Tuesday, April 04, 2006


(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
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 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."
(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! )
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

(The rigor of the law is the height of oppression).
(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);
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.
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.
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

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
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!
(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
2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com


At 1:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's much better, thank you.

Are you going to give David and Straightarrow and I posting ability or are we delegated to posting in the comments section?

I don't mind either way, I just wanted to clear that up.

At 1:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In regard to your first post on this new blog. Thank you. That is quite comprehensive.

I've never doubted the veracity of position that the Second Amendment guarantees an unfettered right to keep and bear arms.

I personally believe that we have the right to keep and bear any armament that a normal soldier would be able to bear. That includes machine guns, Stinger missiles, RPG's, LAW rockets etc. We have the right to defend ourselves in the event that the government becomes tyrranical and oppressive. We can only do that if we have at hand the armaments necessary to combat the most modern, well equipped military in the world. That is the root purpose of the Second Amendment and whether or not the forefathers foresaw the technological advancements that would be made in weaponry over the intervening 200 years is moot.

The problem that I have is that we are already at the point where our rights are being infringed. We cannot "refuse to acknowledge any less that total recognition of the right to keep and bear arms" if that recognition does not now exist. You can refuse to acknowledge the truck speeding toward you on the highway all you want but it will kill you dead just the same.

Considering the fact that our rights have already been infringed, the only way to gain them back all at once and without condition is revolution. I daresay that the revolution would be very short lived. In the current environment it would not have the support of the general populace. It would be an abberration, its participants would be seen as lunatics and it would ultimately do more harm to the prospects of restoring the Second Amendment than good.

Because the above is true, the only true alternative we have is to work within the system to take back our rights step by step and piece by piece. We didn't loose our freedom overnight or all at once and we will not gain it back in such a way.

Decrying and villifying the small steps gained in restoring the Second Amendment to its honored place among the rights does not advance the cause.

Ideological purity is honorable and good, but when it is seen by the vast majority of citizens as ideological extremism, it can be counterproductive to the cause. That may not be valiant and it may not be the true patriot's way, but it is the world's way and we are working within the constraints of the real world...not the utopia that we wish it to be.

At 4:48 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Sailorcurt -

"Are you going to give David and Straightarrow and I posting ability or are we delegated to posting in the comments section?"

Of course! I'm trying to figure out how I can remove my personal info. from off of the Blog. The whole idea was so the staunch supporters would have input. Like you have said, I'm not a control freak.

(If someone knows the answer, please advise. This is now the 5th Blog I've started. And I only know of one way to do it. I'm sure there is another way).

The one thing I do object to however, is anyone running down our Nation or God. There is only one comment I've ever deleted and it was by a jerk from the middle east that was down-grading us.

The way I see it SailorCurt, is that this will be the forum where we can present the facts. If we spot an article that presents a danger to our Right, we can post it and dissect it.

Hoping StraightArrow and David will stop in, so we can form a consensus.

The ultimate court of the land, (no it is NOT the Supreme Court, contrary to poular opinion), is the court of public opinion. We need to offer clear and convincing argument and proofs to make our case.

Convince the sheep to flee from the wolf, (perverse gov.), and show how we can turn the perversion around rightly. It is possible to do without armed Revolution, but it will not be easy. Effect change from the bottom up and from within. It can hardly be expected that every single last government employee is a traitor. (I know for a fact there are some good ones whom desire a restoration of a True Constitutional Republic).

At 10:37 AM, Anonymous straightarrow said...

e.david. I'm onboard.

Sailorcurt said:
"Ideological purity is honorable and good, but when it is seen by the vast majority of citizens as ideological extremism, it can be counterproductive to the cause. That may not be valiant and it may not be the true patriot's way, but it is the world's way and we are working within the constraints of the real world...not the utopia that we wish it to be."

I venture another thought here. If I am correct, we have already seen the first shot across the bow.

I draw particular attention to this excerpt from the above by sailorcurt. "...but when it is seen by the vast majority of citizens as ideological extremism,...".

This is our calling. To stand as testaments to the truth, so that we may persuade, educate and even bully (as in bully pulpit) that vast majority into the proper perspective of what is their natural right and is in no way ideological extremism.

