Or it can be accessed directly here:
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Saturday, July 16, 2016
10/9/1775: "That each of the privates be allowed, instead of a bounty, one felt hat, a pair of yarn stockings, and a pair of shoes; the men to find their own arms"
Monday, July 11, 2016
Constitutional Reality Concerning the Right of We The People to Keep and Bear our Own Individual Private Arms - Updated
Concerning the Right of We The People to
Keep and Bear our Own Individual Private Arms
The two Constitutional facts which shall be made absolutely clear by the evidence presented below, are that:
1. The Federal government of the United States of America had never been delegated any authority or power in our Constitution over the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear their own private arms.
2. Both the Federal government, and all other forms of American government, had been expressly forbidden by Constitutional Amendment from interfering with that right in any way, shape or form. That the individual right to keep and bear arms had been totally removed out of the hands of American governments.
It would be wise to first establish the fact that the individual right to keep and bear arms legally existed prior to the adoption of our Constitution. This is easily be done by recurring to the right as it was granted by the British monarchy to all subjects of that realm. Which of course included the American Colonists at that time. The right had been secured in the British Constitution by the Bill of Rights of 1689:
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;
By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power; . . . .
. . . By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law; . . . .
. . . All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;
And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare . . . .
. . . That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law
The legally acknowledged right to keep and bear arms had existed in America well before 1689 however:
“The planters were careless with their arms, never using their swords, and their fire-arms only for game.”–A New And Comprehensive Gazetteer Of Virginia
25. That men go not to worke in the ground without their arms (and a centinell upon them).–Laws and Orders Concluded by the Virginia General Assembly, March 5, 1624.
ALL persons except negroes to be provided with arms and amunition or be fined at pleasure of the Governor and Council.–At A Grand Assembly, 6th January, 1639–Sr Francis Wyatt, Gov.
13thly. That all amunition, powder and arms, other then for private use shall be delivered up, securitie being given to make satisfaction for it.—Articles agreed on and concluded at James Cittie in Virginia, March 12, 1651
“The proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was recognized. “The results of all this turbulence were the right to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the expense of the lord proprietary.“–History For Ready Reference From The Best Historians, Biographers, And Specialists . . . By J.N. Larned . . . In Five Volumes Volume III–Greece To Nibelungen Lied Springfield, Mass. The C.A. Nichols Co., Publishers MDCCCXCIV (1894)
It is therefore clearly established, that prior to our revolution and subsequent severing of ties with the British government. All of We The People; both Catholic and Protestant, had the right to keep and bear our own individual arms. And that right was in no way contingent upon being in the militia.
It is also seen in the above that the reason that the individual right to keep and bear arms had been demanded to be secured in the British Bill of Rights to begin with. Was due to partial ‘laws’ which had disarmed those which held contrary religious beliefs to that of the established government. (Which of course had played a part in the reasoning for the future demand for Amendments I and II to be secured in our current Constitution.)
That the right to keep and bear arms our own personal arms in defense had indeed been recognized in America prior to our Revolution is shown in the following:
“At a time when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question.
“That no man should scruple or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would beg leave to add, should be the last resource, the dernier resort.”--George Washington, April 5, 1769 letter to George Mason. [University of Virginia, The Papers of George Washington, LB, DLC:GW. From The Papers, Colonial Series, 8:177-80.]
"We, the Delegates of the thirteen United Colonies in North America, have taken into our most serious consideration, a Proclamation issued from the Court of St. James’s on the Twenty-Third day of August last. The name of Majesty is used to give it a sanction and influence; and, on that account, it becomes a matter of importance to wipe off, in the name of the people of these United Colonies, the aspersions which it is calculated to throw upon our cause; and to prevent, as far as possible, the undeserved punishments, which it is designed to prepare, for our friends. We are accused of “forgetting the allegiance which we owe to the power that has protected and sustained us.” Why all this ambiguity and obscurity in what ought to be so plain and obvious, as that he who runs may read it? What allegiance is it that we forget? Allegiance to Parliament? We never owed–we never owned it. Allegiance to our King? Our words have ever avowed it,–our conduct has ever been consistent with it. We condemn, and with arms in our hands,–a resource which Freemen will never part with,–we oppose the claim and exercise of unconstitutional powers, to which neither the Crown nor Parliament were ever entitled. By the British Constitution, our best inheritance, rights, as well as duties, descend upon us: We cannot violate the latter by defending the former: We should act in diametrical opposition to both, if we permitted the claims of the British Parliament to be established, and the measures pursued in consequence of those claims to be carried into execution among us. Our sagacious ancestors provided mounds against the inundation of tyranny and lawless power on one side, as well as against that of faction and licentiousness on the other. On which side has the breach been made? Is it objected against us by the most inveterate and the most uncandid of our enemies, that we have opposed any of the just prerogatives of the Crown, or any legal exertion of those prerogatives? Why then are we accused of forgetting our allegiance? We have performed our duty: We have resisted in those cases, in which the right to resist is stipulated as expressly on our part, as the right to govern is, in other cases, stipulated on the part of the Crown. The breach of allegiance is removed from our resistance as far as tyranny is removed from legal government."--Journals of the Continental Congress, Dec. 6, 1775, Report of the Delegates of the thirteen United Colonies in North America.
"I cannot, by all the inquiries I have been able to make, learn what number of arms have been taken from the tories, where they lie, or how they are to be got at. The committee of safety for this colony have assured me that no exertions of theirs shall be wanting to procure arms: but our sufferings in the mean while may prove fatal, as men without are in a manner useless. I have therefore thoughts of employing an agent whose sole business it shall be to ride through the middle and interior parts of these governments, for the purpose of buying up such arms as the inhabitants may incline to sell, and are fit for use."--George Washington, May 5, 1776 letter To Congress. [American State Papers, Being A Collection Of Original and Authentic Documents Relative To The War Between The United States And Great Britain Published by Special Permission. Volume The First. 1795. Official Letters To The Honorable American Congress, Written, during the War between the United Colonies and Great Britain, By His Excellency, George Washington, Commander In Chief Of The Continental Forces, Now President Of The United States. Copied, by Special Permission from the Original Papers preserved in the Office of the Secretary of State, Philadelphia. VOL. I. London: Printed For Cadell Junior And Davies, G.G. And J. Robinson, B. And J. White, W. Otridge And Son, J. Debrett, R. Faulder, And T. Egerton. 1795. Official Letters From George Washington To Congress. Pg. 141-42]
The individual right to keep and bear our own personal arms was considered as inextricably connected with the inalienable natural right of Self-defense. Which was by our ancestors as having been the direct gift from God, and therefore a natural right. This historical fact is proven by the evidence that follows:
“This law of nature, being coeval [existing at the same time - ed.] with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”
“Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these.”
