Sunday, April 30, 2006

Here's a reminder from John Jay....

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
***
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
***
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
***
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.
***
This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.
This convention, composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
***

Saturday, April 29, 2006

The possession of arms....

"The possession of arms is the distinction between a free man and a slave: he who has nothing, and belongs to another, must be defended by him and needs no arms; but he who thinks he is his own master, and has anything he may call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself and what he possesses or else he lives precariously and at discretion. And though for a while, those who have the sword in their power [the government] abstain from doing him injury; yet, by degrees, he will be awed into submission to every arbitrary command. Our ancestors [the Caledonians and Picts], by being always armed and frequently in action, defended themselves against the Romans, Danes and English and maintained their liberty against encroachments of their own princes."
***
- Andrew Fletcher, (1653 - 1716),
'A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias in Political Works', 1698, p.47.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Hmmmmmm........

"Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 54

Monday, April 24, 2006

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE;

Well, it seems Mr. Alexander Hamilton had a differing view from that of many of the other Framers. After consideration of the following points he raised, I'm inclined to agree with Alex.....
.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government..
.
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired...
.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84.
.
You know, it appears that Alex had a valid point, doesn’t it? For there have indeed been men, (and women), ‘disposed to usurp’. And they have indeed found ‘plausible pretense’ for claiming that power. Which fact has ‘afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government’.
.
What I find most interesting however, is Alex’s statement of “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous”. As well as, “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”.
.
“Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights”…
.
Alex utilized the word ‘principal’ which leads me to examine just what are the principles of the U.S. Constitution? Let’s take a look, shall we?
.
The Principles of the United States Constitution:

A good place to start would seem to be the preamble to the Constitution;
.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
.
Constitution: 1 : an established law or custom : ORDINANCE. 2 a : the physical makeup of the individual comprising inherited qualities modified by environment b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something. 3 : the act of establishing, making, or setting up. 4 : the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed. 5 a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization.
.
A government of We the People.
.
Unity.
.
Justice.
.
Insurance of Domestic Tranquility.
.
Common Defense.
.
General Welfare.
.
Security of the Blessings of Liberty in the present and the future.
.
Hmmmm, seems to me we have a problem here. What do you think?
.
Do you feel that your part of the government?
.
Do you feel united?
.
Is it Justice that a woman, whom fled a ruthlessly oppressive dictatorship is being treated as a criminal, for exercising a Right GUARANTEED by the First Amendment?
.
Are you comfortably insured of your tranquility?
.
Do you feel secure in the ‘common defense’? Especially, in light of the fact that the courts have ruled that, it is governments duty to provide for thecommon defense’. But, that they have no duty to provide for individual defense. And to top that off. Many of the states want to restrict or prohibit your rightful exercise of providing for your individual defense? Can someone please explain how that, in any way, promotes the ‘General Welfare’?
.
Do you feel that your ‘Liberty’ is secure? Let us examine the word ‘Liberty’. I’ve heard it used some place before….where was it? Oh yeah, now I remember;
.
"They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788)
.
And, if I remember correctly there was another place I’ve seen it before as well;

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
.
- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
.
I don’t know about anyone else, but with all of the various bans, ordinances, restrictions, qualifications, bounds, rules and regulations set in place. All of which were imposed on something that was never to be infringed upon in the first place. And in consideration of what Alex points out above, “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”. I surely don’t feel that my liberty is secure, do you? And, I damn sure don’t think that the future looks anymore promising. In light of what is happening to our ‘Liberty’ today….

..."I could not surrender if I would"....

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
.
- John Adams,
Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Businesses, Individuals and Organizations Actively engaged in Destroying our RIGHT;

.50 Caliber Terror
Tentacle of the Free State Alliance attempting to ban the .50 Cal. Target Rifle.
.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Sarah and Jim Brady, two of the most scurrilous of those attacking the American Citizens
Second Amendment RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms.
.
BuzzFlash
Ultra Liberal Anti-Gun media source.
.
ceasefirenj
"Grass roots organizations do work in spite of the money and opposition of the powerful NRA. No other state has this legislation, but several state legislators told us they are getting e-mails and calls from other states interested in passing similar legislation."
.
Ceasefire Oregon
"We work at the state level to educate legislators about gun violence and responsible steps Oregon can take to reduce firearm-related homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths. We propose and lobby on behalf of gun safety legislation."
.
Come Together Auction
Tentacle of the Free State Alliance
.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Check out the list of Anti-Gun 'Supporters' from Capital Hill in their ranks. They also receive direct support from the Joyce Foundation. Can anyone offer an explanation as to how bowing to private industry and the wishes of those of wealth and influence, best serves the American People? How can this type of influence be acceptable practice? Does the will of those with wealth and influence have power to NEGATE a God-given and Constitutionally Protected RIGHT? Is that REALLY what America's CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC is supposed to be all about?
Following is a list of OUR REPRESENTATIVES who are bowing to the wishes of those with wealth and influence;
.
Capitol Hill Sponsors
.
HONORARY EVENT CO-CHAIRS
U.S. SENATE
THE HONORABLES:
BARBARA BOXER
JON CORZINE
DIANNE FEINSTEIN
CHARLES GRASSLEY
ORRIN HATCH
MEL MARTINEZ
CHARLES SCHUMER
OLYMPIA SNOWE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THE HONORABLES:
MARY BONO
DAVID DREIER
MARK FOLEY
MICHAEL HONDA
GRACE NAPOLITANO
FRED UPTON
DIANE WATSON
HENRY WAXMAN
HOST COMMITTEE
U.S. SENATE
THE HONORABLES:
MAJORITY LEADER
WILLIAM FRIST
JOSEPH BIDEN, JR.
JEFF BINGAMAN
THAD COCHRAN
RICHARD DURBIN
CHARLES HAGEL
DANIEL INOUYE
JAMES JEFFORDS
ARLEN SPECTER
TED STEVENS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THE HONORABLES:
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
J. DENNIS HASTERT
JOE BARTON
HOWARD BERMAN
KEN CALVERT
JULIA CARSON
HOWARD COBLE
JOHN CONYERS JR.
CHRISTOPHER COX
JOSEPH CROWLEY
BARBARA CUBIN
ELIJAH CUMMINGS
DIANE DEGETTE
JOHN DINGELL
ELIOT ENGEL
ANNA ESHOO
PAUL GILLMOR
STENY HOYER
DARRELL ISSA
JESSE JACKSON JR.
WILLIAM JENKINS
MARCY KAPTUR
BARBARA LEE
ZOE LOFGREN
EDWARD MARKEY
GREGORY MEEKS
JIM MORAN
MAJOR OWENS
ED PASTOR
DONALD PAYNE
JOHN PETERSON
GEORGE RADANOVICH
CHARLES RANGEL
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
MARTIN SABO
LINDA SANCHEZ
ADAM SCHIFF
HILDA SOLIS
MARK SOUDER
CLIFF STEARNS
BART STUPAK
GREG WALDEN
ROBERT WEXLER
DAVID WU
ALBERT WYNN
.
Free States Alliance
One of the larger Anti-Gun organizations. Well funded by the Joyce Foundation. Has many tentacles springing from it. These people are a clear and present danger to Liberty.
.
Gun Control 'Truth'
This site actually tries to give a grammer lesson and twists the facts beyond recognition. In addition, the anonymous author(s) have the audacitiy to use the following web address; http://www.SecondAmendmentFacts.com/index.html.
(Emphasis, italics and capitalizing added).
.
Gun Guys
Probably one of the most libelous and slanderous Anti-Gun sites on the web. They are a tentacle of the Free State Alliance and recieve their funding from the Joyce Foundation.
.
Gun Loophole
Tentacle of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence pushing to regulate private gun sales in newspapers.
.

