you feel happy doing, and you might reach your goal at some time. What exactly is your goal?

My goal is simple. My goal is to work effectively at defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals and do so peacefully while that remains to be a viable option; that is why I write, and that is why I volunteer for jury duty.

Nothing but diversion; I got it, Person on the Right.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Indeed. The SCOTUS can declare laws "unconstitutional". Lately, however, they have been doing what (seems to be) what every other "judge" in this country is doing - legislating from the bench. Read Jefferson's statement above.

If, when the court is leaning to the liberal side - what is to stop them from re-hearing a 2nd amendment case and overturning themselves? These "checks and balances" you speak of have been thrown out the window, for the most part. The executive branch does what it wants, when it wants. The legislative branch sits on their hands and refuses to do much of anything and the judicial branch changes written law at will to satisfy those who appointed them.

It's called "tyranny".

I don't believe that they're being legislative. They're just simply saying things are unconstitutional. However they're changing their mind on things, which is where people get irate. Take gay marriage, it should have changed in 1868, it didn't. For 150 years they allowed things to remain as they were, using their "judgement" to keep things as they wanted, ie, not interpreting the constitution as it should have been interpreted.

So it's not tyranny.

Here's the thing...Tyranny comes in many forms. "changing your mind" is not a judicial term. "Changing your mind" means that you are susceptible to outside forces. When president "a" appoints a person to the SCOTUS - he is expecting that that person will carry his will into the judicial process. When that person retires and president "b" appoints his person - well, you get the point.

In other words - the SCOTUS is merely carrying the legislative process forward for THEIR boss - the president of the US. Make no mistake about it - those clowns in black robes do the bidding of their boss - and no one else. It's just that one must first understand that their boss is one (or both) of the following - the president or the corporate interests who place large checks into their hands at the parties in Georgetown.

Jefferson warned us - and we refused to listen.

No, if a president appoints, and expects that person to use their constitutional knowledge to interpret the constitution. In theory the Supreme Court should not be put into factions, because the constitution should be clear enough for them. They're not doing the bidding of the president who put them there at all, or at least shouldn't do.

The fact that justices decide things on a political level is just really sad. That doesn't mean that justices aren't doing what they were put there for though. The Founding Fathers knew that power corrupts, it's the very reason why they made a system which has checks and balances.

The Supreme Court is NOT doing things for their bosses. That is not how the system was made, each part of govt is separate, it is equal, it has powers over others and others have powers over them.

Not how you're describing it. That goes against what the Founders wanted.

No wonder people think the Supreme Court is doing wrong if they don't understand the system.

Frankly, I believe it is you who doesn't understand "the system". Are you honestly inferring that a president - ANY president - appoints someone for the SCOTUS and DOESN'T expect their cooperation?

That's too naive to take seriously. Sorry.

 

[Josf]

"Nothing but diversion; I got it, Person on the Right."

Accusations are apparently the norm, defense is therefore normal in response, but accusations are either true, and therefore justified for mutual defense and individual defense, or accusations are false, and therefore a perversion of the idea of rule of law: a counterfeit.

The accusation here is typically ambiguous, and therefore either meaningless, or the meaning can mean one thing one minute, and the opposite thing the next minute, subject to the whims of the accuser.

The topic is not a new one. Those who defend the power to defend themselves typically survive while those who bend over a take whatever someone demands typically only survive as long as they keep on bending over.

That above can be said, by someone, to be a diversion from the topic.

As to what is, or is not, someone on the right. Again ambiguity, and again anything can mean anything one minute and the opposite meaning the next minute, subject to the accuser.

Right, in modern terms, is either Capitalist, or Republican, or Aristocratic in the past, or even despotic in the past. Right can mean Federalists like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and for a time the right can mean James Madison. Right can mean, on the other hand, Thomas Jefferson, a polar opposite to the so called Federalist Party.

Nixon can mean the Right, a criminal, self confessed.

