Some history as why we have the 2nd

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by perotter, May 31, 2014.

  1. The writing of Andrew Fletcher about 1700 had a great influence on why the Founders set up the country the way they did. This is his writing on the old militia system of Europe, why it was replaced by standing armies, and how it resulted in kings getting absolute power. Do keep in mind that he doesn't say that the sole motive for the militias being done away with was for the kings to gain power. Some of it was done for what was thought to be good reasons and some just sort of happened. Kind of like how it happened here. But it did allow for the kings to have absolute power.

    While leftists today like to say that the militia clauses and the 2nd were put into the Constitution because of some 'new found fear' of standing armies that came about because of the Revolution. Or they'll say it was because the country couldn't afford a standing army. Those saying that do so out of lack of knowledge or just plain old fashioned lying meant to fool the people.

    The Founders knew that the only way to have freedom was to have good militia. And one that was stronger than any temporary standing army.

    A few examples from his writing:

    "After the barons had lost the military service of their vassals, militias of some kind or other were established in most parts of Europe. But the prince having everywhere the power of naming and preferring the officers of these militias, they could be no balance in government as the former were."

    Note that in the US Constitution the states names the officers following the idea that the central power shouldn't do so.

    "Thus were the armies of Europe composed for about eleven hundred years; and this constitution of government put the sword into the hands of the subject, because the vassals depended more immediately on the barons than on the king, which effectually secured the freedom of those governments. For the barons could not make use of their power to destroy those limited monarchies, without destroying their own grandeur; nor could the king invade their privileges, having no other forces than the vassals of his own demesnes to rely upon for his support in such an attempt."

    "And I cannot see why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty; and ought never, but in times of utmost necessity, to be put into the hands of mercenaries or slaves: neither can I understand why any man that has arms should not be taught the use of them."

    "A good militia is of such importance to a nation, that it is the chief part of the constitution of any free government. For though as to other things, the constitution be never so slight, a good militia will always preserve the public liberty. But in the best constitution that ever was, as to all other parts of government, if the militia be not upon a right foot, the liberty of that people must perish. The militia of ancient Rome, the best that ever was in any government, made her mistress of the world: but standing armies enslaved that great people, and their excellent militia and freedom perished together. The Lacedemonians continued eight hundred years free, and in great honour, because they had a good militia. The Swisses at this day are the freest, happiest, and the people of all Europe who can best defend themselves, because they have the best militia."

    Still a lot of truth about the Swiss.