Friday, April 21, 2006

...which is most consonant...

The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Louie, Louie....

"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent."
***
"Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears."
***
"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
***
"The most important political office is that of the private citizen."
***
"Those who won our independence... valued liberty as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty."
***
To declare that the end justifies the means, to declare that the government may commit crimes, would bring terrible retribution.
***
- Louis D. Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."
***
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal."
***
"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual rights. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."
- Frederic Bastiat, `The Law'

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

And their off, (AGAIN).....

It seems David C. @ The War on Guns is intent upon opening up the debate of RIGHT Vs. property again, in his post 'University Professors Shape Laws'. This usually leads to some interesting commentary, so it is worth checking out!
***
Think Thomas Jefferson has the best answer to this question;
***
"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." -Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816

Monday, April 17, 2006

Jefferson Quotes

Jefferson Quotes:

"Who will govern the governors?"

"The people, especially when moderately instructed, are the only safe, because the only honest, depositaries of the public rights, and should therefore be introduced into the administration of them in every function to which they are sufficient; they will err sometimes and accidentally, but never designedly, and with a systematic and persevering purpose…."

- to M. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." - to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." - to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

"Aristocrats... fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society."

- to William Short, 1825. ME 16:96

"The people...are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." - to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:392

"No government can continue good, but under the control of the people." - to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:234

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust."- to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:136

"No other depositories of power [but the people themselves] have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge."

- to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:71

"We fear that [violations of the Constitution] may produce insurrection. Nothing could be so fatal. Anything like force [used against the violators] would check the progress of the public opinion and rally them round the government. This is not the kind of opposition the American people will permit. But keep away all show of force and they will bear down the evil propensities of the government by the constitutional means of election and petition." - to Edmund Pendleton, 1799. ME 10:105

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." - to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:49

Sunday, April 16, 2006

...appropriate to that purpose...

"Were the Second Amendment a mere federalism, (State's rights'), provision, as it is not, it would assuredly appear in a place appropriate to that purpose, (i.e., not in the same list with First through Eighth Amendments, but nearby the Tenth Amendment), and it would doubtless reflect the same federalism style as the Tenth.... Instead, it is cast in terms that track the provisions of the neighboring personal rights guarantees of the Bill of Rights...."

- William Van Alstyne
, Perkins Professor of Law, Duke Univ.,

The Second Amendment, 43 Duke L.J. 1236, 1243 (1994)

Such a flagitious attempt...

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
.
- William Rawle, 'View of the Constitution', 1825

Saturday, April 15, 2006

...including the body of the people capable of bearing arms...

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in eases of necessity; and that at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power....18th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted..."

- Page 160 - Journal of The Senate,
Ratification of the constitution by the convention of the state of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations.
(Rhode-Island,Newport, June 9, 1790).

Friday, April 14, 2006

And this, before turning into the Usurpreme Court...

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
- Justice Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Judge
Source: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting,
Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)

Thursday, April 13, 2006

HERE IS THE PROBLEM

HERE IS THE PROBLEM:

"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

The courts, at all levels are presently ruling by the perverse use of 'stare decisis' - ('to stand by that which is decided' i.e. - perverse precedence). Which is resulting in;

"COMMUNIS ERROR FACIT JUS." (Common error repeated many times makes law).

AND;

"SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA." (The rigor of the law is the height of oppression).

ALL GUN LAWS, in the TRUE SENSE OF THE LAW, ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY REPUGNANT and THEREFORE - NULL and VOID. Hence, the Framers reasoning for the wording SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. There is NO CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL AUTHORITY for government, (at ANY level), to have control over guns in the hands of We The People.

The PROOF, backing the above assertion, can be found here; The Right.

AND...

THE SOLUTION:

Trying to advocate the importance of We The People being United and on guard. As that was the intentions of the Framers. If this present perverse government sees our resolve and determination. It might back down. The more we UNITE the safer we'll be. It's all in the Federalist Papers, so it's not my original idea.

There must be NO more; Waco's, Ruby Ridge's or New Orleans!

Presently, they look at us as stupid sheep waiting to be slaughtered. And this mainly because we are a disunited people. If a few million stand up and show themselves united and determined, it would force them to back down.

We have RIGHT and the potential for MIGHT, on our side.

"...Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #26

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the EXERTION of that ORIGINAL RIGHT of SELF-DEFENSE which is PARAMOUNT to ALL POSITIVE forms of government, and which AGAINST the USURPATIONS of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become USURPERS, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The CITIZENS MUST RUSH tumultuously TO ARMS, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to FORM a REGULAR or SYSTEMATIC PLAN OF OPPOSITION, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the USURPERS can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to INSURE SUCCESS to the POPULAR RESISTANCE."

