There's this piece of paper in Washington ...

I accept that their are laws but the actual authority by which the laws are written, passed, adjudicated and executed must derived from somewhere other than another law or the paper on which it is written. Perhaps different aspects of the various powers of government derive from different origins.

So, you and I give the government the authority to act, supposedly on our behalf.

Since the powers of government derive from the united consent of the people, those same powers and authority must necessarily be native to and innate in the individuals themselves.

Therefore, the authority of the government to protect society from criminal activities derives from the personal authority to defend one's own person, family and property from those same criminal activities.

I then submit that laws which negate or unduly impair that individual right should be abolished.

The government has no authority save what the people bestow upon it. The people can only bestow that which is naturally their own. The government cannot overtake the natural rights and powers of the people with any legitimacy because then the abstraction of its authorities would presume to trump its source.

The creature cannot be greater than its creator.

I'm just trying to make sure that I have this straight because many folks seem not to.

I cannot give my consent for a police officer to use force to apprehend a suspect that i don't perviously possess myself.

That is why i have a huge problem with we as a society allowing police powers above and beyond what we as citizens have. A few come to mind:
Allowing on and off duty police to carry weapons in places citizens cannot.
Allowing police a "plus one" in the continuum of force where i as a citizen am bound by common law to only apply force commensurate to the threat before me. This is the current standard in practice in MN right now, i did not consent to this, nor could i, as i lack that power for myself.
When you say"many folks seem not to" i have to agree.
Ask yourself how many times in your life you have heard "don't take the law in you own hands!" Every time you have heard that drivel, you just talked to someone who has it somewhat less than straight.
I have been troubled by this my entire adult life, and most of my childhood for that matter. Since i believe that i cannot bestow authority on someone that i don't have, it is painfull to watch legislatures enact laws, on my supposed behalf, that specifically allow police powers that i do not posses, i feel that my representative government is no longer representing me when that happens. This is not about disagreeing with policy, it's about legitamacy, or lack thereof. I believe that this policy of authorizing power where no ligitamacy exists, gives rise to the tensions we have seen in Ferguson, Baltimore, and BLM actions across the country. If we don't reign this in via legislative actions, we will see much more of the same unrest as in Fergusson.

...that government be, as Lincoln said, of the people, by the people and for the people. The last part, for the people, reflects the duty of government to generally protect the rights and liberty of the people. The second part, by the people, tells me that we all have a voice, by our vote and by our first amendment right to petition. That's special because it is a call to each of us to communicate, participate and possibly run for office. That brings up the first part, of the people which I used to think was simply the application of laws to the those governed but now I see this entire formulation to be descriptive of a people acting in concert to help a society maintain general tolerance and justice for the good of each person. This government is not a creation of the people, it IS the people. The rules are creations; the government is the people. It is a normal and basic duty of each person. Together with his vote and first amendment rights each individual is a unit of government. Analogously second amendment rights make each person a unit of the militia; the people are the militia.

The entire plan:
>> removes any sense of a special class in either government or military service
>> works through various means to assure the all people are treated justly and equally in all respects
>> deliberately makes laws difficult to enact
>> assures a means for a president to veto them should they be a problem
>> allows for the judicial supremacy to revoke laws should they infringe on basic freedoms

Different term lengths, means for election or appointment/confirmation and different duties and involvement with the passage and application of the law act to prevent capricious and harmful laws.

the people are the militia"

No, the Militia Acts make only a subset of the people the Militia.
The Militia Acts declare who are the militia. Acts written by the Congress, representatives of the people, using the powers invested in the them by the people:

"The Congress shall have Power...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;"

"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now, no doubt Congress could abuse this power, and through usurption(?), render the Militias useless:

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."


Hence the final wording and primary purpose of the 2nd declaring the well-regulated State Militias as necessary, and once again securing the rights of the people (who of course would serve) to arms.



Of course - now, the Congress, still invested with power by the people, define the militia as:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

""Analogously second amendment rights make each eligible person a unit of the militia..."

Constitutional roles of the Militia secures to the people the right of to serve in them.


AUGUST 20, 1789

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army.


'Other article' being Article 1/Sect 8.

Consider also the use of stingray technology by the police with no warrants:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11681603

Cops need to be held to the same standards as the people since the cops are the people not special people.

I don't see anything that says we give up that authority.
I see that attribution as a continuously renewed process where the sustained trust of the people in government maintains the government authority to enforce the law (using deadly force as required).