“…The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”--William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765–1769.
“…This was the fate of a race of Kings, bigotted to the greatest degree to the doctrines of slavery and regardless of the natural, inherent, divinely hereditary and indefeasible rights of their subjects.–At the revolution, the British constitution was again restor’d to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards pass’d into a law, and stands as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects. “To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law–next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances–and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” These he calls “auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property”: And that of having arms for their defence he tells us is “a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”–How little do those persons attend to the rights of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault with a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence at any time; but more especially, when they had reason to fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation against the violence of oppression….”--Samuel Adams, Boston Gazette, 27 Feb. 1769.
“Mr. Henry for it. Says that a preparation for Warr is Necessary to obtain peace–That America is not Now in a State of peace–That all the Bulwarks, of Our Safety, of Our Constitn. are thrown down, That We are Now in a State of Nature–That We ought to ask Ourselves the Question should the planns of Nonim [portatio] n & Nonexp [oratio] n fail of success–in that Case Arms are Necessary, & if then, it is Necessary Now. Arms are a Resource to which We shall be forced, a Resource afforded Us by God & Nature, & why in the Name of both are We to hesitate providing them Now whilst in Our power.”– Silas Deane’s Diary, [Oct. 3, 1774]. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 1 AUGUST 1774 - AUGUST 1775.] (Presumably referring to Patrick Henry).
“You, Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body; but, granting your supposition were true, it would be a matter of no real importance. When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded. Men may then betake themselves to the law of nature; and, if they but conform their actions, to that standard, all cavils against them, betray either ignorance or dishonesty. There are some events in society, to which human laws cannot extend; but when applied to them lose all their force and efficacy. In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 23 Feb. 1775, Papers 1:86–89, 121–22, 135–36.
“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.”-- Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" Speech, March 23, 1775.
The Declaration of Independence itself provides ample enough proof of that which is contended above is indeed the actual fact of the matter.
Moving on, and to in order to further solidify the the preexistence of our right apart from the “militia”. We then see the following Resolution of New York concerning arms possessed by its people, that may be for sale:
RESOLVED 1st. That any person in this city, or county, who has arms, ammunition, or the other articles necessary for our defence, to dispose of; or shall import any of these articles for sale, and shall not within ten days after the publication of these resolutions, or in ten days after the importation, of such arms, ammunition, &c. aforesaid, inform the Chairman, or Deputy Chairman, of this Committee, of the quantity, and quality of the same; he shall be held up to the public as an enemy to this country.
RESOLVED 2d. That any person in this city or county, who shall, during the unhappy contest with our parent state, dispose of any arms, ammunition, or other articles aforesaid, to any person, knowing, or having reason to believe such person to be inimical to the Liberties of America; or shall put those articles in the hands of any such person; or any other person, knowing, or having reason to believe that they are to be used against those liberties; he shall be held up as an enemy to this country: which being unanimously agreed to,
Ordered, That the same be published in hand-bills.
By Order of the Committee,
PETER V. B. LIVINGSTON, Chairman, pro. Tempore.
The distinction between “militia” and people is then made perfectly clear in the following. Where we see that an American government “further recommended to the Inhabitants of this Colony . . . that they carry their Arms and Ammunition with them to Meeting, on the Sabbath and other Days”:
WHEREAS the hostile Incursions this Country is exposed to, and the frequent Alarms we may expect from the Military Operations of our Enemies, make it necessary that the good People of this Colony be on their Guard, and prepared at all Times to resist their Attacks, and to aid and assist their Brethren: Therefore,
RESOLVED, That it be and hereby is recommended to the Militia in all Parts of this Colony, to hold themselves in Readiness to march at a Minute’s Warning, to the Relief of any Place that may be attacked, or to the Support of our Army, with at least twenty Cartridges or Rounds of Powder and Ball. And to prevent all Confusion or Delays, It is further recommended to the Inhabitants of this Colony, living on the Seacoasts, or within twenty Miles of them, that they carry their Arms and Ammunition with them to Meeting, on the Sabbath and other Days, when they meet for public Worship:–Resolved That all Vacancies in the several Regiments of Militia, occasioned by the Officers going into the Army, or otherwise, be immediately filled up: And it is recommended to the Regiments where such vacancies are, to supply them in manner and form as prescribed by the Resolutions of Congress.
A true Copy from the Minutes,
Attest………..Samuel Freeman, Secr’y.
Two days later we then see this broadside, which also clearly shows the difference between the individual right to arms and the “militia”. In fact, it makes it crystal clear that the individual right to arms existed even prior to the “militia”. And every delegate apparently had signed each copy that had been sent:
"It becomes the duty of us, in whom you have deposited the most sacred trust, to warn you of your danger, and of the most effectual means to ward it off. It is the right of every English subject to be prepared with weapons for his defence; we conjure you by the ties of religion, virtue and love of your country, to follow the example of your sister colonies, and to form yourselves into a Militia; the election of the officers, and arangement of the men, must depend upon yourselves; study the art of military with the utmost attention; view it as the science upon which your future security depends.
"Carefully preserve the small quantity of gunpowder which you have amongst you; it will be the last resource when every other means of safety fails you; Great-Britain has cut you off from further supplies; we enjoin you, as you tender the safety of yourselves and fellow colonists, as you would wish to live and die free, that you would reserve what ammunition you have as a sacred deposit; he, in part, betrays his country who sports it away, perhaps in every charge he fires he gives with it the means of preserving the life of a fellow being.
"We cannot conclude without urging again to you the necessity of arming and instructing yourselves, to be in readiness to defend yourselves against any violence that may be exerted against your persons and properties."--Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, Rd. Caswell, North Carolina Committees, Philadelphia, June 19, 1775. To the COMMITTEES of the several Towns and Counties of the Province of NORTH-CAROLINA, appointed for the purpose of carrying into execution the Resolves of the Continental Congress.
After the Revolution, and upon forming the Confederation of the now United States. We had of course retained our individual right to keep and bear our own personal arms. And there is no historical documentation that even remotely hints that we ever had, or intended to surrender it. A few of the States had even went so far as to have that right Constitutionally secured. The state which had made it the most clear had been Virginia:
“XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.”–A Declaration of Rights made by the Representatives of the People of Virginia, June, 12th, 1776. [Written by George Mason. And parts of which were employed by Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence.]