"The OBSTACLES to USURPATION and the facilities of RESISTANCE increase with the increased extent of the state, provided THE CITIZENS UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHTS and ARE DISPOSED TO DEFEND THEM. The NATURAL STRENGTH of THE PEOPLE in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a TYRANNY." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28

Also see Wolfgram Amicus Brief

GOING BY THE NUMBERS:

Government:

Federal Employees.....................................(2,630,755).
Total Armed personnel = (local/state/fed).........(3,534,518).

(Total Armed includes; Military, Law Enforcement and 1,300,000 reserves).

L.E Ref.
Mil Ref.

Civilian*:

Total U.S. Pop........................................(297,941,185).
Gun Owners (Approx. 44%)..........................(131,094,121).
Can count on at least 5% of those**...................(6,554,706).

(+ Not ALL government employees are TRAITORS)

* - The total number of guns and owners is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. There is no way of verification of total number of guns, because info. wasn't kept until the last 20 or so years. Also, people will not give accurate or truthful info. in concern to if they own guns or not. There are estimates ranging from 25% - 60% of total population. Estimates also tend to indicate that there are over 200,000,000 guns in the U.S.

In other words, there is no concrete data on actual number of gun owners. Tried to hit a happy medium, based upon various available sources of information.

** - The percentage of people that would stand comes from the Revolutionary war. (About 5 million pop., 250,000 rose and fought = 5%).

The more we are UNITED - the safer we shall be.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Second Amendment History...

A brief Historical account of our Second Amendment:
.
The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.
- Quoted from A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution
.
The Contended Amendment
There are a great many people whom assert that the right of a person to be armed, is a natural one. It is clear that rights are granted by God and NOT by man. The Founders of our Country held to this belief, as indicated by the following excerpt from The Declaration of Independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". As the author of GunShowOnTheNet.com, this is my personal belief as well.
.
There is a multitude of evidence available, much of which can be found on the pages of this website. Which clearly support the contention outlined above. It should be clear, to anyone having even a slight knowledge of the past. That violence has been a major problem throughout the recorded history of mankind. There have been countless vain attempts at disarmament, in efforts to stop the violence. Some for altruistic motives, and many more for sinister purposes. Taking the FACTS into consideration, it can reasonably be asserted, that disarmament is NOT an effective solution. And, in fact, has been proven to be directly responsible for the deaths of millions.
.
Believe the assertion, as indicated above, has merit if only based upon the example found in nature itself. It should be readily apparent, that the God of nature has granted each creature a built-in self-defense mechanism of one kind or another. It would seem, therefore, that the God of nature, the same which made man, would deem that man be able to defend him or herself. Just as the other creatures in nature have been enabled to defend themselves. Thus, making the Right, to Keep and Bear Arms for defense - a Natural one. And not subject to the will of government. But rather, that it is each person's own choice to arm themselves for defense, or not.
.
For even the courts have ruled that it is not the governments responsibility to protect each individual citizen. Their duty is to provide for the 'common' defense - not individual. Logic would thusly dictate, that this would then make it an absolute necessity for the citizen to provide their own means of defense. Especially, in light of the propensity of their fellow man in committing acts of horror. The police are merely an investigative arm of government. Their duty is to gather facts as evidence to determine if a crime has been committed. Or to make an immediate arrest if they have knowledge of a crime having been committed. Whether through witnessing it themselves or by others attesting to the criminal act. The facts are then submitted to the court for a ruling.
.
Bearing the aforementioned in mind. A Natural Right is therefore beyond the control of a government entity. Each person should be able to exersize their Natural Right as they themselves see fit. And retain that right, unless the person violates the laws of the land. (Which laws, are in place to ensure the domestic tranquility of all). In which case, government would have just cause to exercise delegated authority. As it is the enumerated duty of government to uphold the laws of the land.
.
And while a person, who has violated the law, is imprisoned. They have, through their own actions, given up that natural right. When they have paid their debt, for the violation committed, their right is restored. Prior restraint, regardless of the justification for its use, is not within the realm of the enumerated powers of our government. As indicated by our Second Amendment:
.
The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution
.
In early 1789 it had not become clear as to whether or not The U.S. Constitution would be Amended by the addition of The Bill of Rights. For there was serious contention about the validity of enumerated rights. One school of thought, was that The Constitution appeared to sufficiently outline the powers of the government. But, it seemed not to provide clarity as to the rights of the people of, by and for whom the government was to be instituted. There seemed to be two, distinctly differing, schools of thought on The Bill. One side held that, by enumerating the rights of the people, it would ensure restriction on the government in gathering to much power to itself. While the other side held, that by enumerating specific rights, it might be construed that those were the only 'rights' held by the people.
.
It was during this 'contention', as outlined above, that James Madison wrote what ultimately became known as The Bill of Rights. Following is the 2nd Amendment to The Bill of Rights, as originally introduced on June 8, 1789, on the floor at the U.S. Congress;
.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
.
The debate, over a Bill of Rights, resumed the rest of the 8th day of June. The matter did not surface again, until raised by Madison on July 21st. At which time, Madison proposed that a committee be formed to report on the Amendment. This was voted on and agreed to. The committee returned to Congress on July 28th, with a reworded version of the Amendment. That version was not placed into the jounal until August 17th, and read as follows;
.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
.
The debate ensued yet again, and the Second Amendment was modified in Congress on the 17th and 20th days of August. The "religiously scrupulous" clause, was the matter contested for the most part. The fear, by some, was that the government could declare people to be religiously scrupulous, and thus disarm them against their will. More modification was made, and on August 24th the House sent the Senate the following;
.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
.
The following day, August 25th, the House sent the Amendment to the Senate and it was entered into the Senate Journal. During transcription, the semicolon in the Amendments religious exemption portion, was changed by the scribe to a comma:
.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
.
(At these two junctures, directly above, it is very apparent what the intentions of congress were. There was more concern, shown by them, for the people who did NOT want to bear arms. Rather than concern about the people as a whole bearing arms! It is CRYSTAL CLEAR THE MEANING OF JUST 'WHO' THE PEOPLE WERE - THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE, NO STIPULATIONS, Other than the 'religiously scrupulous'!)
.
The Senate voted, on September 4th, to alter the language of the Amendment. The definition of militia was removed, as well as the religiously scrupulous portion. And, this is how it appears, (much as it is today):
.
"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
.
The Amendment was returned for the final time to the Senate on Sept. 9th. At which time, it was again given slight mofications. And, was passed by them, to now appear as:
.
"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
.
The House voted on September 21st, to accept the changes made in the senate. That version was then sent to the states for ratification. The wording of the Amendment, as entered into the House journal, however, contained the additional words "necessary to". As shown:
.
"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."
.
On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September.
.
By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the "Bill of Rights."
.
Of particular interest, is the FACT that ONE clause of the Amendment REMAINED UNCHANGED throughout the whole process. EVERY OTHER CLAUSE of the original had received alterations EXCEPT for this ONE; the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Now, why do you suppose THAT would be?
.
Based upon various writings, by the men instumental in the Framing of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. It can be readily determined what their intent and meaning was. Buttress this FACT with the historical records of the time, (they had just fought a long and bloody war to secure their Freedom), and there can be to mistake about the conclusion;
.
In order for a state or people to be FREE, they MUST keep and bear arms for their own defense! And, given the historical propensity for governments to gather power beyond that which is rightful or due it. ( Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely!) The RIGHT of People to keep and bear arms is paramount to ALL others! It gives those in power a good reason to keep themselves in check. For Self-Preservation is the strongest natural defense mechanism placed in man.
.
Second Amendment Resources;
.
Special Thanks to Brent D. Turrin at Rutgers.
.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Absolutism 301; Felons, (expounded)

