"Well Regulated Militia"

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm so sick of you libtards INTENTIONALLY lying to as many people as you possibly can about this phrase. Why do I say intentionally? Because I have to keep correcting the SAME people on every Second Amendment thread. This means you know the truth about this statement, and thus have chosen to continue lying.

For now on, when you see a Libtard using this phrase to justify regulation, link this thread right to them and expose them for what they really are.

Here is the definition of Well Regulated:​

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

 

[konradv]

I agree, that's not the real point of the amendment. IMO, it's the use of the word "people", i.e. guns can't be banned outright, because that would be a violation of the rights of "the people". Controls can be put in place, however, because the word "person", as found in other amendments, is not used and is, therefore, not an individual right.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Wrong. It is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Look up the definition of INFRINGE!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Controls can be put in place, however, because the word "person", as found in other amendments, is not used and is, therefore, not an individual right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do the Federalist Papers:

Were blacks to be considered citizens — with all the rights a citizen should expect — the Court enumerated what those right would include:

“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (P. 417) [emphasis added]

The Court maintained that the federal government had no power to enact Territorial laws infringing upon individual rights:

“... no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.”

“Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.... The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them.” [emphasis added]

Federalist 46:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Federalist 28:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.

Curing Libtarditis every day!

 

[konradv]

Wrong. It is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Look up the definition of INFRINGE!

Look up the difference between "people" and "person".

 

[konradv]

Controls can be put in place, however, because the word "person", as found in other amendments, is not used and is, therefore, not an individual right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do the Federalist Papers:

Were blacks to be considered citizens — with all the rights a citizen should expect — the Court enumerated what those right would include:

“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (P. 417) [emphasis added]

The Court maintained that the federal government had no power to enact Territorial laws infringing upon individual rights:

“... no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.”

“Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.... The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them.” [emphasis added]

If the SC disagrees with me, why are do they allow any controls at all? They may arrive at it by a different route, but we both come to the same conclusion.

 

[candycorn]

Controls can be put in place, however, because the word "person", as found in other amendments, is not used and is, therefore, not an individual right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do the Federalist Papers:

Were blacks to be considered citizens — with all the rights a citizen should expect — the Court enumerated what those right would include:

“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (P. 417) [emphasis added]

The Court maintained that the federal government had no power to enact Territorial laws infringing upon individual rights:

“... no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.”

“Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.... The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them.” [emphasis added]

If the SC disagrees with me, why are do they allow any controls at all? They may arrive at it by a different route, but we both come to the same conclusion.

Attempting to reason with the unreasonable is fun, is it not?

 

[there4eyeM]

I agree, that's not the real point of the amendment. IMO, it's the use of the word "people", i.e. guns can't be banned outright, because that would be a violation of the rights of "the people". Controls can be put in place, however, because the word "person", as found in other amendments, is not used and is, therefore, not an individual right.

Interesting argument.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hey Now! This 2A guy is very important. He.....more than anyone.....knows what the founders meant by the term "well regulated". We should all pay close attention.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Wrong. It is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Look up the definition of INFRINGE!

Look up the difference between "people" and "person".

Look up libtarditis; as in retardedly stupid mental state or psychosis. Libtardidis, suffered by anti American citizens hell bent on destroying the American way of life.

 

[konradv]

Wrong. It is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Look up the definition of INFRINGE!

Look up the difference between "people" and "person".

Look up libtarditis; as in retardedly stupid mental state or psychosis. Libtardidis, suffered by anti American citizens hell bent on destroying the American way of life.

Look who's talking!!!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Wrong. It is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Look up the definition of INFRINGE!

Look up the difference between "people" and "person".

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So I guess the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right then either, according to your definition?

How about the Ninth Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Or the Tenth:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[konradv]

Wrong. It is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Look up the definition of INFRINGE!

Look up the difference between "people" and "person".

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So I guess the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right then either, according to your definition?

How about the Ninth Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

As you know people's property CAN be searched and/or seized. It is, therefore, not an absolute right like you're claiming for the second. "People" is also used in the first which we know does not contain absolute rights, since speech may be limited by state or trade secrets, large assemblies require a permits and religion may be constrained as to practices, e.g. human sacrifice or the use of peyote in rituals.

As for the 9th and 10th, it should be self-evident that those aren't individual rights.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Wrong. It is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Look up the definition of INFRINGE!

Look up the difference between "people" and "person".

Yup, that's the most absurd post today.

Maybe for the week.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Look up the difference between "people" and "person".

The Fourth Amendment:


So I guess the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right then either, according to your definition?

How about the Ninth Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

As you know people's property CAN be searched and/or seized. It is, therefore, not an absolute right like you're claiming for the second. "People" is also used in the first which we know does not contain absolute rights, since speech may be limited by state or trade secrets, large assemblies require a permits and religion may be constrained as to practices, e.g. human sacrifice or the use of peyote in rituals.

