Gun Rights Lesson

The biggest challenge the American people have is their overwhelming ignorance when it comes to politics especially in regards to their Constitution. Americans repeatedly complain about government and nothing ever changes in politics because people don’t have a clue of what they complain or how it can be changed.

Any politician running for office on the promise that he or she will go to Washington and change things is unaware and has no clue how government works. Our government runs exactly how the US Constitution allows it to run. Nothing that any branch of government does is illegal if people understood what “legal” means.

Americans can interpret their constitution any way they want, that is IF they read it and try to determine what its trying to say. A short lesson follows on the supposed U.S. gun rights (2^nd Amendment right to bear arms) and how many Americans misunderstand this so-called right.

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

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

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

“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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