Founding Father's Intention & Purpose of the *Right to Bear Arms

[The Shootist]

In their own words, the Framers saw the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" so important that they made it second in our Bill of Rights.
In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

The Second Amendment wasn't written into our Bill of Rights so that we could go duck or deer hunting.The Second Amendment was given to us as protection against tyranny by the federal government and the Congress of the United States.


"Quotes"

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Jefferson: "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Thomas Jefferson: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Thomas Jefferson: "It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries."

Thomas Jefferson: "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."


With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects!

Need I say more?

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Anyone who can read the Bill of rights and the supporting writings of the founding fathers and still come up with a "collective" arguement is either illiterate, insane or a deliberatly being intellectually dishonets in order to further an agenda.

 

[Eyesac]

That's a good collection of quotes, thanks!

 

[Roswell 1847]

Isn't it obvious, the Founding Fathers meant to write "the right to arm Bears". They recognized that "fur is murder" so they intended that the citizens should arm the Bears in order to protect the animal kingdom from all those vicious hunters.

This reminds me of a debate on the Webster's definition of the word soul. After a couple of pages I realized that my opponent had no idea what a semi-colon meant in a compound complex sentence. I'm not much at writing but at least I can read.
Most liberalistas aren't nearly as well educated as they put on to be.

 

[BigG]

Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of American History would know the British had marched to take the weapons stores at Concord when the Americans fought them at Lexington. The first shots of the revolution were over whether the government can control weapons or not. The answer then and now is "no."

 

[Snake Eyes]

....the Founding Fathers meant to write "the right to arm Bears".

No, no, NO! What's obvious is they MEANT:

*Right to Bare Arms

Which protects my God-given right to sit in front of my single-wide in a wife-beater, drinking PBR, while cleaning my guns, no matter WHAT the ol' ball-n-chain happens to be yelling about today.

Sheesh. Get it right!

 

[RKBABob]

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's my interpretation:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" acknowledges a fact that the people have a right to arms... the amendment does not state what arms are to be used for, or why we have that right.

"Shall not be infringed" describes the governments limitations in regard to this right of the people. This right shall not be infringed upon by the government.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a reason provided to justify the limitations set against the government. If government would want to degrade the freedom or security of the state, they would first have to limit the people's ability to form a militia. The amendment does not state that the existance of a militia is necessary to securing this pre-existing right, but merely points to a reason why the government may wish to infringe apon this right.

The term "well regulated" did not mean that a militia (if it did exist) needed to be regulated by the government, instead its meaning is of a militia being "made regular," or being commonplace. "Well regulated" ensured the right of the people to form common militias across the land, composed of men who were free to drill and practice with their arms. The Founding Fathers distrusted all governments, including the one they just created, believing that all would fall to the inevitable tendency of government to grow large and oppressive. Hence a provision was needed to ensure that a citizens' militia could be formed to overthrow tyrants, this is not the only reason to bear arms, however.

To further illustrate the thinking behind the language the Founding Fathers used, here is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is a statement of why the people may wish to peaceably assemble. It does not state that the only acceptable use of peacful assembly is for the redress of grievances, nor that any other form of assembly is forbidden. The First Amendment protects the right of the people to hold Tupperware parties, even though that purpose of peaceable assembly wasn't specifically stated. Like the 2nd Amendment, this phrasing was chosen to illustrate a prime reason why this right might need to be protected.

Other uses of arms, besides forming a militia, were clearly on Thomas efferson's mind when he quoted Cesare Beccaria in his "Commonplace Book." The quote reads, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Nothing about the militia in that quote, but it is still an equally important reason to bear arms... and equally protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[SSN Vet]

but thanks to Liberals in black robes, we now have a "living constitution" and whatever the authors meant doesn't really mean anything at all. All that matters is what those empowered by money and fame want it to mean.

Gearge W. Busch will forever get a thumbs up in my book, for two reasons....

1.) Roberts & 2.) Alito

Everything else he has done, or failed to do (I dare say, even the war in Iraq) will have far less impact than those two. appointments.