This will become more difficult as time goes on, not easier. We have awakened the First amendment restrictors, who do not like to compete with the truth that can be found on the net. They, knowing
even as ideas and philosophies that are concordant with their designs are in the majority on the net, know that those false propositions cannot stand against the truth presented in the minority of blogs so dedicated and that those blogs will only get stronger as more and more people become educated and self interested enough to want to guarantee the blessings of liberty to their posterity.

Ergo they will seek to control the content of the net. In fact, they have already made a few feeble attempts to legislate such. The outcry has caused most to re-examine their desires to remain in office and so far, acquiesce to will of the constituency and not restrict free speech on the internet, through legislation. That is only half the equation.

Reguylation is the other half.
Just this last week the FCC ruled that election speech restrictions passed under McCain-Feingold would not apply to blogs on the internet. Those blogs would be considered legitimate news outlets with the same considerations and exemptions afforded the main stream media.

That is not the victory for free speech first glance might indicate. It is the opposite of victory. It is defeat of the principle of free speech, and the usurpation of the rights guaranteed under the first amendment.

We aren't restricted by this ruling, so it must be a victory, right? Wrong! The FCC, in gaining the eager acceptance of this ruling by the bloggers on the internet have actually established their supremacy over it, and did so with our blessing. While not restricting our free speech rights directly, they have assumed and been granted de facto power as the arbiter of what is acceptable in the arena of thought and discourse on the internet.

Their next decision may not be so favorable, but it won't matter as the precedent has been established that they and only they can judge what is acceptable and what may be restricted or eliminated or regulated.

If I am correct, and I almost always am, we have just witnessed metamorphosis of the right of a citizen in the exercise of free speech, to the power of the state to regulate speech. If speech can be regulated, it is not free. Even if one's speech is approved, the fact that approval is a condition of it means it is not free.

We need to contact our legislators and give them directions to tell the FCC that the internet does not come under their purview anymore than do private conversations in a room full of people.

We need to diselect any who do not start believing in and supporting our constitution. They need to know that is the plan. It does no good to hold a threat of retaliation against someone who is not aware of the possibility.

I look for us to have increased difficulty getting the 2A argument out due to what I fear will be increased, though slow and incremental, restrictions on what we are allowed to say.

Don't laugh Rob and Laura Petri slept in separate beds and had to keep one foot on the floor. The FCC is the agency that made it so.

It isn't just 2A anymore Toto. 1A is under attack. They protect each other, if one falls or is weakened so goes the other. We must be willing.

At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Steam Dragon said...

The problem I found working as an activist in Ohio was that the day after the original bill passed, support dried up.
"We WON!" was the cry and people moved on to other things.
When we started working on the "clean up" bill, last year, not one in ten was interested in helping.
As you all have pointed out, the short term goal was met with Ohio passing shall issue with some very repugnant parts (me-dia access and abuse, 'plain sight in car').
And when the time came to go the next step, 90 percent of those that supported the original CHL, just weren't interested. They had other things to occupy their minds.
Davids position looks from here to be a fair one because it may -MAY- help keep focus on the long term goals for more people.
It is one that I tend to agree with because of my experiences in Ohio.
This blog was a good idea, but (there's always a butt) remember, guys, we ARE all on the same side.

At 2:55 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

StraightArrow - Was wondering what happened to you! Glad to see your words grace the page.

It's not only the 1st Amend they have nailed. The 4th has been trampled on for quite a while now. And with Patriot Act - they just took the mask off.

As you indicated, they will attempt and get away with as much as WE let them.

Trying to get people to see this fact is an arduous task. It can be considered as a blindness. Whether self-imposed, or by a sinister evil presence that blocks the recognition process.

Think we all realize there is safety in numbers. Presently, the majority sees that they are with the majority, hence they feel safe. They are guided by the false belief, that since the majority rules - it is therefore safe. Horrible mistake. Anybody remember the parable of the herd of swine running off the cliff? Evil seeks the path of least resistance. Always has, always will. What evil, whether willful or ignorant, fails to comprehend. Is the ultimate price that MUST be paid. People keep forgetting about the piper.

Those that have pulled the blinders off, realize the upfront effort necessary. And that it will have ultimate reward. So, the piper is paid up front, rather than at the end. One must never forget the piper - He ALWAYS gets paid.

Another thought that has crosssed my mind. Do you suppose people have come to look at this as a game? And that they LIKE to play it? That the fun and challenge would be gone, if the official rules applied? I know it may sound far fetched, but think about it.

How much more crystal clear can you get than 'Shall NOT be Infringed'?