Patrick Henry, again a polar opposite, can mean the right.

Ambiguity is useful?

Personal attacks work as a means of avoiding, censoring, ignoring, the actual matter being discussed in the topic? The diverter claims that someone remaining on topic is diverting: from what?

Anyone currently perpetrating the crime of infringing (including taxing) the right to keep and bear arms is a felon. When the criminals take over, they do not obey moral laws, and anyone who thinks they do is someone either foolish, or brainwashed, or they are intending to fool people themselves since the facts are clearly demonstrated by each criminal as each criminal perpetrates a crime each time, they, criminals, do not, as a rule, obey moral laws; but they certainly do obey criminal orders as a rule, and they do so without even questioning the order to obey a criminal order.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is the argument. Notice the relevance and the lack of a wall of text with no Thing but diversion.

You are confusing inalienable rights to acquire and possess private property (and that capital profit motive) with keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union.

It is a simple fallacy of composition.

Please explain how the Terms Acquire and Possess may be commuted to Keep and Bear. They are not synonymous unless we reduce our supreme law of the land to mere fraction of the law. Ninth-tenths of the law is inadequate for our supreme law of the land.

 

[pauls]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not not be infringed BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state. Since the militia, when it is called upon, is the whole of the population (of men between certain ages) and they must meet providing their own arms of the same type in common use currently within the military, they must be able to own, keep at the ready, and carry with them those arms recognized as current military arms.

I have reversed the order of the phrases in the second amendment but have not changed the meaning and added representations from other documents to provide the definitions necessary to understand the "complexities" of the amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Where did you get the idea that the militia must provide their own Arms?

From Article 1, Section 8 - the Powers delegated to Congress by the People:

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;

 

[pauls]

The congress has never armed the militia - it has, by default fallen to the individual to arm himself.
There has never been congressional support for any state militia, as far as I know. Why would the congress want to support a force that could limit their control over the people?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frankly, I believe it is you who doesn't understand "the system". Are you honestly inferring that a president - ANY president - appoints someone for the SCOTUS and DOESN'T expect their cooperation?

That's too naive to take seriously. Sorry.

No, that's NOT what I said.

Firstly I didn't say that Justices aren't appointed based on their politics. In fact many go out of their way to make their political leaning in lower courts know. It's messing things up down there for a start.
I even said that this happens and it's sad. So, I'm not really sure why you're telling me I don't understand something based on something I didn't say.

Secondly, the point of the post was about Supreme Court justices being independent of the other parts of government, it's called the checks and balances, and you didn't bother to comment on the actual point of the post.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The congress has never armed the militia - it has, by default fallen to the individual to arm himself.
There has never been congressional support for any state militia, as far as I know. Why would the congress want to support a force that could limit their control over the people?

Er... yes it has. They arm part of the militia right now. It's called the National Guard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where did you get the idea that the militia must provide their own Arms?

From Article 1, Section 8 - the Powers delegated to Congress by the People:

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;

They CAN arm the militia. They don't have to. Because they don't have to, or they could do it badly, they made the 2A.

 

[danielpalos]

The congress has never armed the militia - it has, by default fallen to the individual to arm himself.
There has never been congressional support for any state militia, as far as I know. Why would the congress want to support a force that could limit their control over the people?

Yes, it does. You are confusing a posse with a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Where did you get the idea that the militia must provide their own Arms?

From Article 1, Section 8 - the Powers delegated to Congress by the People:

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;

They CAN arm the militia. They don't have to. Because they don't have to, or they could do it badly, they made the 2A.

They do arm the organized militias.

 

[midcan5]

Americans must be a scared and insecure people? Consider our history from the British are coming, the natives are surrounding the covered wagons, the communists are taking over, the Japanese are controlling our economy, Sharia law is coming, terrorists are everywhere, and meanwhile Americans are shooting each other everywhere. Get under your desks, hide under the bed, get under those covers, America is scared. Our new motto: be afraid be very afraid. Arm yourself, arm yourself. Get a gun, get a gun.