Flame away! but the 2nd ammendment rights we're all clinging to, will swing on those two appointments.

 

[The Shootist]

Thanks for The Replies Guys!

I didn't expect many but just wanted to provide info to those on here who had never heard these Quotes.
Here's the link where you'll find more info & links.

http://www.geocities.com/LadyLiberty_1776/RightBareArms.html#SAFF

 

[springmom]

Thanks for the quotes. The first one is going onto my email sig line right now.

Excellent!

Springmom

 

[RPCVYemen]

Playing skeptic:

1. Now we know what less than 10 of the people who ratified the Bill of Rights wrote about firearms. Why is that any more/less important then the other ratifiers? (I am not quite sure how many people on your list actually voted to ratify. I am pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry did not attend the Constitutional Convention. How many ratifiers were there?)
2. Many of the quotes could be consistent with a belief that the right to bear arms belongs to the militia - a lot hinges on what "American people" means. Does that mean as individuals, or collectively as "not the British Army"? How do we tell?
3. Have you trolled for quotes that support the reading that the 2nd Amendment is an Anti-Federalist attempt to limit the ability of the Federal government to disarm a State Militia? If I read the the other side correctly, that is what they are saying.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects!

Utter and complete nonsense.

I lived in military dictatorship that regularly tortured and killed people for political reasons - and every adult male owned and carried (outside the three major cities) an AK-47. I give your North Yemen in the mid-1980s. This is not some theoretical construct. I lived there.

Mike

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The Founding Fathers also intended for the militia to be armed by the government. See Article 3, Section 8 of the Constitution. It was so important that they put it in the actual Constitution, not as an after thought as with the Bill of Rights.

 

[Louisiana Carry]

Some of these have been posted, and some are from sources other than the Framers, but I thought I would paste in the ones from my 2A page (located here: http://americanrevival.org/quotes/2a.htm)

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. – Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. – Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)

The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it. – James A. Donald

They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here? – Paul Harvey 8/31/94

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. – William S. Burroughs

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet.
– Lyle Myhr

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically right. Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. – L. Neil Smith (from The Probability Broach)

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. – Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese Shogun, August 29, 1558

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself. – Harry Browne

A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson

Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. – Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee 1788

I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions – or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong – because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience. – Harry Browne, meetings with NRA's EVP, Wayne LaPierre and other panelists at a gun rights rally in Hot Springs, AR, 8/8/2000

An armed society is a polite society. – Robert A. Heinlein

“A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.” I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms. – Bruce Tiemann

Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun. –Tom Clancy

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them. – Walter Mondale

Try to halt violence by restricting gun ownership and you won't halt violence. But you will create entire classes of new criminals – people who make paperwork errors, violate technical specification of the law, or rebel against the new restrictions. And you'll create new bureaus, new enforcement arms, new prisons to punish them. You'll make hordes of lawyers and bureaucrats very happy. Organized criminals will be grateful to the naive moral crusaders ("useful idiots") as they profit by selling an illegal product. And ordinary street criminals will bless fools, legislators, and "leaders" for making their job so much safer. – JPFO's "Bill of Rights Sentinel", Fall 2001.

This country was founded by religious nuts with guns. – P.J. O'Rourke

Those who beat their swords into plough shares shall plough for those who don't. – Anonymous

The Second Amendment is the Equal Rights Amendment. – Jannalee Tobias

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. – John F. Kennedy

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Criminals obey "gun control" laws in the same manner politicians follow their oaths of office. – Anonymous

Suppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? – Robert Levy, Georgetown University professor

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry

...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them. -- Thomas Paine

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson

We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. - Patrick Henry

 

[RPCVYemen]

Just for the heck of it, I did some quick searching and found that there is a substantial reason to believe that there was a current of thought that at least some of the "Founding Fathers" were supportive of the right for well regulated militia to bear arms - but deeply suspicious of the individual to bear arms.