Yet, it seems impossible for many, on the Usurping side, to accept. Those being Usurped against, step back and think 'Yeah, I see their point, and it makes sense'. So, I can live with it, because their criminal behavior is plausible. And, as THEY say 'It's for the common good'.

Those with sanity, step forward and say 'What the hell do you think your doing? - not only CAN'T you, but your NOT going to do that'! And the Usurpers, being the selfish little cowards they are, may back down. But, then again, they may not. It all depends upon how bold they are that day. And how stiff of a resolve they see in those willing to take a stand.

They whole bottom line is. The Founders placed the safeguard there for very specific reasons. And, by use of the words 'Shall Not', made it CRYSTAL clear their Intent. This point needs SLAMMED home repeatedly, until it gets through the brick wall that the Usurpers have built up in peoples minds.

Hopefully, we can give a good swing at it here and at least hammer some chinks in the wall. At least enough for the light of reason to shine through.

At 3:11 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Oh yeah, before I forget.

Hitlery is climbing back on board the Usurpation train;


And there is another compromising org entering the fray;


They look decent at first glance, to draw people in. But heard directly from the horses mouth, that the ultimate goal is to stick by their 'party' regardless of cost. Grilled the guy hard, and he did not come out shining - at all.

At 4:08 PM, Anonymous straightarrow said...

e.david, this may sound unresponsive, but it has to do with your "safety in numbers" statement.

You are correct in that many people believe it. However, if I may, and I can, I would like to relate something that happened with me and a law enforcement group that knew they were in the wrong, but thought their numbers and relative strength in numbers arrayed against a lone individual with no support group or friends or funds or connections played out.

After a couple of weeks of being harrassed, only because I was from out of town, not because I had done what they accused me of, I became very angry. I had tried, to that point, to be cooperative and help them in any way I could. As I really knew nothing about the issue I could only help by giving them enough information about me to show that they should be looking elsewhere.

I knew I wasn't involved in whatever it was that had them so desperate to "get" somebody. To this day, I don't know exactly what the crime was supposed to have been. I didn't become angry until some things several of the cops said made me realize that they knew I wasn't involved. I was just a stranger with no support and would be a convenient way to "clear" the case.

After losing my temper, I was told by two of them that I didn't want to challenge them. I would lose as they had me outnumbered and outgunned. That it didn't matter to them if they needed to "put me down".

That was their mistake. I chilled out very well. As long as I'm hot angry, you're safe. When I'm still angry but quiet and controlled I'm dangerous, or at least I used to be. Who knows for sure after all these years later?

Anyway, I made my arrangements and was prepared to do whatever I had to do. Die or not, I will not live at another man's sufferance. I caught a table of four of them at a local restuarant and explained my position.

It is still my position. Here is basically what I told them.

It is true that you can bring more force to bear than I. It is true that you have more assets available than I. Your mistake is that you cannot bring more intensity of force to bear than I. I cannot bring as much total force as you can. The intensity of the force I bring will be every bit as effective if not more so than what you can bring. Because of the disparity of total force available, I must lose the ultimate confrontation. Between now and then, how many of you will lose? Now gentlemen, you may start here. If you do, be advised that I can unlimber while every one of you must stand to draw his weapon. I really wouldn't mind if there were four less of you to deal with. Or you can leave me the fuck alone and do your jobs properly.

Funny thing about that, none of them wanted to dance. After I left I called the District Attorney and told him what went down. He said he didn't believe me. But after that I could go anywhere in that county unmolested. There were some other factors involved but those are the main ones.

Safety in numbers doesn't mean every member of the group is safe. One must know where to posit that little gem.

BTW, I still hold with that philosophy. I have been very lucky in that most everybody has been intelligent enough to believe me. I have not had to cause great harm. Only an insane person would relish the need to do harm, only an insane person would refuse to do harm if unjustly molested.

At 4:49 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

StraightArrow - "I must lose the ultimate confrontation."

I see a fatal flaw in that reasoning. Why must you lose? There have been numerous examples, down throughout the ages. Of men facing IMPOSSIBLE odds, and still coming out victorious.

Consider the Founders. They took on the biggest, baddest kid on the block and kicked their ass.

The point I'm trying to get at. Is that the battle is not always as it appears. Most people, go by their natural senses. However man is made as Mind, Body and Spirit. The majority exercizes their bodies, (and, though somewhat arguably), their minds. Thusly the spiritual sense is rarely, if ever exercised. And this, despite the fact that the spiritual sense is by far stronger than the other two sense.