David, on this post at War on Guns has brought up a topic, I've been seeking an opportunity to expound upon. And now is as good a time as any. For this subject is specifically how David and I crossed paths to begin with. And our meeting over at TriggerFinger caused me to go on the search about the, (eh, cough), supposed power of the gov. to exercise prior restraint). For I had previously honestly felt the government did have the authority. Else, why would they be allowed to exercise it?

And since that time. I've done quite a bit of research on the overall effect of government intrusion(s). Especially into areas where it specifically has no delegated authority. Now, before I go any further, I'll concede that there are many who won't agree with this. But, I'm not writing to win a popularity contest. Merely sharing what I've discovered to be the truth of the matter.

Our laws, originally, were intended to comply 'as far as possible with the laws of Nature and Reason' as defined in The Rights of The Colonists by Samuel Adams. And, that they should recognize that the Freedom and Liberties of man were the gift of God. Or, if you will, our Creator. And, that the whole purpose of the forming of our government was to secure protection of those Freedoms and Liberties. And this, not only for ourselves but our posterity. This theme is woven throughout the Founding documents of our Freedom.

Now, since Samuel Adams was also known as 'The Father of the American Revolution'. It would naturally reason to follow that his word would have depth and weight. As well as being far closer to the Original Intent of the Framers of our Constitution. Versus what we see in the present day. Which is far off course from the path laid out by the Founders. So much so. That our country is now much closer in appearance to the one from which the Founders rebelled against originally. Mr. Adams outlines, in the aforementioned Rights of the Colonists, that man has certain Natural Rights:


I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
"All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
"When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
"Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
"All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity."

Each and every last person that draws breath has made mistakes. Whether it be in thought, word or deed. If the deed done, is in transgression of the True Law of the land. Then that person is guilty of violation of the social compact and is punished accordingly. If that punishment involves their removal from the state of nature and the confinement of said person. Then it naturally would reason to follow that 'the means of preserving those rights' is necessarily ceded while in confinement. The transgressor is then left under the protection of the authority designated for such purposes. Until such point and time as they have paid their debt to society and are released from confines.

The release from confinement, means they are at liberty. The former transgressor is now back in the state of nature. Or, in other words - the jungle. And are no longer under the direct protection of the government authority. So the means of 'preserving those rights', which are after all God-given, would naturally follow with them. To not allow a person whom is at liberty to be enabled to defend themselves in 'the jungle' would be cruel and unusual. For they would be left to the mercy of beasts of prey which are so prevalent in the natural state.

The use of prior restraint by government, is clearly repugnant to the Principles found in our Constitution. If a person, whom formerly transgressed the law, has paid their debt to society. And, is released from their confinement back into the state of nature. It is that person's natural right to be able to defend themselves. It is not within the realm of delegated authority for government to restrict the exercise of the means of defense. Especially, when one considers that the whole purpose of formation of the government was to secure that right. The right, which is so clearly defined, that government shall not infringe upon.

If recidivism back into crime is the worry or problem faced by the government. Then alteration of the applicable law(s) would seem necessary of equitable revision. The solution to such problems cannot be answered by infringement upon a right, from which government is so clearly restricted. Government is not allowed to play God. As there is bad enough problem of that already, of mankind playing God, found in religion(s). It is precisely forbidden, for government to add its weight to the already grievous to be borne burden.

Monday, April 10, 2006

We have met the enemy and it is us.

Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way.

We are placing ourselves in opposing camps and treating each other as the enemy.

This thought occured to me as I read this post. I can't say for sure that the post itself CAUSED the thought as it seems to be advocating the same adversarial relationship as everyone else, but something in it tweaked my "ouside the box" thinking. I posted similar sentiments as a comment on his blog.

It strikes me that the adversarial relationship between the "absolutist" and "incrementalist" camps is natural.

Anyone who has spent time in the military has seen it: The Sailors belittle the Marines who belittle the Soldiers, who belittle the Airmen and so on. But when the SHTF, all of the armed services work together to win the war. The Marines couldn't survive without the air cover and heavy guns of the Navy, the Marines don't have the numbers and hardware for large scale, protracted battles like the Army does, the Army couldn't survive without the air cover and support of the Air Force etc. etc. etc.

Interservice rivalries are common, heated and sincere, but we all acknowledge that members of each service serve as honorably as the others and that we each have a role that MUST be filled for success.

We are doing the same thing. We are picking each other apart in our individual efforts to achieve the same goal. We've even coined new political affiliations for each group: "absolutists" and "incrementalists".

