There's proof that our framers wanted every man to own a weapon and to take part in the protection of this nation via state-run militias. The Militia Acts of 1792 clearly outline this necessity of uniform military service in order to protect this nation from rebellion and invasion. In fact, the laws were so clear about this matter it is a surprise that Democrats and Republicans don't talk about it. The first Militia Act, passed on May 2nd 1792, granted authority to the President to call upon the state militias for federal use. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge This probably came about as a result of Shay's rebellion and was the first step in creating a military. That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed . . . it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. This was important given that states quite often bucked against any use of power by the federal government, which continually proved disastrous when the need for internal protection was apparent, but never fulfilled. That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States . . . be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: This is the creation of the court martial. The second Militia Act, passed May 8th, 1792, took this much further: That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia This is something many today would disagree with, but even as liberal as I am, I don't necessarily disagree with this mandate. I disagree with forcing military members to be sent to another country to fight some arbitrary war based on a particular President's agenda or propaganda, but I believe protection from invasion and unnecessary rebellion is absolutely necessary. It goes further: . . . every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, And here it is. By law, every white man (changed in 1862 to include black men) between 18 and 45 were required, by law, to purchase a firearm and other items associated with the ownership of firearms. What those on the left fail to acknowledge is the importance of being armed as a nation. I continue hearing how horrible our nation is because there are too many guns, but I fully disagree. . . I believe there aren't enough guns. As I point out in the video linked above, a person wanting to harm others via firearm will be less likely to kill multiple people when 70% of the people in the area are carrying a firearm of some kind. In fact, the "Wild Wild West" wasn't really that wild at all. The gun violence rate was around 1 per 100,000, whereas now we see them as high as 36 per 100k. The difference between gun control then and now had a lot to do with location of guns. Guns were not outlawed, but they weren't allowed in many towns. The towns themselves, and the Sheriffs of those towns, often told people they weren't allowed to conceal their weapons, and some went so far as to say they couldn't have them at all! But what we see today is a push for total gun control, regardless of location, and throughout the country. But, as we can see with the two Militia Acts of 1792, the founders weren't for gun control - they believe in a federal mandate of gun ownership! The Democratic party needs to change its opinion regarding gun control and how it should be handled. Should we pass blanket bans on guns? No. I believe common sense can go a long way here. After all, who would argue our founders used no common sense?

from Liveleak.com Rss Feed - Search results for 'fail' http://ift.tt/1oubMUe
v

Men were once required by law to purchase a firearm and join a state militia group: facts ignored by all political parties

Uploaded by: jironde

Views:

Category: Liveleak.com Rss Feed - Search results for 'fail'

Share

Tweet