Besides that 'As a man thinks, so is he'. If you go into battle expecting to lose, what will happen?

Boldness is readily apparent. It is a force that emanates from the one exercising it. Those to whom it is pointed, if they have not the same spirit, will invariably back down. Because you are defying the natural senses they employ. They cannot perceive just where you are coming from. Or, what you may have 'up your sleeve'.

You did your duty and that which is right by standing up to the cowards. (Anyone, that needs to be part of a group in order to have any balls, is a coward). Much better is it, if you have a number that join together that all have the balls. The spirit grows and the force displayed because even more of an obsticle to the tyrant.

The tyrant(s) perceive then - hmmm, this may be quite a bit more costly than the price I'm willing to pay.

One of the best quotes, that I use quite frequently, for our situation is;

"It doesn't require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires to people's minds."

- Samuel Adams

Now Samuel was not as well educated as a lot of the other Founders. But, the man had wisdom and fire. And his 'spunk' was contagious. He was unmovable on his stance. And, he was given the respect justly due him for it.

In other words, in effect what I'm attempting to do is light a 'brush fire'. Implant faith, that it is indeed possible. And hope the damn thing spreads and consumes the whole land!

At 4:53 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...


"the force displayed >because< even more of an obsticle to the tyrant."

make that 'becomes' not because.

At 7:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We have awakened the First amendment restrictors, who do not like to compete with the truth that can be found on the net."

Unfortunately, the First Amendment restrictors (and second amendment restrictors) were awakedned long before we entered the scene.

"Just this last week the FCC ruled that election speech restrictions passed under McCain-Feingold would not apply to blogs on the internet...We aren't restricted by this ruling, so it must be a victory, right? Wrong! The FCC, in gaining the eager acceptance of this ruling by the bloggers on the internet have actually established their supremacy over it, and did so with our blessing."

I made that exact same argument on a comment to a post on another blog. I opined that it would be better for the FCC to enact strict regulation of internet speech so that we would have standing to challenge the rules in court.

The problem is: what about when the court doesn't support us? President Bush (much to his shame) signed McCain-Feingold with the published opinion that the unconstitutional parts would be vacated by the Supreme court. He abdicated his responsibility under the assumption that the SCOTUS would pick up the ball.

We all know how that turned out.

We are facing similar problems with the Second Amendment.

We are not in the position where we can use precedent or judicial reasoning to support an argument against any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. Exactly the opposite: regulation and infringement has already been established as precedent and has been accepted by the majority of Americans as legitimate.

We are fighting our way up from the bottom of the hill, not the other way around. First we have to gain the high ground, then we can work to defend the position. You can't defend a position that you don't occupy.

At 7:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steam Dragon:

All I can say is, keep up the fight. Don't let up. Keep entreating Ohio gun owners to support your efforts and never slack off.

Leadership is the key. Your organization has to have a core of strong leaders who will continue to lead in the face of defeats and setbacks as well as in the glow of victory.

Thank you for your efforts. As a person who travels through Ohio fairly regularly, your efforts are doubly appreciated. And PLEASE get that ridiculous "open carry in a vehicle" stipulation rescinded.

At 8:39 AM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

sailorcurt - "All I can say is, keep up the fight."

Yes. Moreover. What needs to really happen, is for us to sway the Ultimate Legitimate Authority over to our side. The Ultimate's would be US - We The People. The court of public opinion is the key.

If we can get the info. out there. Showing how perverse and corrupt the present aristo/democratic system is. The people will flee from it and become angry. We harness that and we have it made.

The court of public opinion is the highest in the land - even trumps the Usurpreme Court.

That is why it is so necessary to respond to every news article, every bit of info. that flows which is contrary to our Right. And most importantly, back it with fact and truth.

Facts always beats fiction
Truth always beats lies. (Will win out Ultimately, though not always easily).

And, yes as well as to leadership. There cannot be followers if there are no leaders. This is how the Founders started the Revolution.
Told men about their true freedom, that was available o them. Thus creating a knowledge of the fact. And next, pointing out the road to take to achieve the goal.

It's been done before, we can do it again.

At 9:19 AM, Blogger Bill St. Clair said...