It is made clear in the Virginia Declaration of Rights that the individual right to keep and bear arms is what was first Constitutionally secured. It then goes on to reference the “well regulated militia” as the only object of government “regulation”. The distinction is clarified further by the use of; “composed of the body of the people trained to arms”. The above declaration had been both widely read, and even copied, throughout the United States.
Now that factual ground has been established concerning the preexistence of our individual right to keep and bear arms prior to our present Constitution. We come to the point where We The People of the United States of America entered into our present Constitution. And when we did so, we were still in full possession of that individual right. And once again, that right was not contingent upon being a member of the militia.
Just prior to the Constitutional Convention responsible for our present Constitution. There was an event in the state of Massachusetts that played a major role for the demand that our right to keep and bear arms be Constitutionally secured. This had been due to a law passed by that State which had disarmed felons guilty of the high crime of treason for a period of three years. Which was enacted in order to provide punishment to those citizens that had participated in Shay’s Rebellion. This law was met such universal detestation and disgust. That it caused patriots to come running from surrounding States, with arms in their hands, in order to assist their brethren. Which of course almost sparked another revolution. This caused the government of the State of Massachusetts to rescind that [perverse] law. All these events had taken place just prior to and even during the Constitutional Convention.
So it is seen then that one of the main intentions of Amendment II was in order to prevent our governments from disarming people as punishment for crimes committed. The obvious true intention of Amendment II was to secure the right of all Free American citizens to keep and bear their own private arms. And remove that right from out of the hands of our governments by expressly Constitutionally forbidding them from interfering with it in any way, shape or form.
The above fact is substantiated by Mr. Thomas Jefferson in the following:
“The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: [Shay’s Rebellion] and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.”--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith. [William Stephens Smith, (Nov. 8, 1755 – June 10, 1816), was a U.S. Representative from New York. He was appointed by President Washington to be the first United States Marshal for the District of New York in 1789, and later supervisor of revenue. He was then appointed by President John Adams surveyor of the Port of New York in 1800. Smith was also elected to the 13th U.S. Congress, holding office from March 4, 1813 to March 3, 1815.]
We will next examine in detail the Constitutional foundation upon which our right is intended to be secured. In order to do this in a proper manner, and with clarity, we will review some fundamental basics. First by examining what the word Constitution really means. The definition provided is from Webster’s Dictionary 1828 Edition. Which is the same Dictionary the United States Supreme Court uses in determining the original intent of our Constitution:
CONSTITU'TION, n. The act of constituting, enacting, establishing, or appointing….
4. The established form of government in a state, kingdom or country ; a system of
fundamental rules, principles and ordinances for the government of a state or nation. In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power ; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.
Now let us contemplate just what was the intention of the original Constitution concerning arms, prior to having been amended by the Bill of Rights. In order for this to be factually done, it will be necessary to consult; Congressional Records, The Federalist Papers, Pamphlets On The Constitution from that period, and the original Constitution itself.
There will of necessity be many quotations from The Federalist Papers which will be utilized. The reason being is that The Federalist Papers were the means used in order to induce We The People to adopt our Constitution. As such, The Federalist has direct legal bearing, depth, substance and weight. For it was under those impressions which had been published in The Federalist that we agreed to bind ourselves. The Federalist Papers provide a detailed clause by clause explanation of the meaning of our Constitution, (with the exception of the Bill of Rights, although this to referred to.) The same legal reasoning as above of course naturally applies to the Pamphlets On The Constitution from that period. One of which gives a very good summation of both the reasons for, and the original intent of the new Constitution:
"The constitution of England as it stood on paper, was one of the freest, at that time, in the world, and the American colonies considered themselves as entitled to the fullest enjoyment of it. Thus, when the ill-judged discussions of late times in England brought into question the rights of this country, as it stood connected with the British crown, we were found more strongly impressed with their importance, and accurately acquainted with their extent, than the wisest and most learned of our brethren beyond the Atlantic. [Pg. 136] When the greatest names in parliament insisted on the power of that body over the commerce of the colonies, and even the right to bind us in all cases whatsoever, America, seeing that it was only another form of tyranny, insisted upon the immutable truth, that taxation and representation are inseparable; and, while a desire of harmony and other considerations induced her into an acquiescence in the commercial relations of Great Britain, it was done from the declared necessity of the case, and with a cautious, full, and absolute saving of our voluntarily-suspended rights. The parliament was persevering, and America continued firm, till hostilities and open war commenced, and finally the late revolution closed the contest forever.
"It is evident, from this short detail, and the reflections which arise from it, that the quarrel between the United States and the parliament of Great Britain did not arise so much from objections to the form of government, though undoubtedly a better one by far is now within our reach, as from a difference concerning certain important rights, resulting from the essential principles of liberty, which their constitution actually preserved to all the subjects residing within the realm. It was not asserted by America, that the people of the island of Great Britain were slaves, but that we, though possessed absolutely of the same rights, were not admitted to enjoy an equal degree of freedom.
"When the declaration of independence compleated the separation between the two countries, new governments were necessarily established. Many circumstances led to the adoption of the republican form, among which was the predilection of the people. In devising the frames of government, it may have been difficult to avoid extremes opposite to the vices of that we had just rejected; nevertheless, many of the state constitutions we have chosen are truly excellent. Our misfortunes have been, that in the first instance we adopted no national government at all; but were kept together by common danger only; and that in the confusions of a civil war, we framed a foederal constitution, now universally admitted to be inadequate to the preservation of liberty, property, and the [Pg. 137] union. The question is not, then, how far our state constitutions are good, or otherwise--the object of our wishes is, to amend and supply the evident and allowed errors and defects of the foederal government. Let us consider awhile, that which is now proposed to us--let us compare it with the so much boasted British form of government, and see how much more it favours the people, and how completely it secures their rights, remembering, at the same time, that we did not dissolve our connection with that country so much on account of its constitution, as the perversion and mal-administration of it."--Tench Coxe, [Under the pseudonym "An American Citizen"] An Examination of the Constitution for the United States of America, Submitted to the People by the General Convention, At Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787, and since adopted and ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States, chosen for the purpose of considering it, being all that have yet decided on the subject. By an American Citizen. [Pg. 135-137] [Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.] (Mr. Tench Coxe, (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824), was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress. In 1786 he was sent to the Annapolis Convention, and in 1788 to the Continental Congress.)