First, let's hear James Madison on which he feared more - the government or the people - this is from his speech introducing the Second Amendment to the House of Representatives:

In our government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker.... But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.

So Madison thought that the government protected the minority against the majority - and that the majority of the people were more dangerous than the government! How does that fit with out our reading of the 2nd?

Perhaps one way to understand what people were really thinknig is to look at actions as well as words. For example, the Penn Constitution of 1776 said:

“The people have a right to bear arms for the defense [of] themselves and the State.”

But the same group passed the Test Acts, which disarmed those who did not take an oath of allegiance. If, as we think, "people" means individuals, then how could the right only apply to some individuals. I would argue that the reading of that (Pennsylvania) constitution that makes sense is that the "right of the people" means the right of the militia as an instrument of the people - and the members of the militia could be required to take a loyalty oath.

These pieces are from:
http://www.potowmack.org/mbelles.html

The quote from Samuel Adams sounded powerful - but he evidently changed his mind after hte

In Massachusetts, Samuel Adams argued that the Constitution be amended so to ensure that it "never [be] construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." He later withdrew the proposal, however, probably after reflecting on the recent revolt by armed citizens in Massachusetts

http://www.potowmack.org/lcress.html

Mike

 

[eliphalet]

Amendment II

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

Nothing about hunting or Natl. Guard it says "the right of the people" that is everyone isn't it? Gun control should have been stopped when it began in 1934 IMO.
I have no use for a automatic firearm but my "right" along with every other American citizen has been "infringed", again IMHO.

 

[Wil Terry]

I Ain't Shaving My Arms For Anybody !!!!!

OH...you meant....bear.....??

 

[Wil Terry]

I Ain't Shaving My Arms For Anybody !!!!!

.........

 

[takhtakaal]

It isn't funny if you post it twice.

 

[shield20]

Double naught says:

The Founding Fathers also intended for the militia to be armed by the government.

NO frigging way! THAT IS NOT WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS!


From debates on the Milita Act (Dec. 1790)..

(Note on Historical Context: With debate on the First Militia Act requiring every able-bodied male citizen up to the age of fifty to be enrolled in the militia, and requiring every such person to supply their own arms, an issue arose regarding those people unable to afford to buy their own arms, and proposals were made for the government to supply arms to those who could not afford to buy their own.)

Mr. Parker observed, “the clause which enacts that every man in the United States shall ‘provide himself’ with military accoutrements would be found impracticable…

Mr Parker here introduced his motion to amend the bill by a provisio, that persons who shall make it appear that they are not able to equip themselves, shall be furnished at the expense of the United States.*

...

Mr Sherman said it appeared to him that by the Consitution, the United States were to be put to no expense about the Militia, except when called into actual service.... What relates to arming and disciplining means nothing more then a general regulation in respect to the arms and accoutrments.
...
Mr. Wadsworth, seeking clarification, observed that, “The motion at first appeared to be in favor of poor men, who are unable to purchase a firelock; but now it seems, minors and apprentices are to be provided for.”

Mr. Wadsworth then pointed out the great danger of providing large numbers of citizens with firearms and requiring that those arms be returned after use, which could become an excuse to disarm large numbers of citizens: “Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third [poor, apprentices, minors] armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them? Nothing would tend more to excite suspicion, and arouse jealousy dangerous to the Union.”

[*Parker's motion was lost.]

Mr Fitzsimons moved to strike out the words “provide himself” and insert “shall be provided”. **

**This motion was objected to by Boudinot, Hunington, Jackson and Madison. It was said that it would be destructive of the bill, as it would leave it optional with the states or individuals whether the militia should be armed or not.

This motion was lost by a great majority.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=002/llac002.db&recNum=288


The intent AND the law was how it always was - the people would arm themselves.

 

[shield20]

Back to the OP, too many try to make this way too complicated.