My favorite description of what the Second Amendment means, for people who for some reason don't understand "shall not be infringed", is the following:

The Atlanta Declaration:

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission." -- L. Neil Smith

At 9:49 AM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Bill St. Clair - As it should be, Bill, as it should be!

At 3:25 PM, Anonymous straightarrow said...

Damn, we have some heavyweights here. I may be outclassed.

But oh my! Is it ever good to be in such good company!

At 3:33 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

straightarrow - Do you want to be able to post articles? If so, send me an E-Mail to


and I'll get you placed on the 'Members' portion of the site, which enables it. But I need your E-Mail to get it set up.

At 5:59 PM, Anonymous straightarrow said...

e.david, I can open both my accounts and read them, but it has been two months since I could get them to allow me to even type a message in one, it will let me address and subject, but no text. The other account will let me do everything but it won't leave. I can't even email the providers to seek a remedy. I am out of patience with them, but I need to set up another account that I can make work. I am not computer literate, so it's a real pain in the democrat.

However, if you can hold the offer open until I can fix this problem, I will take advantage of it. Thank you.

At 6:03 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Steam Dragon - DDid not intend not to acknowledge your presence. Glad to have you aboard.

The problem you bring up is the unfortunate aspect of human nature.
That is why God invented Patriot's:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
- THOMAS PAINE, The American Crisis, 1776

This battle for our Rights has been fought before. And the battle was won. It is crucial that we pick up the fine example(s) set by our Founders and continue.

It is pointed out in the Federalist that it is, in fact, a continuous duty. A responsiblity of being a citizen. If neglected, it is by our own devices that we lose.

Case in point; what our we doing here right now?

At 7:50 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

An expanded upon comment I posted on The War on Guns on Permitting the Right:

It really is a VERY SIMPLE equation. You do NOT need a permit, (in the True sense of the law), to exercise a God-given Right. Especially since the whole formation of our government was supposedly for SECURING our God-given Rights.

All forms of prior restraints, i.e. - permits, backround checks, limitations, etc. are Constitutionally Repugnant. When your standing on what is Right and True, why jump into the unjust game orchestrated by the Usurpers?

Your then playing their game by their rules. Since their rules are Repugnant and therefore false. Any ground you give up, at all, plays into their Usurpation. Giving it credence. In effect, your reinforcing their perversion and bowing to their supposed 'authority'. They are now your god.

My answer to them is pound sand and stick it. I will NOT bow the knee to them nor submit. They will have to kill me before I will. Then they can do whatever the hell they want to with my guns after that. But, I won't be going all alone, I will guarantee you that. Some of them shall come with me.

Because they have transgressed the law and feel they are in 'power', does'nt mean that they actually are. It just momentarily appears that way.

Their whole foundation is faulty, because it's not based on fact. It is a figment of their imagination. If you jump in, you have provided them power by submitting to them. So then, it's no longer imaginary. For now, you have submitted to them your power.

It is a war of attrition.

Unfortunately, it's a very deadly war. Because they have idiots that wear badges and back their Usurpation(s). Instead of knowing what the Constitution means and turning around and arresting the Usurpers. This makes them the willing lap/attack dogs of the Usurpers.

If there was enough of a concerted presence among us gun owning citizens. We could all stand up at once and make them back down - without firing a shot. Get our Rights back and throw them in prison. (I've some other ideas for punishment, but we won't go into that). For they are, after all, guilty of the crime of TREASON.

But, since we squabble, bicker, argue and contend with each other. They sit back with their popcorn and refreshments and laugh at us.

That is one of the whole original reasons behind a Constitutional Confederated Republican form of government. It's down on black and white - plain for all to see, no arguments.

However, they came up with a perverse little scheme and tied the matter up in a limited branch of government that is supposed to not have power at all. The courts are supposed to decide what is right and Constitutionally correct and what is not - and that's it.

Instead, the courts have become arbitrary law makers. Subverting and perverting our Supreme Law. Or, setting it aside by arbitrarily deciding what applies; to whom, when, where and how. Which is NOT their duty. Their duty was to ensure the Legislature didn't pass laws that WOULD BE REPUGNANT to the Constitution. Striking down anything that was Repugnant.

So now, the Legislature does whatever the hell it wants as well. They have turned a Republic into a aristocratic/democracy. Which will eventually become fatal. From the looks of hings, perhaps sooner rather than later.

