A Well Regulated Militia?

Published on 02-20-2016 by THE REIGN OF THE HEAVENS SOCIETY POST

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC NOTICE

The second amendment of the constitution for the United States of America is very short and not defined in its entirety basically because it’s meaning was common knowledge back when written: 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are some folks that have defined that amendment rather well which opens a whole other side of thinking to the condition of the country as a whole: LINK

Quote:

There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.” end quote

Quote:

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers’ writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that “well regulated” militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to “insure domestic Tranquility” and “provide for the common defence.”end quote

Whats missing in this whole debate?

The fact that the people are recognized by the second amendment in the States as Militia and not as the people. This line of thinking changes the whole dynamic of the system when looked at from the view of the United States.

Federal Courts recognize the “Defendant” and the “Plaintiff” which does not include and or excludes the Militia as recognized in the second amendment. If the court exclusively recognizes a defendant or plaintiff, yet the people are recognized as the Militia, then the issue of jurisdiction should always come up. If the framers understood that the people are the Militia in perpetuity, then the courts should recognize that fact and convert their documents to the correct parties or settle the country with a civilian population.

Lets go in a different direction in this line of thinking.

1: When the people started voting for a President, were they voting for a commander in chief of all the militia within the States? Is this the reason why executive orders seem to apply to the people and or “militia”? 

2: This line of thinking would also make the whole country a Military country where civilians literally do not exist according to the second amendment and its interpretation.

If all people are recognized as Militia, that would mean that no matter what people do for a living, they are recognized as Militia from the United States point of view, therefore we have a condition of Militia attacking Militia and attempting to bypass the second amendment by calling them anything like “anti-goverment” or “sovereign citizen”. Why would the people from the United States point of view attempt to change the status of the people from the recognized status of Militia? Why call the Militia residents and US Citizens?

Gun Control would be defined as an attempt to dis-arm the Militia. Militia trying to dis-arm other militia through gun control methods are in violation of the second amendment.

The second amendment was designed to stop wars because if everyone is Militia from the commander in chief to every man, woman and child, then there is no one to vilify or kill.  The second amendment did not deal with religion, or politics, it dealt with people and all of their differences which brought them altogether to stop killing each other.

The thinking behind everyone being recognized as Militia means that when someone is murdered, it is recognized as one Militia member murdering another which is a threat to domestic tranquility. Murder literally means treason as defined under the second amendment. 

When police kill or the police are killed, that literally means Militia members killing militia members according to the second amendment. The second amendment removes the privileged class of people concept from society.

The funny part of this whole scenario is that the people attempting to destroy the second amendment to establish a New World Order, are literally trying to destroy the the original concept and intent of a New World Order — one based on mutual status, respect and peace.

“Compartmentalization is the greatest threat to domestic tranquility”

02-19-2016