It strikes me that BOTH camps are necessary to waging a successful war. Sort of like squad tactics; you have your infantry weapons and your crew served weapons. The crew served weapons lay down suppressing fire while the infantry advances on the objective one step at a time.

The "absolutists" can absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything but total recognition of our rights. The fact that they have never admitted the veracity of governmental regulation gives them the moral high ground in that specific debate. They lay down the supressing fire.

The incrementalists, in the meantime, while acknowledging all along that the objective is a return to total recognition of our rights, advance steadily taking incremental objective after incremental objective.

If we work together versus belittle each other, perhaps our two approaches can be complementary rather than adversarial?

You will see similar posts to this on some of the other boards that have been hosting this running debate...maybe this discussion will result in a workable strategy that effectively utilizes both schools of thought.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

There are certain aspects of life...

There are certain aspects of life that bear reasoning upon. Here are some points worthy of repetitive reflection….

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."

"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, (November 20, 1772). (Samuel was also known as the ‘Father of the American Revolution’).

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
- Preamble to the United States Constitution.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)

"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1797

There is no indication, from any available authoritative information source. That specifies that man is given any power, whatsoever, over the laws of nature. In fact, all reliable and readily accepted information, (i.e. - Bible, Declaration(s), U.S. Constitution with the attached Bill of Rights), seems to indicate exactly the opposite to be the truth. Furthermore, this is more indicative of an attempt by those whom seek Gun Control, to undermine the whole basis for the Foundation of our Union.

And, once again....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.

Addition: There is a well known former Judge which has written a book concurring with the above statement(s). In his book, 'Constitutional Chaos', Judge Andrew E. Napolitano shows how the present system is corrupt from top to bottom. The book has been reviewed by Ryan Setliff in an article on Lew Rockwell.com. It is a very interesting read.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Amendment II: Here we go again

Gun Blogs on debate:

Uncompromising Vs. State Control?

The War on Guns - Victory is Ours

Captain of a Crew of One - The Joy of Victory or the Agony of Defeat?

The Smallest Minority - I Haven't Heard Language Like This Since Billy Beck

SayUncle - Absolutists vs. Incrementalists

Amendment II - THE RIGHT

The War on Guns - Permitting the Right

Amendment II - Here we go again

Striderweb - The Die-hards vs. the Slightly-lesser-die-hards

The War on Guns - Permitting the Right: D-Day

Amendment II - There are certain aspects of life...

The Smallest Minority - Machiavelli On Absolutism









Here we go again

The argument, which was the basis for starting this site, from the original War on Guns post continues:
Other News;

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

THE RIGHT

THE RIGHT
(A work in progress. Links to all crucial points will be forthcoming. All current references, as indicated by; (0), are in the footnotes at bottom of page.)
.
"We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. - Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them."
- John Dickenson and Thomas Jefferson,
Continental Congress, July 6, 1775
Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms
.
PREFACE;
.
George Mason -
.
First proposed a Bill of Rights, calling for a whole new Convention, at the 1787 Convention.
.
The Second Amendment(1)(2)
as enumerated in The Bill of Rights(3),
and attached to The United States Constitution(4);
.
"to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:"
.
"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."
.
The additional enumeration of this specific Right was insisted upon by the Anti-Federalists, particularly George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and others(5), during the Framing of the Constitution. Their argument was so convincing, that Mr. Madison, (who had been operating under the impression that such a Bill was not necessary), was finally pursuaded to agree.
.
Patrick Henry -
"The means, says the gentleman, (Mr. Madison), must be commensurate to the end. How does this apply? All things in common are left with this government. There being an infinitude in the government, there must be an infinitude of means to carry it on. This is a sort of mathematical government that may appear well on paper, but cannot sustain examination, or be safely reduced to practice. The delegation of power to an adequate number of representatives, and an unimpeded reversion of it back to the people, at short periods, form the principal traits of a republican government. The idea of a republican government, in that paper, is something superior to the poor people. The governing persons are the servants of the people. There, the servants are greater than their masters; because it includes infinitude, and infinitude excludes every idea of subordination. In this the creature has destroyed and soared above the creator. For if its powers be infinite, what rights have the people remaining? By that very argument, despotism has made way in all countries where the people unfortunately have been enslaved by it. We are told, the sword and purse are necessary for the national defence. The junction of these, without limitation, in the same hands, is, by logical and mathematical conclusions, the description of despotism."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/14/1788)
.
"That paper ought to have declared the common law in force."
(Which, indeed later it did - Amendment VII)
.
- Patrick Henry,
Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788)
.
"...Again, a large part of the advantages enjoyed by one who has a RIGHT are NOT created by the law. The law does NOT enable me to use or abuse this book which lies before me. That is a physical power which I have without the aid of the law. What the law does is simply to PREVENT other men to a greater or less extent from INTERFEREING with my use or abuse. And this analysis and example APPLY to the case of POSSESSION, as well as to OWNERSHIP."
"Such being the DIRECT WORKING of the LAW in the case of possession, one would think that the ANIMUS or INTENT most nearly parallel to its movement would be the intent of which we are in search. If what the law does is to EXCLUDE others from INTERFERING with the object, it would seem that the intent which the law should require is an INTENT to EXCLUDE others. I believe that such an INTENT is ALL that Common Law deems needful, and that on PRINCIPLE no more should be REQUIRED."
.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,
.
The Common Law - LECTURE VI., POSSESSION. PARA. 27 Sent. 9-13
.
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
- James Madison, National Gazette Essay, 27 March 1792
.
"These are prohibited by your declaration of rights."
- Patrick Henry,
.
Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788). Witness:
.
"In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present, and proceed to state such acts and measures as have been adopted since the last war, which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America."
"Resolved, N.C.D. That the following acts of Parliament are infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists; and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary in order to restore harmony between Great Britain and the American colonies, viz.:"
.
"The several acts of 4 Geo. 3, ch. 15, and ch. 34. -- 5 Geo. 3, ch. 25. -- 6 Geo. 3, ch. 52. -- 7 Geo. 3, ch. 41, and ch. 46. -- 8 Geo. 3, ch. 22, which impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend the powers of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize the judges' certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to, requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships and goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend his property, and are subversive of American rights."
.
- DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS: RESOLUTIONS OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, OCTOBER 14, 1774
.
(See also; The Rights of the Colonists - I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men, Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772).
.
"They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788)
.
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
.
- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
.
Richard Henry Lee -
.
"Those essential RIGHTS of mankind without which LIBERTY cannot exist."
.
James Madison -
.
"It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of EVERY MEMBER of the community, ANY apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to DEPRIVE them of the LIBERTY for which they VALIANTLY FOUGHT and HONORABLY BLED. And if there are Amendments desired of such a nature as will NOT INJURE the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give SATISFACTION to the DOUBTING part of OUR FELLOW-CITIZENS, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that SPIRIT of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished....We ought NOT TO DISREGARD their inclination, but, on PRINCIPLES of amity and moderation, CONFORM to their wishes, and EXPRESSLY DECLARE THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND SECURED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION."
.
Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, (8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18-19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424-50, 661-65, 707-17, 757-59, 766 [8 June]).
.
(Thank you! Gentlemen, one and all! )
.
SUMMATION:
.
The First proposition is; that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Unalienable Right. A Right ENDOWED to man by God(6). That the Right had already been declared, accepted and secured. And, it was held as being 'self-evident':