Mr. Coxe had went on to state further in other publications:
“If a time of public contention shall hereafter arrive, the firm and ardent friends to liberty may know the length to which they can push their noble opposition, on the foundation of the laws. Should their country’s cause impel them further, they will be acquainted with the hazard, and using those arms which Providence has put into their hands, will make a solemn appeal to “the power above.”–Tench Coxe, An American Citizen IV, PHILA. INDEP. GAZETTEER, Oct. 21, 1787, reprinted in 13 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra note 57, at 431, 433.
“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”–Tenche Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress, The Pennsylvania Gazette, on Feb. 20, 1788.
“There is no danger of our forgetting the use of arms, while are strangers to game laws. A youth of sixteen years of age, who has trained by necessity or choice, to amusement of hunting in our American woods, has a better foundation laid for his becoming an effective soldier, than a whole nation of farmers who have been educated (from the operation of game laws) in an of fire arms.” POMPILIUS. Philadelphia, July 26, 1788. [Pg. 225]
“Address to the printers of throughout the United States: written by Tench Coxe, esq….”
“…You are to consider whether freedom of publication, extending to blasphemy, immorality, treason, sedition, malice, or scandal, does not destroy the inestimable benefits which result from the liberty of the press, This privilege is certainly essential to the existence of a free government; but it consists in avoiding to impose any previous restraints on publication, and not in refraining to censure or punish such things, as produce private or public injuries. Every freeman has a right to the use of the press: so he has to the use of his arms. But if his publications give an unmerited or deadly stroke to private reputation, or sap the foundations of just government, he abuses his privilege as unquestionably as if he were to plunge his sword into the bosom of a fellow citizen: and the good of society requires that each offence should be punished….” PHILODEMOS. [Tench Coxe] [Pg. 181] [THE AMERICAN MUSEUM: OR REPOSITORY OF ANCIENT AND MODERN FUGITIVE PIECES, &c. PROSE AND POETICAL. Volume IV. PHILADELPHIA: PRINTED BY MATHE CAREY. M.DCC.LXXXVIII. 1788.]
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”–Tenche Cox, Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution, in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
“Do you wish to preserve your rights? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to secure your dwellings? Arm yourselves. Do you wish your wives and daughters protected? Arm yourselves. Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of faction? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or the good of your country? Arm yourselves. To arms, to arms, and you may then sit down contented, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make him afraid….If you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and ruin, then arm yourselves; for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own security and that of your families. To arms, then to arms.”–”Mentor” addressed “To the Republican Citizens of Pennsylvania.”, Philadelphia Aurora, May 21, 1799, at 2, (This edition also contained an article signed by Tenche Cox). [Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823 By Stephen P. Halbrook[a1] and David B. Kopel [aa1] 7 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 347 (1999).]
The sentiments expressed by Mr. Coxe had received the hearty approval of both Mr. James Madison and Mr. Alexander Hamilton:
"I have been favored with yours of the 28 Ult. and thank you for the paper which it inclosed. Your arguments appear to me to place the subject to which they relate in its true light*, and must be satisfactory to the writer himself whom they oppose, if he can suspend for a moment his preconceived opinions. But whether they should have any effect or not on him, they will unquestionably be of service in Virginia, and probably in the other Southern States. Col. Hamilton has read the paper with equal pleasure & approbation with myself...."--James Madison, Jan. 3, 1788 letter to Tench Coxe.
Continuing on in examination of our present Constitution and the principles behind it. We see that the sovereign authority which had established the government of the United States is We The People; in our individual and collective capacity. This of course includes all of the people in every state of the Union. For We The People are the acknowledged original fountain of all power. We can delegate or grant some of our authority and power into the hands of those that we have; appointed, elected or hired to serve us. As well as retain, restrain or remove any of the authority or power that has already been delegated. For it was not a gift that We The People had given to our hired servants. It was a grant of power with stipulations that must be adhered to in order to be retained by those servants.
"What is a constitution? it is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles or fundamental laws are established. The constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.--What are legislatures? creatures of the constitution, they owe their existence to the constitution--they derive their powers from the constitution.--It is their commission, and therefore all their acts must be conformable to it, or else void. The constitution is the work or will of the people themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the legislature in their derivative capacity."--Judge Patterson's Charge to the Jury in the Wioming case of Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance; tried at the circuit-court for the United States, held at Philadelphia, April term, I795. Pg. 182. [Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
The Constitution of the United States of America is a contractual agreement that establishes a framework of government by which all parties to it have agreed to be bound. It expresses explicitly and in specific terms what those we hired to serve us “shall” and “shall not” have the authority or power to do. We The People created the; branches, departments and bureaus of our government which we had ordained and established. As well as all of the offices deemed necessary in order for our hired servants in government to carry out our will.
"At any rate, the Congress can never get more power than the people will give, nor hold it any longer than they will permit; for should they assume tyrannical powers, and make incroachments on liberty without the consent of the people, they would soon attone for their temerity, with shame and disgrace, and probably with their heads."--Pelatiah Webster, The Weakness of Brutus exposed: Or, some Remarks in Vindication of the Constitution proposed by the late Federal Convention, against the Objections and gloomy Fears of that Writer, Humbly offered to the Public, By a Citizen of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Printed for, and to be had of John Sparhawk, in Market-Street, near the Court House / M.DCC.LXXXVlI. (Nov. 4, 1787) Pg. 127. [Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
The express purposes for which our Constitution was ordained and established are declared in the preamble of our Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The preamble, in legal terms, is nothing more than an introductory part of the Constitution. It does nothing more than state the reasons and intentions for establishing the Constitution. It cannot be used in justification for broadening or gaining more authority and power than that which has already been delegated in the body of the Constitution itself. To contend any differently would nullify the intended purpose of a written Constitution.
Unfortunately our hired servants in government have either willfully or ignorantly used the preamble. In attempts to justify the exercise of authority and powers which were either never delegated or granted. OR; that were expressly withheld and/or denied. Thus making them the judges of their own authority or power, rather than We The People. In their perverse minds, this allows them to make an end-run around the limitations which have been Constitutionally imposed on them. In Constitutional terms this is what is known as; usurpation of authority. In all actuality, the only Constitutionally legal method of gaining additional authority or power is by process of Amendment. It must be delegated or granted by those who originally retain it, which is We The People.
Laws that have been enacted using the preamble for justification have no Constitutional validity whatsoever. It is in reality nothing more than the exercise of tyrannical power gained by usurpation of authority. And any court that declares differently is being deliberately deceptive.
