Isn't the purpose of the Second Amendment to protect us from a hostile government towards its people...
View attachment 19813
Under an INTERNATIONAL union of popularly-sovereign nations-- which you claim DOES NOT EXIST.
Like most charlatans, you see the Second Amendment as a means for REVOLUTION against LEGITIMATE government; and not for the security of a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT state, in an INTERNATIONAL union.
Because the context of the USA was not a national union; but an international union of separate sovereign nations; and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for state governments to collectively out-gun and out-matchthe federal government, to prevent it from seizing power over the individual nation-states by military means.
As James Madison correctly explained in Federalist No. 46:
But ambitious encroachment of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.
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. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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.
Accordingly, Madison observed: the federal military would be tiny, in comparison to the combined power of:
-the state militias, composed of every able-bodied male citizen;
-their respective state governments, who possessed their superior loyalty (vs. the federal government), and
-the militia officers of each respective state, chosen by their state government;
since these would band together against the federal military, if it tried to invade any state.
And crush it, with unbeatably superior loyalty and numbers.
However anti-Federalists, like George Mason, complained, since the Constitution delegated the federal government with the following federal powers regarding the militia:
-To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
- The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Mason and the Anti-federalists complained, that the federal government could use these delegated powers to disarm and disband the state militias, and then invade with the federal military.
George Mason had written the Virginia Constitution concerning the militia, on which the 2nd Amendment was based: and he held that the militia was “the entire people, except for a few public officials.
Thus, the Second Amendment’s context and meaning become clear:
”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.”
Here it’s plain that “the security of a free state,” pertains to the national security of each state as a sovereign nation, against invasion and conquest by enemies both foreign and federal.
So the state governments, officers and militias were SUPPOSED to collectively rise up AGAINST the US government, when it gave order to invade individual states; but corrupt puppets of oligarchy, like Jackson and Lincoln, began infesting the state and federal governments.... and RE-WRITING HISTORY to claim that the things like the 1783 Treaty of Paris NEVER HAPPENED, or DIDN'T MEAN what they expressly SAID.
Anyway, that cartoonist's self-caricature says EVERYTHING, as a hairy aging left-wing hippie-douche.
en.wikipedia.org
www.distinctlymontana.com
m.youtube.com
