Saturday, April 28, 2007

Re: Our God-given right of self-defense

Ran across the article titled in the headline while doing quotation research on another article. The author turned out to be the same as the one that I was doing historical study on. Which would be the venerable former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court; Judge Roy Moore. The article is found on WorldNetDaily, and it is a good one!

Following are a few pertinent quotations from the latter article, (emphasis and links added);
Within hours of the tragic murder of 32 students and faculty last week on the campus of Virginia Tech, liberals both at home and abroad began to cry out for "gun control," as if the two handguns that were used in the killings were more to blame than the disturbed student who pulled the trigger. While Cho Seung-Hui blamed everybody else in his chilling videotaped rant, the liberals and many in the media also wanted to place the blame on something else for Cho's cruel and immoral actions, once again exploiting this tragedy to push their agenda of taking away guns from law-abiding citizens....

...Our Founding Fathers believed that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right given by God and essential to the preservation of life and liberty. Alexander Hamilton acknowledged that "the Supreme Being ... invested [man] with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety." James Wilson – one of the first Supreme Court justices and a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution – wrote that taking the life of an attacker is allowed "when it is necessary for the defense of one's person or house." This "great natural law of self-preservation," Wilson continued, "cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution." ...

...In 1997 in Pearl, Miss., a 16-year-old boy shot and killed two and wounded several others at his high school before he was finally subdued when an assistant principal,
like the Appalachian law students, grabbed his handgun from his vehicle and bravely put a halt to the violence.

The right to keep and bear arms is not just a means of protecting life, but an indispensable safeguard of our liberties against oppressive government. Our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Second Amendment that this right of the people "shall not be infringed" because "the security of a free state" requires a "well-regulated militia." Liberals choosing to ignore the historical evidence claim that this is an outdated "collective" right of the state, not the individual. But in Parker v. District of Columbia on March 9, 2007, the D.C. Court of Appeals found that the right to keep and bear arms was an "individual right" held by "the people," and that it "existed prior to the formation of" the Second Amendment.

Tyrannical governments like those of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China and Cuba all disarmed their citizens before the unprecedented oppression and murder of millions began. Back in 1833, Justice Joseph Story wrote in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" about the "importance" of the Second Amendment "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers." History has indeed proven the truth of Story's comment and what every oppressive government knows: You must take away the people's guns before you can take away their rights and liberties....

My hat is off to Judge Moore once more, for his support of our God-given, Natural and inalienable right. And, for him telling it like it is, as it what so clearly intended to be. The full article is well worth reading....


Friday, April 27, 2007

State v. Kerner, "To deprive him of bearing any of these arms is to infringe upon the right guaranteed to him by the Constitution.", May 11, 1921

A couple of quotes from this somewhat good judicial decision;

...We know that in the past this privilege was guaranteed for the sacred purpose of enabling the people to protect themselves against invasions of their liberties. Had not the people of the Colonies been accustomed to bear arms, and acquire effective skill in their use, the scene at Lexington in 1775 would have had a different result, and when "the embattled farmers fired the shot that was heard around the world," it would have been fired in vain. Had not the common people, the rank and file, those who "bore the burden of the battle" during our great Revolution, been accustomed to the use of arms, the victories for liberty would not have been won and American Independence would have been an impossibility....

...The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. It should be construed to include all "arms" as were in common use, and borne by the people as such when this provision was adopted. It does not guarantee on the one hand that the people have the futile right to use submarines and cannon of 100 miles range nor airplanes dropping deadly bombs, nor the use of poisonous gases, nor on the other hand does it embrace dirks, daggers, slung-shots and brass knuckles, which may be weapons but are not strictly speaking "arms" borne by the people at large, and which are generally carried concealed. The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds (p.225)of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the "arms," an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power--such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords, and pistols. These are now but little used in war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as "arms," which they have a right to "bear."....


Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Now, THIS is what I'm talking about.....