In the Constitution, the Congress was given certain powers concerning the Militias of the several States. One of these powers was to provide for the arming of the militia. [as seen above it was NOT intended that the US should arm the people!] This article (A1S8C16) also secures the right of the militia to bear arms, and it is now required that Congress is to provide for how exactly they should do so (nonfeasance is not an option, and disarming them is not an option).

HOWEVER, the people saw the danger in granting such power to the new Congress, and so wanted to better protect the Miltia, and themselves, and so the 2nd amendment was added. This not only reiterated that the militia was required, but it protected an inalienable right of the people, primarily as it relates to the militia.

[it was NOT #2 on the original list - it was more like 4 or 5, depending on what version.] Yet is it IS still VERY important for the Militia to be armed, for it had been assigned certain VERY IMPORTANT duties to fill in protecting life and liberty and freedom; the recourse being that bane of liberty, the Standing Army. The right belongs to the people, the people are the Militia, and so the 2nd explicitly secures this personal right from all infringment.

It requires that not only can Congress not infringe on that right, it is also their duty to help secure that right.

 

[RPCVYemen]

"the right of the people" that is everyone isn't it

That's one core question - what did that phrase mean at the time that the Bill of Rights was modified. It certainly was not everyone at the time of ratification - at most, to some of the ratifiers, it meant white males.

The question is whether "the people" mean each and every individual person, or the collective body of "the people". It seems like an odd reading (to read people to not mean "each and every person"), but we accept that today in trial proceedings:

MR. SCHWARZ: With respect to People's Exhibit Number 11, your Honor, it would be Exhibits 10 dash 26 for the purposes of the trial of May 7, 1998. And the relevant -- the relevant testimony, your Honor, the People would direct the Court to page 386, line 11, through 387, line 3.

In the trial sense, the prosecutor is using "the people" as a collective entity - each and every individual does not direct the Court to page 386!

Mike

 

[Roswell 1847]

In the trial sense, the prosecutor is using "the people" as a collective entity

Disingenuous argument, the operative phrase is "In the Trial Sense", the prosecutor represents "the People" as their advocate in an adversarial contest with the defendent's advocate. The Citizenry of the United States are not on trial here. Wrong context.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Wrong context.

It's possible to construe militia is "the people" in matters of defense as the prosecutor is "the people" in the matter of prosecuting crime.

My point was not they are the same usage, but that "the people" does not always refer to the each and every individual. I was merely pointed that we accept that construct in modern usage - my example - so it's not unthinkable.

The Citizenry of the United States are not on trial here.

This appears to me to be a total non-sequitur. Is it in any way related to anything that anyone has posted up to this point? Did anyone claim that the Citizenry of the United States were on trial? Maybe I missed a post.

Mike




Mike

 

[Roswell 1847]

The "Defendent" in a case brought by "the People" is in the legal sense an individual enity even if the defendent is a corporation of many individual owners and employees.
"The People" when used to describe the citizenry is recognized to be the many individuals who are garuanteed individual rights which all share as individuals according to the individual circumstance of each of these individuals, Thus "Every Free Man".
The American concept of the population is that of many individual persons, not the communistic concept of a Lumpen Proletariat.
American Law is a matter of Individual rights and responsibilities. The Law balances the individual rights of one person against his individual moral and legal responsibilities when interacting with the other individual citizens he may come into contact or confrontation with.

Now as for the Prosecutor's statement, they will as often say that "the State Demands". The Prosecutor is an employee of the state, whether appointed or elected as a district attorney. They use whichever term they wish for effect.
Prosecutors don't determine individual rights anymore than they make judgements of guilt or innocence in the cases that they bring to trial.

A Jury is made up of Twelve Individuals, not twelve clones or a bunch of brains hooked up in series. When they speak of "the Jury" as an Entity they are speaking of the Individual jurors working together in a common cause while governed by strict rules in the form of Instructions.

PS
Your entire argument is a Non Sequitur.

 

[Just Jim]

It's about freedom. The founding fathers gaves us laws that guarentee us the tools to keep our freedom. Laws and tools, now if the people will just stand up and be free.

jj