The following from a man that would soon be appointed one of the original justices of the United States Supreme Court. Gives a good definition as to the fundamental meaning of We The People’s Constitution:
"When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve: and therefore upon every question, respecting the jurisdiction of the house of assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating foederal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced: and the congressional authority is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant, expressed in the instrument of union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case, everything which is not reserved, is given: but in the latter, the reverse of the proposition prevails, and every thing which is not given, is reserved. This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights, a defect in the proposed constitution: for it would have been superfluous and absurd, to have stipulated with a foederal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges, of which we are not divested either by the intention or the act that has brought that body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press, which has been a copious subject of declamation and opposition: what controul can proceed from the foederal government, to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom? If, indeed, a power similar to that which has been granted for the regulation of commerce, had been granted to regulate literary publications, it would have been as necessary to stipulate that the liberty of the press should be preserved inviolate, as that the impost should be general in its operation. With respect, likewise, to the particular district of ten miles, which is to be the seat of government, it will undoubtedly be proper to observe this salutary precaution, as there the legislative power will be vested in the president, senate, and house of representatives of the United States. But this could not be an object with the convention: for it must naturally depend upon a future compact; to which the citizens immediately interested, will, and ought to be parties: and there is no reason to suspect, that so popular a privilege will in that case be neglected. In truth, then, the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press; and it would have been merely nugatory, to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject; nay,that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent."--James Wilson, [Soon to be appointed one of the original Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court] Substance Of An Address To A Meeting Of The Citizens Of Philadelphia, Delivered, October Sixth, MDCCLXXXVII,  By The Honorable James Wilson, Esquire, One Of The Delegates From The State of Pennsylvania, To The Late Constitutional Convention. Pg. 155-157. [Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
Let us next enter into the study of the body of the Constitution itself. In order to see what authority or power had actually been delegated to our government concerning arms. It will be seen that in Article. I; Section. 8; Clauses 15 & 16, the Constitution states the following:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
The Constitution then goes on to state in Article. II; Section. 2:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
Mr. James Madison himself then slams the point home here:
“Mr. MADISON thought the regulation of the militia naturally appertaining to the authority charged with the public defence.”–August 18. (1787), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5, Pg. 444]
So it is seen then, that the only authority or power that had been expressly constitutionally delegated or granted by We The People, was over arms in the hands of the “the militia” for the “common defense”. There is nothing in the body of the Constitution that even suggests that the authority or power therein delegated. Had been intended in any way to extend over arms in the hands of We The People at large. Which, as was shown previously, is indisputably a preexisting right of We The People. And it is a maxim of written Constitutions, that where no authority or power has been delegated – none can be exercised. As had been made clear by Mr. Wilson in the above quotation.
Other excuses illegitimately proffered by our hired servants in attempt to justify their errant claims of authority and power over the individual right to keep and bear arms are equally defective. One such claim, is that of the “necessary and proper” clause. Which is plainly false, for that clause specifically states its actual meaning in the following manner:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
In other words, the “laws” to be made are those which are “necessary and proper” in order to exercise the authority and power that had been delegated. And most certainly not to create new authority or power which had not only never been delegated, but expressly withheld.
Our hired servants have also attempted to justify their usurpation of authority or power with the claim that it is an implied or incidental power. Which claim is not only unsupported by sound Constitutional construction. But is thoroughly refuted using the same reasoning as that applied to the “necessary and proper” clause. In either event, all such claims are plainly made void due to all doubt having been removed in the express terms of the “Restrictive clause” of Amendment II. Which shows that Congress had been expressly Constitutionally DENIED the 'authority' and 'power' over arms in the hands of We The People at large. This fact will be conclusively proven in the following:
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
As presented to the States for Ratification
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their 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 ensure 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; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. . . .
. . . Amendment II
DECLARATORY clause; [Common Defense]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]
the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.
If Amendment II were expounded upon using the same spirit of law as had been employed when it was originally presented to the States for ratification. Then it could very well have read:
‘Due to the fact that limited authority and power has already been delegated in the original Constitution over a “well regulated militia”. And it is hereby declared that the militia is indeed “necessary to the security of a free state”. Nevertheless, there has been fears expressed by the people, that the authority and power delegated might be misconstrued. And result in the abuse of that authority or power over their preexisting right to keep and bear their own personal arms. Therefore, we declare that the right of the people to keep and bear their own personal arms shall not be infringed. Thereby restricting all authority and power over that individual right of the people, in order to calm their fears.’
Now let’s delve deeper, and examine the definition of “declaratory” from out of Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, shall we? Get ready, because this is a good one:
DECLAR'ATORY, a. Making declaration, clear manifestation, or exhibition ; expressive ; as, this clause is declaratory of the will of the legislature. The declaratory part of a law, is that which sets forth and defines what is right and what is wrong. A declaratory act, is an act or statute which sets forth more clearly and explains the intention of the legislature in a former act.
Then let’s take a look at the definition of “restrictive” in all its forms:
RESTRICT', v.t. [L. restrictus, from restringo. See Restrain.]
To limit; to confine; to restrain within bounds; as, to restrict words to a particular meaning ; to restrict a patient to a certain diet.
RESTRICTED, pp. Limited ; confined to bounds.
RESTRICTING, ppr. Confining to limits.
RESTRICTION, n. [Fr. from L. restrictus.]
1. Limitation ; confinement within bounds.
This is to have the same restriction as all other recreations. Gov. of the Tongue.
Restriction of words, is the limitation of their signification in a particular manner or degree.
2. Restraint ; as restrictions on trade.
RESTRICT'IVE, a. [Fr. restrictif] Having the quality of limiting or of expressing limitation ; as a restrictive particle.
2. Imposing restraint; as restrictive laws of trade.
Can there be any mistaking the clearly defined meaning of those words? No, there most certainly cannot. It is therefore made absolutely, abundantly and perfectly clear. That Congress had not only never been delegated any 'authority' or 'power' in the original Constitution over our individual right to keep and bear our own personal arms. But had been expressly denied any such claim of authority or power by subsequent Constitutional Amendment.
To expound even further; due to apprehensions that the authority and power which had already been delegated in the original Constitution. Might be so misconstrued, as intended to have also extended over the individual right of We The People to keep and bear our own personal arms, apart from the militia. It was then demanded to be made clear that is not the intention. So THAT pretense of any ‘authority’ and ‘power’ having actually been delegated over the preexisting right of the people was specifically removed.
And this even though the right was both admitted and understood by the framers of our original Constitution as having already been beyond the control of American governments. Which is yet another fact that is made absolutely clear by Mr. Alexander Hamilton here:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an inﬁnitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
"The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. 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."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28, Independent Journal Friday, December 26, 1787.