"Man is a cestui que trust, not a slave. His right is God-given. Its power is Divinely intrusted for the conservation of his right. All the theories of Hobbes and his utilitarian followers, which place his title to liberty in the will of the Body-politic, or by the grace of government (Hobbes' Leviathan), or of Rousseau and others, which deduce them from a real or hypothetical contract made for him by a dead ancestry or by himself, or implied from his acquiescence, are alike false and fatal to his interests. Deriving his title from God, his claim is higher than the power of all governments. His right precedes its power; and power is God-given to guard God-given right. Man is placed by God in wardship to the Body-politic as his guardian — and the guardian's power is legitimate only when it protects, and is ultra vires when it impairs the right of the man."

- John Randolph Tucker, L.L.D., "The Constitution of the United States, A Critical Discussion of its Genesis, Development, and Interpretation", 1899. (Grandson of St. George Tucker, author of "Blackstone's Commentaries", 1803. The first commentary on the Constitution of the United States).


Thursday, April 19, 2007

Here's a chance to cast your vote for our Gun Rights:

Will college shootings change minds on either side of the debate?
(From MSN)
Click on (top) link to cast you vote!
Current results;
Which do you support?
More gun control 32%
More gun rights 54%
83950 responses, not scientifically valid, results updated every minute.


Wednesday, April 18, 2007


The following article was forwarded to me by a man whom is a church Pastor and a regular commentator on Keep and Bear Arms. Glenn and I communicate regularly, and we have become good friends. This article will possibly cause some anger and disgust. For, had the idea expressed in it been implemented. We more than likely wouldn't have had near the tragedy as that which occured Monday in Virginia;

Student Group Wants Campus Gun Ban Lifted

By Christine Hall Staff Writer
September 17, 2002

After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school's ban on guns....

...I think the middle ground is to allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry just like they can anywhere else in Virginia," he said. "You provide extra safety to the student body that way."

Jowyk began researching his law school's gun policy following the January incident in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school's dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.

Gross and Bridges reportedly ran to their cars to fetch their own guns and returned to confront Odighizuwa, who surrendered after allegedly initiating a fistfight.

Jowyk was heartened by the students' intervention. But looking into GMU's gun policy, Jowyk found to his dismay that the school's board of visitors had in 1995 passed a ban on all weapons, concealed or otherwise, except by law enforcement officials.

Anyone who violates the school's gun ban would face administrative repercussions but not criminal charges, according to Jowyk.

Then in April, Virginia's Democratic governor, Mark Warner, signed a law prohibiting local governments from using administrative rules to pass gun restrictions that go beyond existing state law....

(Emphasis added).

Don't know if RAGE quite describes the emotion that I'm feeling in the pit of my stomach. For, there is quite a bit of sickened disgust mixed in as well. Not only are businesses, and public as well as private learning institutions permitted to circumvent We The People's U.S. Constitution. But, to violate the First Law of Nature - Self-Preservation, as well. The very Laws which ALL American governments are supposedly BASED upon.

And, to make matters worse. Recently, the Virginia Legislature again had the opportunity to correct this travesty of justice. Yet, refused to do so. In my minds eye, that makes them complicit in the deaths of the students at Virginia Tech.

Those whom SERVE us in our government are our SERVANTS - NOT our masters. Not only have they been steadily and increasingly subverting the very purposes for which we established our government to begin with. Which, as spelled out in part of the preamble to our Constitution, was to;

"...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."


"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....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...."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).

(Mr. Tucker knows that of which he wrote, as he was THERE when it was debated and enacted).

So then, not only do our governments infringe, but they allow the wholesale infringement by our fellow citizens as well. Thereby, effectually eliminating one of the very "blessings" for which we instituted our governments to "secure".

Businesses, learning institutions, etc. all make their livings off of We The People. As it appears, they not only want our money, but our lives as well. For, many show a gross and reckless disregard concerning not only the lives of those whom elevated them to their positions. But, for the Supreme Law of the Land, and the "TRANSCENDENT laws of Nature and of Natures God". (See Federalist #43). Their own safety, and the the ability to continue making money off of us, is paramount to them. Believe that just by its very definition, that is what could very well be called the most selfish and depraved kind of evil.


Sunday, April 15, 2007

RELEASE: Rick's Bond Revoked!