America has become a killing field. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Banning AR-15 s Doesn t Make Sense To Me US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How do we curtail gun violence US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What right does he have to demand I lose my rights Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[danielpalos]

It is just the right being clueless and Causeless. Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions. The Right is just too lazy to have a clue and a Cause; but, like to blame the least wealthy for not working hard enough.

 

[Josf]

"The congress has never armed the militia - it has, by default fallen to the individual to arm himself.
There has never been congressional support for any state militia, as far as I know. Why would the congress want to support a force that could limit their control over the people?"

The voluntarily federated congress was made up of people who voluntarily armed themselves in order to defend against "control over the people" and those actions driven by those ideas was documented into something called a Declaration of Independence; dated in 1776.

"The congress has never armed the militia..."

That is demonstrably false, unless that is a suggestion that the only American congress ever to exist was the counterfeit federal, dictatorial, imperial, tyrannical, and despotic congress formed after 1787.

During the war of aggression perpetrated by the criminal British, after the people armed themselves, formed a voluntary federal congress, created independent states, many with independent state constitutions, and many with competitive versions of a Bill of Rights, issued independent voluntary orders, in some cases, to arm yourselves, and in other cases, in other independent States, involuntary, or dictatorial, orders were issued demanding that people must be armed or face punishment.

The actual congress wrote down what they did in records as such:

"On the 8th of October, it was resolved that the Congress approve the opposition of the inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay to the execution of the obnoxious acts of Parliament: and if the same should be attempted to be carried into execution by force, in such case all America ought to support them in their opposition;..."

"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, "that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law."

"On the 25th of October, a petition to the king was adopted, and was ordered to be enclosed in a letter to the several colony agents, in order that the same might be by them presented to his majesty, which letter was approved and signed by the president, on the day following. This petition recited the grievances of the colonies, and asked for a redress of them."

"On the 24th of June, a resolution was entered into for devising ways and means to put the militia of America in a proper state for defense."

I added other quotes of importance, I did not add all quotes of importance, but there is a sentence describing precisely what was, in fact, done by Congress in reference to "the militia of America," lacking of course the details of the resolution in question.

"Why would the congress want to support a force that could limit their control over the people?"

When the criminals take over government the criminals MUST disarm their victims and failure to do so WILL result in an eventual armed defensive effort by those moral people who can no longer afford to allow the criminals to run the government.

When the moral defenders of innocent people ARE the government - it stands to reason and experience - they are wise enough to maintain their power of defensive arms sufficient to deter any ideas of perpetrating a criminal take-over; any place, anytime, by enemies foreign or domestic.

Unfortunately for everyone in the whole world the criminals did take over America and they did so despite written words demanding that said criminals cannot infringe upon the rights of the people to bear arms, and the first major incident involving a criminal tyrant abusing the power trusted to them by the people was the criminal Judiciary Act of 1789 which effectively covered up the trial by jury according to the common law due process; covering said law up with counterfeit Admiralty, Exchequer, Equity, debt collection "law". Then the dictator in chief was sent on an errand to collect an excise tax on whisky, a direct tax, something warned against by the opponents to the usurpation of 1787, and said dictator in chief suppressed the very same spirit of Liberty documented in the Declaration of Independence, when said dictator in chief assembled a conscripted army of slaves to collect that tax in a former independent State; part of a former, voluntary, federation.

"Why would the congress want to support a force that could limit their control over the people?"

When the defenders of a voluntary federation seek volunteers from all the people in the federation it is their duty, by necessity, to encourage the people to acquire arms, keep arms, bear arms, and know how to use arms, to drive off the criminal invaders perpetrating the crime of war of aggression for profit.

"On the 24th of June, a resolution was entered into for devising ways and means to put the militia of America in a proper state for defense."