We then have the following from a famous U.S. Senator of the period:
"It is true, the yeomanry* of the country possess the lands, the weight of property, possess arms, and are too strong a body of men to be openly offended — and, therefore, it is urged, they will take care of themselves, that men who shall govern will not dare pay any disrespect to their opinions."--Richard Henry Lee, Oct. 10, 1787, Letters Of A Federal Farmer. Pg. 294 [Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
(* - YEOMANRY, n. The collective body of yeomen or freeholders. Thus the common people in America, are called the yeomanry.--Webster's 1828 Dictionary).
[Richard Henry Lee, (Jan. 20, 1732 – June 19, 1794), was an American statesman from Virginia. Justice of the Peace for Westmoreland County, Virginia, (1757). Virginia House of Burgesses, (1758–1775). Member of the Continental Congress, (1774–1779, 1784–1785, 1787). A Signer of the Declaration of Independence, (1776). Virginia House of Delegates, (1777, 1780, 1785). President of the Confederation Congress, (Nov. 30, 1784 – Nov. 4, 1785). U.S. Senator from Virginia, (March 4, 1789 – Oct. 8, 1792), President pro tempore during the Second Congress, (April 18 – Oct. 8, 1792).
As well as this gentleman in reference to the fears of a standing army:
“The eighth section was again read.
"The Hon. Mr. SEDGWICK went into a general answer to the objections which had been started against the powers to be granted to Congress by this section. He showed the absolute necessity there was that the body which had the security of the whole for their object, should have the necessary means allowed them to effect it; and in order to secure the people against the abuse of this power, the representatives and people, he said, are equally subject to the laws, and can, therefore, have but one and the same interest; that they would never lay unnecessary burdens, when they themselves must bear a part of them; and from the extent of their objects, their power ought necessarily to be illimitable. Men, said he, rarely do mischief for the sake of being mischievous. With respect to the power, in this section, to raise armies, the honorable gentleman said, although gentlemen had thought it a dangerous power, and would be used for the purpose of tyranny, yet they did not object to the Confederation in this particular; and by this, Congress could have kept the whole of the late army in the field, had they seen fit. He asked, if gentlemen could think it possible that the legislature of the United States should raise an army unnecessarily, which, in a short time, would be under the control of other persons; for, if it was not to be under their control, what object could they have in raising it? It was, he said, a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved. How is an army for that purpose to be obtained from the freemen of the United States? They certainly, said he, will know to what object it is to be applied. Is it possible, he asked, that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves and their brethren? or, if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?”--The Hon. Mr. [Theodore] Sedgwick, Thursday January 24, 1788 Debates In The Convention Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts, On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution. [Elliots Debates Vol. 2, Pgs. 96-97]
There can be no mistaking the plain intent of what Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Lee or Mr Sedgwick had stated above. It is beyond any possibility of argument or refute. It simply cannot be brushed aside as being inconsequential or irrelevant. Or claimed as having no real bearing, depth, substance or weight. It is the actual cold, hard Constitutional FACT of the matter. And is plainly the original widely accepted intent of our Constitutional Republic even prior to the Bill of Rights. We The People were intended to be armed against all enemies; foreign or domestic. And this for our own individual Self-Defense, as well as the common defense.
Due to the fact that the "Restrictive clause" of Amendment II was made “part” of the Constitution. The prohibition then extends to all forms of American governments; local, state, and federal as well. For by the process of having amended the Constitution and including that right as one of the "liberties" to be "secured" by the Supreme Law. It thereby makes it "valid to all intents and purposes" as part of that Supreme instrument. Therefore the guaranties and prohibitions within the original Constitution apply as well to Amendment II. To Wit:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
No one can possibly contend that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not an "immunity". For the words "shall not be infringed" expressly declare that it is indeed.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Since Amendment II, specifically the Restrictive clause; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Has been adopted as part of the Constitution; it "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution". Which of course means the following applies:
Article VI; Clauses 2 & 3:
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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The intention of the above is undeniably clear. All State Constitutions are to be in harmony with the United States Constitution. And anything in the laws or Constitutions of any State that conflicts with the Supreme Law has no true legal standing or validity. For the language of that Supreme Law cannot possibly be misinterpreted nor mistaken. That the above is indeed the correct understanding of the purpose of Amendment II is made clear by this famous U.S. Senator in the following:
“From among the rights retained by our policy, we have selected those of self defence or bearing arms, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, out of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights.”–John Taylor, U.S. Senator, (1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24). [An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; The Good Moral Principles Of The Government Of The United States, (1814).]
And when Mr. Madison had originally presented the Amendments to Congress, he had stated that our liberties were intended to be “perpetual”:
“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. . . .”
“. . . It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the Constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption.”--James Madison, Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, June 8th, 1789.
How can something intended to be secured in “perpetual” fashion be infringed upon? Simple; it cannot.
The facts presented above conclusively prove beyond all shadow of doubt. That Congress has done nothing more than tyrannically usurp ‘authority’ and ‘power’ over our individual right, (as have some American cities and States). Thus making any 'Gun Control Laws' which they have already enacted, or may enact in the future, legally null and void. For not only were they never delegated any 'authority' or 'power' to enact such 'laws'. But they had been expressly forbidden from enacting any such 'law' by Constitutional Amendment. Which Amendment, as seen above is; “to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution.”
Mr. Alexander Hamilton again makes the point directly above perfectly clear here:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to afﬁrm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
He then went on to state:
"This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humours 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 mean time, 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, 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."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
That the above is indeed the correct Constitutional construction according to actual rule of law is conclusively proven by the following:
“Baldwin J charged the jury….”
“The first section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania declares that all men have the inherent and indefeasible right of enjoying and defending life and liberty of acquiring possessing and protecting property that no man can be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land Sect 9 That the right of citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned Sect 21 The second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United States declares the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The tenth section of the first article prohibits any state from passing any law which impairs the obligation of a contract. The second amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“…We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union–in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable–so recognised by all our fundamental laws.
“The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws.
“…A higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laws 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” Const U.S., art. 6, clause 2.
“An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382.
“We have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or regulations which are repugnant to them, or which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured; the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than stated.”--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Baldwin, Charge to the Jury, Circuit Court of The United States, [Pennsylvania April Term 1833 Before Hon. Henry Baldwin, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon Joseph Hopkinson District Judge, Johnson v Tompkins (13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]
“The Constitution and laws of the United States “are the supreme law of the land,” anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding.” Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: “Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom….As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed.”–Charge To The Grand Jury By The Court, United States Circuit Court, District Of Missouri, Special July Term, Present: Hon. John Catron, An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States. 1861. JULY 10, 1861.
