Exactly what was the intent and purpose behind the framers of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights?

At the time the Constitution was being written, only nine states were willing to ratify it without a Bill of Rights.

The common fear was that government would become like those of Europe, setting up a king, emperor or dictator.

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist Papers No. 29. He wrote, “Since the fear of the people was that the federal army would usurp the people’s liberty, it makes sense that the intent is for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms at all times”.

James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, and in Federalist Paper 46 he explained the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

Here’s a short excerpt:

“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.

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.”

Hamilton also wrote, “if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

The framers of the Constitution envisioned a time when the citizens might have to fight against their own government in order to keep their liberties.

The Second Amendment wasn’t meant to be about personal defense but the “backbone” of a “national strategy” written within the Constitution for armed citizens to always be the ultimate “national defense” of their country, Constitution, liberties and form of government.

Personal weapons capable of fighting such a war are a necessary part of that defense. James Madison noted that the power of government had granted the liberties in the Magna Carta; however, America had set the example of liberty granting the power of government.

The liberty of the people had granted their own freedoms, and the government power to govern, however with government restricted only to those areas “enumerated.”

Clearly the framers of the Constitution intended for citizens to keep all rights contained in the Bill of Rights for as long as the nation and Constitution existed, with no government, state or federal, given the authority to legislate them away from citizens.

This interpretation was affirmed by the Supreme Court decision in Miranda vs. Arizona.

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

States have no authority to re-interpret the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment from state to state as we’re seeing with red flag laws.

America doesn’t have a nobility class. Citizens must suffer the same “jeopardy of life” as law enforcement and the military to keep and secure our rights.

But this really isn’t about gun rights,

It’s about governments attempting to legislate the Bill of Rights away from citizens — a right never “enumerated” to government.

And the ramification of that will affect all liberties of every single person in America.

If they are allowed to legislate one right out of the Bill of Rights, they can legislate the whole Bill of Rights away from citizens.

It’s not our rights or guns they want but the power citizens have over government by possessing guns, and that is the first step toward tyranny.

That time the framers of the Constitution envisioned when citizens might have to fight their own government for their own freedoms has arrived.

The question is, are people today so lowlife as to let them destroy their freedoms, or will they find the backbone to stop them? That answer will determine the kind of future your children can expect, freedom or tyranny.

Sim Dunn is a resident of Cumberland Gap, Tennessee