Posted: 7/19/2007 8:01:04 PM EDT
|
I maintain a web site with alot of historical documents and info (documents here). Anyway, I was reading this document again tonight, and I can't help but wish we, as people, could grasp this stuff and make it a part of our everyday understanding again. I daresay it is a precious few who could even write a declaration like this anymore, much less be willing to die for it. I submit it now for your consideration. The Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.] A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government . Section 1 That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Section 2 That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them. Section 3 That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. Section 4 That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary. Section 5 That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct. Section 6 That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good. Section 7 That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised. Section 8 That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. Section 9 That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Section 10 That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted. Section 11 That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred. Section 12 That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments. Section 13 That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Section 14 That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof. Section 15 That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. Section 16 That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. |
Holy crap this thread is going downhill |
Um, I am confused. If you are a non-Christian, wouldn't you be glad that this country was founded on the idea that no one should force you to do or believe anything you don't want to? If you are a Christian, wouldn't you be glad to be exhorted to practice "forbearance, love, and charity" by the men founding your state? 
|
Agreed 
|
Quoted: Not a damned word about the right to bear arms, just trained to, and ARFCOMmers get into a theological tiff 
|
I think they said that pretty clearly, they just didn't use those specific words. On one hand, we could MMQB their lack of foresight as to how bad things would get, and therefore say they were remiss in not using stronger language. OTOH, I think they knew that the words of any document, inlcuding the Constitution, do not gurantee a damn thing- we the people, and our willingness to die for liberty, are the ONLY thing that gurantees freedom from govenment encroachment. Nowadays, unfortunately: People's priorities= sex/TV/selfish pursuits ~ therefore ~ Government= tyranny with little restraint |
Much of it has to do with the way the colonies actually raised a militia levy. Until this time, a colony simply had to provide a certain number of militia to meet the levy. If 50 men were needed for an expedition, then only 50 were needed. If a thousand were needed, then a thousand were needed. It wasn't like the wholesale, industrial strength warfare that was just begining to plauge the colonies at the time this was written. Because limited numbers of militia were normally levied, they were generally issued arms from the local magazine, or other public stores. Everyone still had their own arms, but logistically it was easier to field a force with compatible equipment. In emergencies, like an indian attack on a frontier outpost, or such, you'd obviously grab your gun and fight to survive. In planned campaigns, like the French and Indian War, or the various indian campaigns, etc. the militia would leave their weapons behind so that their loved ones weren't defenseless, and were issued standard British military arms. You have to remember that history wasn't really like the movies, or what many think it was. Normally, in the course of battle, the force would be either combined militia and red-coat, or whole militia for more local expeditions (i.e. indians). In either case, they weren't what people view as the classic "call to arms" in the middle of the night where people just grab their rifle and go fight. Normally there was a gear-up, just like the Army does today, for a period of time before deployment. Rapid response call-ups, ala Lexington-Concord were rare, and remember what the Brits were tasked with at L-C? Secure the powder and arms at the local magazine so it couldn't be issued to the militia. Given the historical context, Section 13 is well within keeping with the operational use of militia at the time. The individual right was not protected because it was just common sense that everyone was armed to begin with, and generally speaking were issued muskets for combat. The Constitution itself protects the individual right, because it's a reflection of reality forced upon the states after years of war. Remember the Constitution was witten post-war, 1787. So the authors included lessons learned. One of those was that every individual needed to have the RKBA protected, because it was recognized that a tyranical govt could secure community stores before the militia could be organized. |