“Judge Woods, [later associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1880–87)], charged the jury as follows:
“The right to bear arms is also a right protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Every citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms, provided it is done for a lawful purpose and in a lawful manner. A man who carries his arms openly, and for his own protection, or for any other lawful purpose, has as clear a right to do so as to carry his own watch or wear his own hat.”–Circuit Court of the United States Fifth Circuit and District of Louisiana, The United States vs. William J Cruikshank et al. [United States v. Cruikshank, 25 F. Cas. 707 (1 Woods, 308) (C.C.D. La. 1874) (No. 14,897), aff’d, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). ]
The courts have obviously and plainly laid aside their sworn “duty as faithful guardians of the constitution”. And have instead upheld and defended clear violations of “the Supreme Law of the land”. Thus making them complicit in those unconstitutional violations. Proving that they are no longer “faithful”, and are instead guilty of aiding and abetting in the systematic violation of our Constitution.
The courts have concurred with and upheld as well as defended almost every last violation; federal, state and local, of our right to keep and bear arms. Instead of doing their Constitutionally charged duty of ensuring that the right “shall not be infringed”. What else can that be called, other than shear contempt for our Constitution and the right intended to be “secured” by that Supreme instrument? Not to mention an utter contempt for We The People ourselves? And we are paying for these judges and justices salaries? So that they can continue on a course of betraying us? Which begs the question, who are these supposed hired servants really working for? All evidence proves that it most certainly is NOT We The People.
Just because our hired servants have been permitted to get away with the exercise of their tyrannically usurped authority and power in the past. By no means provides legal justification for them to continue in violating our Constitution even further. And this, despite any ruling that any court may declare to the contrary. For the Constitution is the “Supreme law of the land”, and not the courts. The courts themselves are expressly bound by that Supreme instrument, and can in no wise rule against it. Any attempt by the court to do so provides clear evidence of either criminal intent, or outright ignorance.
No, what it really means is that none of the prior violations, or rulings upholding them, have any Constitutional validity whatsoever. Nor will any future violations, or rulings which may uphold them, be valid by any means. For all such violations or rulings are in reality nothing more than clear and direct violations of our Constitution - “the Supreme Law of the land”. And We The People are under no truly legal obligation to observe those repugnant laws or rulings. For we had expressly bound ALL our hired servants in government from doing any such thing. A written Constitution is meaningless if it can be disregarded at will by those which were intended to be bound by it.
How can it possibly be contended, with any real sense of honesty or integrity, that the creature is above the ones which created it in the first place? The mere suggestion that such is what was actually intended by the establishment of our Constitution is utterly insane. For what would have been the real purpose of establishing a limited Constitution. If limitations imposed by that Supreme instrument could be ignored by the very ones against whom those limitations were intended to apply? Establishing such a Constitution would have been nothing more than an actual exercise of futility - a totally meaningless gesture. The same as would be the claim by the creature; if it were to contend that it has the power to set aside the express will of its master. And this, if only it can indeed come up with a plausible enough excuse to do so. Yet this is precisely the same type of faulty reasoning and excuses that our hired servants expect us to swallow from them. In essence all that they are actually doing is attempting to baffle us with pure bullshit. Such as the following quote by the U.S. Supreme Court in their Heller decision:
"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
How can that claim by the court, which itself is just a mere creature of the Constitution, stand up against the Supreme Law of the land, which states:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Especially in light of what the Supreme Law states in Article VI; Clause 2:
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.
Basically what the court had insinuated in the above Heller quote. Is that; 'previous infringements cannot be questioned because we say so, regardless of what the Supreme Law states to the contrary'. Which of course is an outright lie. For repugnance to the Constitution is still repugnant, regardless of how 'longstanding' that repugnance has been permitted. And that a court has the unmitigated gall to declare infringements to be ‘lawful’, is just as repugnant to that Supreme Law. There are no qualifications, exceptions, or exemptions in the “Restrictive clause” of Amendment II PERIOD. The words; “ shall not be infringed” make that entirely and perfectly clear. All the court had accomplished in their Heller opinion, is the dismissal of our Constitution and justifications of prior infringements. Even though the court [finally] admitted that we have an individual right. They then turned around and upheld and defended the prior infringements of that Constitutionally secured right. Which is of itself nothing more than a plain violation of the Constitution that the court is sworn by solemn oath to uphold and defend.
Does that not clearly indicate that the court actually thinks that it is indeed above the Constitution itself? And has in fact ruled that prior violations of the Constitution should not be "cast" into "doubt"? How can that possibly be? Because one of the creatures states it to be so? Hardly. All it actually proves, is either the gross ignorance of the court itself. Or, that the court has willingly combined with the legislature and executive departments, (also merely creatures of the Constitution), in open conspiracy to violate our Constitution.
Past infringements most certainly do not justify previous, current or future infringements. As ALL infringements are expressly prohibited by the “Supreme Law of the land”. What our Constitution, and the rights secured by that Supreme instrument, meant back in 1791. It still means NOW, regardless of what our hired servants in government perversely claim to the contrary.
There is another fact which bears very convincing testimony that the federal government not only lacks the delegated authority and power to enact any ‘gun control laws’. In addition to the fact of being expressly denied that authority or power by Constitutional Amendment. For history itself provides irrefutable proof of those very facts, in that there were no federal ‘gun control laws’ from 1791 to 1934. The only ‘laws’ the federal government had enacted during those 143 years. Were those intended to enforce or support the right of We The People to keep and bear our own personal arms. From whence then did the federal government magically connive this supposed ‘authority’ and ‘power’? The answer is simple, by the only means they possibly could have: tyrannical usurpation.
The only true Constitutional authority or power that our governments have over our right to keep and bear arms. Is in providing punishments for abuse or criminal misuse of that right. But they are expressly forbidden from interfering with or inhibiting that right in any degree. As it is clearly the Constitutionally secured right of all free American citizens.
Any officer in our governments that attempts to enforce unconstitutional ‘laws’ is in clear violation of their solemn oath to “uphold and defend” our Constitution. And should suffer punishment for so doing. As should the courts, who have repeatedly upheld and even defended these open violations of our Constitution. Oh, and let’s not forget the presidents, governors and mayors that have signed these perversions into laws. Which of course makes them equally as guilty as the legislatures and courts.