Received the following from Pam Stanley, wife of Rick Stanley. Many of you may remember Rick in his run for the Colorado U.S. Senate race in 2002;
At about 11:30am Denver time, as Rick and I were exiting our bank, a dozen or so swat team decended upon us. They fired stun grenades in order to disorient us and screamed at us to get down on the ground. They proceeded to tie our arms behind our backs, then handcuff us. As they were doing this we were asking "what is going on?" They merely told us that Rick's bond had been revoked by a judge.

They took him away, impounded our vehicle then they released me, having a female detective give me a ride home since I had no vehicle. I just got off the phone with the booking department of Denver County Jail. I was told Rick is there on a "fugitive hold" from Adams County for bribery, 2 counts. Neither I, nor our attorney have any clue what this is all about! I assume this is all steming from the original "Influencing Public Officials" charges that he was convicted of and the Colorado Court of Appeals just upheld the week before last.

When I called Denver County Jail they also told me that I can go down there at 7:00pm this evening to see Rick. I plan to do so. I have been in contact with our attorney, Jim Bull, but unfortunately he is up in the mountains and unable to get down here until Monday morning.

He is going to request a hearing in front of a judge as soon as possible on Monday to determine what is going on and to see if we can get Rick out on a new bond. I will keep everyone informed as to what is going on as I get more information.

Pam Stanley

There are those that probably remember how Rick, a staunch advocate for our (supposedly) Constitutionally protected Rights. First came to have problems with the 'law' in Colorado;

Protesting a Denver ordinance against bearing arms, business owner and Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Rick Stanley late last year strapped on a hip holster bearing a .380 Beretta (fellow protester Duncan Philp chose a shoulder rig) during a Dec. 15 rally celebrating the 210th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

He'd advertised what he was going to do and invited Denver police to come get him. They did. He was peacefully arrested by 18 officers, and brought to trial on May 15 in the municipal court of Judge Robert L. Patterson.

To give everyone an idea of just where Rick stands concerning our Rights. The following is a quote from a website;

This website started out as my personal campaign website for the 2002 Colorado U.S. Senate race. It has evolved into a website that promotes the restoration of our country back to a Republic, based on the Constitutional Rule of Law. I, and many others, believe in defending our God-given, natural, unalienable, Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights here in the POLICE STATE of America. This is NOT an option, it is a sacred duty. There are some things here which constitute ideas of mine and others, meant to accomplish this mission.

There is a government conspiracy to destroy individual rights, with the government's perversions of Constitutional rule of law, at all levels of government, that has overthrown this country from within. This will not stand. We the people demand all unconstitutional ordinances, statutes, and laws be overturned immediately. The average American cannot afford a five year court fight, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, to then reach a point at the Supreme Court, where the black robes can ignore the issues, and refuse to hear the case, effectively destroying the unalienable rights of Americans.

LIVE FREE or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime

Rick Stanley

Hopefully Rick's attorney will be able to secure his release this next week. All those concerned with Freedom, Liberty and the Preservation of our Inalienable Rights. Should be concerned with this type of activity from those in our government. As it can very well be that it could be you or I that are next on the list.

There is contact information on Rick's website for those interested in offering encouragement and support. Hope the best for Rick and Pam, and that this present trouble is soon overcome. Will try provide additional information as it is made available. When available, it will be posted here, or on GunShowOnTheNet.blogspot.


Friday, April 13, 2007

That was then, how about now?

The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard.”

- U.S. vs. Emerson, 5th Circuit Federal Court.

"We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry the right to bear arms for their self-defense."

- Indiana Appellate Court, Schubert v. DeBard, 1980


Wednesday, April 11, 2007

From; The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, 1900....

"The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.

- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia. Washington ed. viii, 400. Ford ed., iii, 263. (1782).


Monday, April 09, 2007

Now this, I like;

The Federalist No. 41

Independent Journal

Saturday, January 19, 1788

[James Madison]

"...The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety."

"How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions...."


Wednesday, April 04, 2007

New Page


Sunday, April 01, 2007

"Sect. 135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every common-wealth; yet, First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having in the state of nature no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind; this is all he doth, or can give up to the common-wealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power, in the utmost bounds of it, is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power, that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects.* The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it."

- John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Government" - Chapter 11 - Of the Extent of the Legislative Power. (1690).

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature..."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).