Here is a good experiment. Walk up to one to the Usurpers and ask 'Who is the Ultimate Legitimate Authority’? If they tell you anything other than 'you are'. Their lying.

"An experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defense, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #16

Don't know about anyone else, and not trying to be snide or a jerk. But, I feel that I'm 'enlightened enough' and 'able to distinguish' between legal and illegal usurpation. And what we have now, almost without exception and across the whole country, is 'an illegal usurpation'. All that I'm advancing, is the fact that it is unconstitutional and therefore, in the TRUE sense of Constitutional Law - NULL and VOID.

At 10:03 PM, Anonymous straightarrow said...

e.david, I think that one of the things that bothers me is that the incrementalists seem to believe us absolutists don't acknowledge and support in word and practice their efforts in expanding privilege.

We do. It's just that we don't dare let anyone forget that a privilege is not a right. Nor do we want any to forget that the return of the right should be the ultimate goal. It seems to insult them.

Yet we know too well that calling it a victory when the work isn't done and the trespass isn't reversed will lull the celebrants into believing they have won when in fact, they have surrendered ownership. A certain level of convenience causes many to believe the task is complete.

Isn't that the way some train dogs to lead on a leash? Let them walk where they want as long as it doesn't matter to the trainer. But jerk them up short at the trainer's whim to cause enough discomfort for the slack in the leash to eventually be caused by lack of effort on the part of the dog. Then because the dog doesn't feel the discomfort, he still believes he is in control of his life and destination.

Surely we are all more aware than that.

At 11:43 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

StraightArrow - "We do. It's just that we don't dare let anyone forget that a privilege is not a right."

Kevin, on the 'Permitting the Right' post on War on Guns stated;

"Quoting the Federalist Papers at them isn't real convincing to most either."...And then states; "You ain't helping....And I'm done with this conversation."

He apparently thinks he is being attacked personally. And that is not the case. SailorCurt has a different point of view and we are able to discuss it WITHOUT rancor. Which is the best way to work TOGETHER.

We are ALL individuals. Of course we are going to have variance of opinion - that's part of being human. Which is a BASE fact. One of the whole points that I, and I believe others such as David C. and SA are trying to get across.

You cannot argue a point like this away from the base. In a true court, you'll land flat on your behind. You have to bring the argument back to the basis.

Proving along the way, the faulty reasoning and logic that is the direct underlying cause. Ripping out the underpinnings of the falseness, by proving it as false.
In other words 'bringing it into the light, thus dispelling the darkness'.

Otherwise we get left open to supposition and arbitrary rule yet again. Which is what brought on the grievance to begin with.

The use of arbitrary rule by the courts can be PROVEN. The lack of the Legislatures staying within the Constitutional bounds, can be PROVEN. Which makes all of the other laws that have been passed Repugnant, and therefore NULL and VOID.

Any other method just reinforces the use of arbitrary rule. And that government has actual authority over the Right. Which, as we all know - they don't. They have ASSUMED that power however.

That assumption of unconstitutional power is what needs removed. To allow it to remain in place, leaves us wide open to them using it again at their perogative.

A sound basis is the only way that will make the structure on it secure. Not to toss aside or fail to acknowledge the gains made. But to keep pushing to solidify them.

At 1:49 AM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Sailorcurt - You had made this statement in an earlier post; "You can't defend a position that you don't occupy."

That is one of the whole points I'm trying to get across. We do, in fact, still own the right. It is God-given and not within the power of man to take it.

What the Usurpers have done is not 'take it' per se, just blocked access to it. So the Right still remains, howbeit in limited form. What needs to happen, is for us to knock down the perverse barriers they have erected.

We have substantial ground on which to make our stand. For we have the Laws of God, the Constitution, Nature and Reason on our side.

One of the documents that helped me to realize the deeper meaning of our Right is linked to on the right side of the home page - 'Rights of the Colonists'. Which was based much on the writings of John Locke. The linked writing was one of the reasons Samuel Adams became known as the 'Father' of the American Revolution. He was also a very big supporter of the 'common man' and spoke as well as carried himself accordingly. (Even though he knew Greek, Hebrew and Latin and was extremely intelligent).

Anyways, Samuel made this statement;

"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."

Words to live by, I think.

By using these quotes, we can show the people what the TRUTH is about our Founding Principles. And that those that are Usurping are defying the very foundations of our country.

In other words, it reveals them as the Usurping, lying thieves they really are.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home