The institution of our government was originally done under the presumption that there is a Divine Creator in control of human affairs. Only We The People are not obliged to believe in God as dictated by a government controlled church, or a church controlled government. Nor are we mandated to believe in God at all, if that is our choice. We The People, operating under the “transcendent law of nature and of natures God” in our collective and individual capacity. (As we have operated since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.) Hold our rights at the suffrage of our Creator, and not our governments. We formed our governments, in part, to “secure” those “blessings of liberty”. Not to tell us what our liberties are, or how, when and where we can exercise them. Our governments were established in order to make sure that we could and would be able to exercise them without any interference.
We The People are the “legitimate” and ultimate authority” here in the United States. And when our government operates in a manner that conflicts with one of the main purposes for which it was originally established. Which is of course for the security of our natural rights. Then that “institution must be sacrificed”:
“9. “The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States, ratifying the same.
“This article speaks for itself. The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable.
“Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
“The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself.”--James Madison, The Federalist No. 43, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 23, 1788.
We The People possess certain natural rights that are the direct gift of our Creator. We do not hold these rights at the behest of our governments, but of God. And We The People formed our governments, in part, to “secure” those natural rights to us perpetually:
“But although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the States as well as the Federal Constitution, we shall find that although some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency.
“It may be said, in some instances, they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind. This, to be sure, is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a Constitution.
“In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”--James Madison, Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, June 8th, 1789.
Since our Constitution is, in fact; “binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually”. That means that ALL of We The People are bound by that Supreme instrument. And since “no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it.” That clearly provides that our right to keep and bear arms applies on every square inch of sovereign United States territory. And no ‘government’ entity whatsoever, or business, school, etc. Which themselves are only permitted to operate under the rules and regulations that We The People have set down. Has any authority or power to insist that We The People first divest ourselves of our Constitutionally secured right before entering those premises. If it wasn’t for We The People; those governments, businesses or other institutions wouldn’t even exist to begin with. WE allowed them to exist, and they will in turn allow us to exercise our inalienable natural right. Otherwise we will CEASE in permitting them to operate on our sovereign territory. Simple and valid proposition, isn’t it?
Our Constitution was established under the assumption that there would be enough people with honesty, honor and integrity within our government to “uphold and defend” it. If not, then there would be enough brave and enlightened citizens that would stand up. And exercise their rights secured by Amendments I & II, in order to force our hired servants to abide by it. But as should be painfully obvious to all, neither of the above appears to be the case any longer.
If our hired servants have chosen to loosen themselves from the bounds of our Constitution. Then We The People are no longer bound in obedience to them as well. We owe them nothing more than our utter contempt. Our true allegiance lies to our Creator, and in maintaining the rights that He blessed us with. Not to the vile creature that we ourselves created, which no longer has allegiance to anyone or anything. Other than itself, its greed, and its lust for more control and power.
The only reason that these tyrants have been able to get away with their obvious treason. Is due to the fact that they have been successful in dividing us: By race, religion, political party, social, economic and various other means. John Marshall, (before becoming Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court), while sitting in the debates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Had made the now famous statement; “United We Stand, divided we fall”. And it certainly appears that he was correct in his assessment. For our nation is definitely in a downward spiral. Realistically, we are already financially enslaved. And the value of our dollar isn’t even worth the paper that it is printed on. It costs more to print than it’s worth. We are getting very close in appearance to Germany just prior to the takeover by the Nazi’s. Do we really want to go down that same type of path?
"No form of government can preserve a nation which can't controul the party rage of its own citizens; when any one citizen can rise above the controul of the laws, ruin draws near. 'Tis not possible for any nation on earth, to hold their strength and establishment, when the dignity of their government is lost, and this dignity will forever depend on the wisdom and firmness of the officers of government, aided and supported by the virtue and patriotism of their citizens."--Pelatiah Webster, The Weakness of Brutus exposed: Or, some Remarks in Vindication of the Constitution proposed by the late Federal Convention, against the Objections and gloomy Fears of that Writer, Humbly offered to the Public, By a Citizen of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Printed for, and to be had of John Sparhawk, in Market-Street, near the Court House / M.DCC.LXXXVlI. (Nov. 4, 1787) Pg. 131 [Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
We used to be one of the most admired and envied nations in the entire world. Now we are one of the most despised and detested, and for very valid reasons.
If one cannot recognize and acknowledge the fact that the people in power perpetrating this treason are nothing more than pure evil. Then any hope of appealing to your sense of reason is hopelessly futile. And if you are one of those that are actually assisting in the perpetration of this treason against We The People. (And you know who you are; those in the media, major corporations, banking industry, press, etc.) You are nothing more than useless underlings that are unworthy of drawing another breath of free American air. When your ‘masters’ turn on you, and turn on you they will. Just remember that you yourselves were the authors of your own destruction. You will have no one else to blame other than yourself. You are no better than the ones Stalin had referred to as “useful idiots”. And you can be assured that your ‘masters’ will dispose of you once your usefulness to them is no longer required. For corrupt power has no loyalty to any one or anything.
This nation has morphed into some perverse combination of; aristocratic, communist, democratic, Nazi, and socialist style of government. Rather than the intended Constitutional Republican form that was originally established.
If We The People are willing to have our right to keep and bear arms perverted by our hired servants in government. Then what other rights are we equally as willing to have perverted? For by allowing the establishing of a precedent in the perversion of one right. It establishes the justification for the perversion of all of the rest of our rights. That is just the way corrupt power in government works. And once rights are permitted to be destroyed, then soon total domination takes place not long thereafter. History has proven it over and over again repeatedly.
How do We The People stop the open disrespect and repeated violations of our Constitution?
As well as the continued utter disregard for our liberties and rights?
Will we be forced to fight to regain our rights and liberties, as our predecessors had to?
Or will enough real American people finally come to their senses and realize the errors of their ways?
The latter is certainly the event to be most hoped for. And it is indeed possible, if enough of us stand up to make the actual truth be known. For truth will always triumph over lies in the end. Truth must be shouted from the rooftops however, and has to be loud and clear in order to be heard.
The point is, that something must be done while we are still able to do so. Otherwise, the chains that our forebears had refused to have riveted on their necks. Will soon be fashioned around the necks of their posterity. And anyone who actually thinks that “it can’t happen here”. Is woefully ignorant of the history of this world, as well as of the evil present in fallen human nature. If you can’t hear the rattling of the chains off in the distance, then you need new batteries for your hearing aids.