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
.
-Thomas Jefferson,
Declaration of Independence, 1776
.
I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men;
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please;and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
.
When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have aright to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
.
Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
.
All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity."
.
""Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, [418]as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former."
.
"In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.
In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.
.
[419] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."
"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation."
.
"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
.
- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, (November 20, 1772)
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting.
.
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
.
- St. George Tucker,
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)
.
"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established."
.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1797
.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
- Preamble to the United States Constitution.
.
There is no indication, from any available source of authoritive information, that specifies that man was given power over the laws of nature. In fact, all reliable and readily accepted information, seems to indicate exactly the opposite to be the truth. Furthermore, this is clearly more indicative of an attempt by those whom seek Gun Control, to undermine the whole basis for the Foundation of our Union.
.
Secondly; since the Federalist Papers were the method used by the Framers, to 'sell' the idea of a Constitutional Federal Republic to We The People(7). And that the aforementioned Constitution is the framework of a CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT(S) between the officers of the government and the governed. This then makes the Federalist Papers part and parcel of the CONTRACT(S), (Constitution), as it provides the clear intentions of the framers. For it was the means used to effect the sale of the new form of government to We the People. Therefore, the Principles contained in the Federalist Papers, demand adherence to those Precepts(8). By those in the government, who are acting on behalf of We The People.
.
"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth..."
- The U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
.
Separation of Intentions and Purposes;
.
Preamble to the Bill of Rights -"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"
.
"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:"
.
There are TWO distinctly separate clauses in the Second Amendment. With each clause having different INTENTIONS assigned to it, in its purposes(9). The two clauses spell out Vital Principles to which the government, at ALL levels(10), MUST adhere. This FACT is PROVEN in the preamble of the Bill of Rights, which states "that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added". And the reasoning for the aforementioned additions are found in the preamble as well; "and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."
.
The first Principle shows the method used by the state(s) to secure Freedom and Liberty for we the people, by use of a regulated and practiced means - the Militia. The reasoning for this, was to secure the state(s) from internal/external faction(s)/Dangers upto and including usurpations that may emanate from the federal level(11). As well as the threat that may emanate from foreign sources.
.
First Clause, The State Militia;
.
DECLARATORY clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
The First portion of the Amendment outlines the continuous need for there to be state(s) Militia, rather than a standing army. For, the Framers of the Constitution, perceived a standing army as being 'the bane of liberty'. And that the state(s) Militia, made up of the whole body of the People, would be the effective 'check' against any national standing army that might be raised, under any pretense. This Principle was applied to the state(s)(12), as well as the federal level(13). The clear intent was to provide the means for the People, should either the state(s) or federal government become usurpers. To enable the People to 'throw their weight', in with the side of Right, and thusly crush the attempted usurpation(s) (14). The Delegated authority to Congress, for Regulation of the Militia, is provided in the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8.
.
Second Clause, The Right of The People;
.
RESTRICTIVE clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Second portion of the Amendment is a statement of FACT or REALITY. This is the portion of the amendment in which the aforementioned restrictive clause applies. Laying out for ALL to see, that the Natural Right, endowed by their Creator(15), was just that - A RIGHT. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is a Guarantee that the government, at ANY level, could NEVER use ANY pretense as justification for DISARMING We the People. Rather, that it is the DUTY of government to SECURE this RIGHT. That this RIGHT is the Second Principle within the Amendment. And outlines the continual necessity of We the People to Keep and Bear Arms for maintaining our OWN Freedom and Liberty. And this, was intended as a Defense from ANY source of Danger arising against We The People. And furthermore, that this Principle was preexisting, (16)(17)(18), to the framing of the Constitution.
.
The intention of the Principle is made quite clear by the use of the word infringed, by the Framers. For the definition of the word infringed is; to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. The strictness implied, by use of the words SHALL NOT, provides further clarity as to their intentions(19). In addition, the Intention of the Principle, as it applies to the government, in restraining the states/federal. Was also Intended as a restraint against a misguided People as well!(20). It cannot be stressed to strongly, that in FACT, it is the DUTY of the government to SECURE this Right(s).
.
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms stands alone as an entirely seperate clause. With clear restriction against the Right being Infringed upon. The only connection with the Militia, is that the people would join forces with their state Militia, in order to fight an Usurping federal. Or join the federal in fighting an Usurping state(s) militia. The citizen is not required to be in the Militia to exercise their God-given natural Right.
.
However, the fact that the placement of the Principles, in such close proximity with one another. In such a way, so as it appears to most, that they were misconstrued to be one Principle. Provides the Founders intent of how closely United we should be as a People. That each citizens security was based upon the equal protection of their fellow citizens security. Genius! Perhaps a little to much so.
.
The Framers concisely and irrefutably outlined, three crucial elements for the Preservation of Freedom and Liberty;
.
1) There would arise occasion for the need of a National standing army, (Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy). This force would be necessary for the DEFENSE of the Union,(21) (offensive use was deeply frowned upon, even for supposed just causes). However, it was plainly indicated that it should NEVER become a force so formidable as to present a DANGER TO LIBERTY(22). As there was a definite fear, by the Framers, that a standing army had the propensity of being dangerous to the Freedoms and Liberties of We the People.
.
2) Bearing in mind, the TRUTH found in element NO. 1. The ways and means to enable the state(s) to form an effective 'check', (State(s) National Guard), against foreign OR domestic threat(s) proved necessary. For if the federal level EVER became Tyranical, the state(s) would need the militia as well as the backing of We the People. AN ARMED PEOPLE(23). And this, because a Tyranical usurpation could emanate from the federal source on a local, state(s) or national scale. From wherever troops might be based. (This is one of the reasons for the Third Amendment; No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law).
.
3) The TRUTH(S), found in elements NO. 1 and NO. 2, show it was equally necessary for We the People to be armed to be able to join the side fighting the Tyranical usurpation(s) that may arise from either the federal or state(s). In addition, for use as defense against Foreign enemy invaders. Furthermore, the Citizens were to be ARMED, AS the military was armed, for WE THE PEOPLE are a CRUCIAL aspect in the overall plan of Defense. And We MUST be LIKE ARMED, as the military, for The People TO BE ENABLED TO EFFECTIVELY repel any army being employed by a Tyranical government.
.
This was the PLAN that was AGREED to, by the states joining the Union and by the federal. Both levels of government, which are intended to act as the Representatives of We the People. And both levels are BOUND by the Republican Principles of government. The plan is not subject to arbitrary or democratic rules, for it is based on Republican Foundation Principles. And, as Mr. Samuel Adams indicated earlier, "they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact." It is The Right of We The People!
.
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
- Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819
.
INFRINGMENT;

"SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA."
(The rigor of the law is the height of oppression).
.
"COMMUNIS ERROR FACIT JUS."
(Common error repeated many times makes law).
.
The reckless disregard of the Right of We the People to Keep and Bear Arms was brought about by varying conditions. And in response to those conditions, incorrect and Constitutionally illegal methods were employed to bring about supposed solutions to those conditions, (A.K.A. - REAL LIFE).
.
There appear to be three direct underlying root causes given as justification(s) for these Infringment(s);
.
1) UNREASONABLE FEAR;
This emotion can be held out as being the most significant contributor to the reckless disregard shown by many of the states as well as the federal government. And in large part, this fear was motivated by actual historical occurences, (Civil War, Old West 'Gunfighters', 'Gangsters', Political Assassinations, etc.), which gave seemingly plausible excuses for the Infringement(s). However plausible the excuses, it does not provide justification for the Constitutionally Repugnant Usurpations(s) that have been inflicted. This fear emanated from some of the people as well, provoking the government to cross the boundries placed on it.
.
2) THE FALSE BELIEF of GOVERNMENT 'PROTECTION' FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY;
As our country has grown, so did criminal activity. Which brought about the necessity for Law Enforcement. This in turn, caused the People to develop an ill conceived reliance upon Law Enforcement in providing for defense. This reliance upon Law Enforcement, by the People, was misguided. For the court(s) have held that the defense of the individual is NOT the responsibility of the government. The court(s) have held that the governments Constitutional responsibilities are to provide for the Common Defense. Thus leaving the individual to fend for themself in matters of defense of life or property. There is foundation for the 'Common Defense' ruling(s) by the court, for it is plainly stipulated in our Founding document(s). This misconception has caused many to become lazy in providing for their own defense. As well as creating a false dependence upon government to provide personal protection it is not empowered to provide. The people have historically defended their own Right to Life and Property. As well as taking care to perform their civic and moral duty of taking part in the defense of others in their communities. (Which was one of the clear intentions of the Founders for the Militia). This has been the accepted natural and normal course of civilian life since the beginning of time.
.
Should the perversion, of the Original Intent of the Framers continue; we will be left with a Police State. Governed by Arbitrary Rule. Much like what we are witnessing currently. Only, as has been historically proven, there IS the propensity for the situation to become far worse.
.
3) ENTER, THE LAWYERS;
For many different reasons, chief of which can be held out as monetary, lawyers have played the major role in providing the justifications used for the Infringements. Whether the lawyer is wearing the badge of an attorney or that of a politician.
.
By the introduction of various UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws and ordinances, that were supposedly intended to curb violence. Or, by bringing suits against citizens, on behalf of an alledged criminal or family of the alledged criminal. For the wounding or killing of the aforementioned alledged criminal. Thus acting as a repellent to the idea of exercising the Right of Defense out of fear of financial ruin.
.
The above assertion, should in no way be miscontrued as meaning that there are NOT valid uses for lawyers. For there are cases, in which self-defense is claimed as just cause, but in reality were criminal in their nature. Whether by malice aforethought, unjust use of a deadly weapon, or conspiracy to commit murder. The latter instances, are ideally the cases, in which the court rightfully enters into these type matters.
.
"Now, in questions of this sort, precedents ought to go for absolutely nothing. The constitution is a collection of fundamental laws, not to be departed from in practice nor altered by judicial decision, and in the construction of it, nothing would be so alarming as the doctrine of communis error, which offers a ready justification for every usurpation that has not been resisted in limine. Instead, therefore, of resting on the fact, that the right in question has universally been assumed by the American courts, the judge who asserts it ought to be prepared to maintain it on the principles of the constitution."
- John Bannister Gibson, in dissent in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sergeant and Rawle 330, Pennsylvania 1825
.
Attempts at solving the problem of crime, by the use of Prior Restraint upon law-abiding citizens, is clearly REPUGNANT to the Principles of Our Constitution. INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, remember? There is NO Constitutionally legal justification for 'Gun Control', PERIOD
.
CONCLUSION;