As for the 9th and 10th, it should be self-evident that those aren't individual rights.

Damn, you really are obtuse. It says reasonable search and seizure.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So I guess the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right then either, according to your definition?

How about the Ninth Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

As you know people's property CAN be searched and/or seized. It is, therefore, not an absolute right like you're claiming for the second. "People" is also used in the first which we know does not contain absolute rights, since speech may be limited by state or trade secrets, large assemblies require a permits and religion may be constrained as to practices, e.g. human sacrifice or the use of peyote in rituals.

As for the 9th and 10th, it shokld be self-evident that those aren't individual rights.[/QUOTE]

The Fourth Amendment is an absolute right. Your property can be neither searched nor seized UNLESS a warrant is issued, with specifications of what is to be searched or sized. General Search Warrants are not allowed. Search and Seizure without a Warrant is not allowed either. That is absolute.

It is a shame that Americans have been sold on this idea of No-Knock Warrants and General Search Warrants (via surveillance drones). However, I bet you take delight in these assaults on our liberties.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" - Malbury vs Madison

"The power to license is the power to deny."

The idea that people need "permits" for peaceful assembly is outrageous, have you ever considered that?

The enumeration of certain rights, in this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.

What does the Ninth Amendment mean to you?

-----------------------------------

Our rights are absolute. They come from God, the Creator, not government.

 

[konradv]

The Fourth Amendment:


So I guess the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right then either, according to your definition?

How about the Ninth Amendment?

As you know people's property CAN be searched and/or seized. It is, therefore, not an absolute right like you're claiming for the second. "People" is also used in the first which we know does not contain absolute rights, since speech may be limited by state or trade secrets, large assemblies require a permits and religion may be constrained as to practices, e.g. human sacrifice or the use of peyote in rituals.

As for the 9th and 10th, it should be self-evident that those aren't individual rights.

Damn, you really are obtuse. It says reasonable search and seizure.

Another member of the peanut gallery decides to speak!!! WHAT'S obtuse about it? I'm discussing individual vs. collective rights. Let's hear your reasoning. I'm not a mind reader.

 

[konradv]

So I guess the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right then either, according to your definition?

How about the Ninth Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

As you know people's property CAN be searched and/or seized. It is, therefore, not an absolute right like you're claiming for the second. "People" is also used in the first which we know does not contain absolute rights, since speech may be limited by state or trade secrets, large assemblies require a permits and religion may be constrained as to practices, e.g. human sacrifice or the use of peyote in rituals.

As for the 9th and 10th, it shokld be self-evident that those aren't individual rights.

The Fourth Amendment is an absolute right. Your property can be neither searched nor seized UNLESS a warrant is issued, with specifications of what is to be searched or sized. General Search Warrants are not allowed. Search and Seizure without a Warrant is not allowed either. That is absolute.

It is a shame that Americans have been sold on this idea of No-Knock Warrants and General Search Warrants (via surveillance drones). However, I bet you take delight in these assaults on our liberties.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" - Malbury vs Madison

"The power to license is the power to deny."

The idea that people need "permits" for peaceful assembly is outrageous, have you ever considered that?

The enumeration of certain rights, in this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.

What does the Ninth Amendment mean to you?

-----------------------------------

Our rights are absolute. They come from God, the Creator, not government.

The mere fact that your property can be searched proves the right is not absolute. If government has gone too far, that's a totally different argument.

As for where rights come from, without government they're meaningless. If I'm stronger than you, I can take what's yours with impunity, if there's no counter-balancing force to make me think twice.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The mere fact that your property can be searched proves the right is not absolute. If government has gone too far, that's a totally different argument.

As for where rights come from, without government they're meaningless. If I'm stronger than you, I can take what's yours with impunity, if there's no counter-balancing force to make me think twice.

No, the government needs to have the power to protect people from OTHERS who infringe upon their rights. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, or the opening chapter of Common sense?

When you violate the rights of others, the government has the right to deny you life, liberty or property (assuming due process).

Your rights are absolute, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

When the government violates that above sentence, in other words the government becomes destructive of the very thing it is meant to protect, it is your right to alter or abolish it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Common Sense:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.

Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

I'm done with you. You have NO IDEA about the philosophies which founded our country.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Look up the difference between "people" and "person".

The Fourth Amendment:


So I guess the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right then either, according to your definition?

How about the Ninth Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

As you know people's property CAN be searched and/or seized. It is, therefore, not an absolute right like you're claiming for the second. "People" is also used in the first which we know does not contain absolute rights, since speech may be limited by state or trade secrets, large assemblies require a permits and religion may be constrained as to practices, e.g. human sacrifice or the use of peyote in rituals.

As for the 9th and 10th, it should be self-evident that those aren't individual rights.

Socialist pukes always claim the constitution isn't what it is. Shut up or leave, tired of socialist pukes.