Many of the People across the country, by the use of perverse law(s). Have been illegally restricted or kept from exercising their Natural, God Given and Constitutionally protected Right and Duty to Keep and Bear Arms. A great many People are now left defenseless by Constitutionally Repugnant Infringements upon their Right and Duty to Keep and Bear Arms. Or fearful to exercise that Right due to the threat of civil lawsuits. This can be construed, in the least, as Gross Negligence on the part of the government(s). And in all actuality, is an USURPATION by the government by adversely effecting the Right to Life and Liberty held by We the People. Regardless of the justifications used for the Infringements, this can be called nothing less than DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. In addition, these Infringments provide a new definition to the word; EVIL.
.
After careful examination of the FACTS, it can justly be contended that Gun Control, is against the Law; The Laws of God, The Laws of Nature, and The Laws of Reason. That Gun Control is Constitutionally Repugnant and therefore ILLEGAL. The ONLY exception being, when a citizen has commited criminal act(s) and is imprisoned. If a citizen is Free, they have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ANYWHERE in this country - WITHOUT RESTRAINT. And that this Right is SUPPOSED to be SECURED by the government, AND NOT INHIBITED IN ANY FASHION.
.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)
.
The officials in state governments that are practising these illegal Usurpations are in Violation of the Peoples Contract. The federal government is itself in VIOLATION of the CONTRACT, in two ways. Firstly; By ALLOWING the passage of UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS on the federal level. Secondly; By NOT fulfulling its OBLIGATED DUTY in upholding THE LAW OF THE LAND. Which IS The United States Constitution. The framework of We The Peoples CONTRACT, which every state WAS SWORN TO AGREE TO, before being admitted into the Union! This is clear indication that the federal government, at ALL levels, is complicit in these Usurpations! This TRAVESTY of JUSTICE, must be reversed!
.
"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in OPPOSITION to that of The People, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the LATTER rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental.
.
"But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."
.
"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
.
"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
.
"This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, 3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.
.
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.
.
"That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.
.
"There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge."
.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
.
Article VI - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
.
It is indicated, in The Federalist Papers, that the people are the Natural Guardians of Our Constitution. And, it is clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights that it is, after all, THE RIGHT of The People to Keep and Bear Arms. It is therefore within Our Rights to ask. That the fetters, which have been illegally placed on us in its Rightful exercise, be removed.
.
"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
- John F. Kennedy
.
The answer to the problem of Violence cannot be found in the REMOVAL of a CONSTUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT. For that CANNOT be a VIABLE SOLUTION, ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. Rather, the ANSWER is found in the use of EDUCATION in the PROPER USE of ARMS. And by the PUNISHMENT of those who fail to comply with the RIGHTFUL Laws of the Land.
.
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."
.
- [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).

Yet again, it cannot be stressed to strongly, "These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They MUST be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other." - James Madison, Federalist #46
.
PUNISHMENT;
.
To those politicians and businesses responsible for Usurping against Our God-given and Constitutionally Protected Right, there are penalties provided as well;
.
"Wilful ABUSES of a PUBLIC AUTHORITY, to the OPPRESSION of the SUBJECT, and EVERY SPECIES of OFFICIAL EXTORTION, (1 : the act or practice of extorting especially money or OTHER property), are OFFENSES AGAINST the government, for which THE PERSONS WHO COMMIT THEM MAY BE INDICTED and PUNISHED according to the circumstances of the case."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83
.
U.S. CODE: TITLE 18> PART I> CHAPTER 13> § 242;
Deprivation of rights under color of law
.
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, OR to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
.
Once again, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed!
THIS IS FACT ON WHICH THERE CAN BE
NO COMPROMISE.
.
Footnotes;
(1) Defined, word for word; Second Amendment Defined
.
(2) Brief History; The Contended Amendment
.
(3) Full Document; The Bill of Rights
.
(5)"The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis." - Quote from A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution
.
(6) Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence, (Particularly, PARA. II, first sentence).
.
(7) "In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth."
"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1
.
(8) "To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same." They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84
.
(9) PARA. VI, final sentence Federalist #29
.
(10) "The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, PARA I, 4th - 8th Sent.
.
(11) Quotation from Federalist #16; "If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest." (Now, how could one suppose that an UNARMED People would be able to "throw their weight" and be able to effect "a decided preponderancy in the contest"?)
.
(12) "In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, (Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!), without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28
.
(13) "The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8
.
(14) "The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.
"How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28
.
(15) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence.
.
(16) As enumerated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689
.
(17) The Rights of The Colonists by Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772
.
"I am also pleasd to find that the Manufactury of Arms and Ammunition have been attended to with so much care; a plenty of these and unanimity and Fortitude among ourselves must defeat every attempt that a diabolical Ministry can Invent to Inslave this great Continent. In the Manufacturing of Arms for Publick use great care should be taken to make the bores of the same size, that the same Balls may answer, otherwise great disadvantages may arise from a mixture of Cartridges." - George Washington, (Letter to John Augustine Washington Camp at Cambridge), October 13, 1775.
.
"No Soldier whenever dismissed, is to carry away any Arms with him, that are good, and fit for service, if the Arms are his own private property, they will be appraised, and he will receive the full Value thereof: Proper persons when necessary, will be appointed to inspect, and value, the Arms, so detained." - George Washington, 1732-1799 (The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources: Volume 4, 1745-1799).
.
(18) "From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. - The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the General their Governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind." - John Dickenson and Thomas Jefferson, (Continental Congress, Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms July 6, 1775).
.
(19) "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." - James Madison, Federalist No. 51
.
(20) "Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
"It may be suggested, that a people spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures. I am far from denying that this is a distinction of peculiar importance. I have, on the contrary, endeavored in a former paper to show, that it is one of the principal recommendations of a confederated republic. At the same time, this advantage ought not to be considered as superseding the use of auxiliary precautions. It may even be remarked, that the same extended situation, which will exempt the people of America from some of the dangers incident to lesser republics, will expose them to the inconveniency of remaining for a longer time under the influence of those misrepresentations which the combined industry of interested men may succeed in distributing among them." - James Madison, Federalist No. 63
.
(21) "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." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46
.
(22) "Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 26
.
(23) "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and DOMESTIC USURPATION of POWER by rulers. The RIGHT of the CITIZENS to KEEP and BEAR ARMS has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of THE REPUBLIC; since it offers a STRONG MORAL CHECK AGAINST the USURPATION and ARBITRARY POWER of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM." Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
.
HOME
2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com