Sunday, June 26, 2016

How is it that so many are unaware of the difference between rights?

   There are quite a few people, including those within our governments. That think the right to keep and bear arms is a "civil right". When in actuality it is a natural right. Due to the fact that it has been inextricably linked to the inalienable natural right of self-defense.

   "Civil rights" belong to us as a result of having come together in a Constituted society. Where the people have outlined or permitted their fellow citizens to all have certain rights under certain conditions. And that the exercise of those civil rights are contingent upon obeying the rules of a regulated society.

   Whereas natural rights belong to us as a result of merely being born. These rights exist whether society agrees with them or not. Such as the right to speak or write my own opinions. Or to move freely within the bounds of public property or my own personal property. As well as the inalienable natural right to defend myself, otherwise known as "the first law of nature". These rights are only subject to penalties for violations of the rights of others. Such as if I were to intrude uninvited onto the property of another. Which in legal terms is known as trespassing. But my natural rights cannot otherwise be removed or limited by society. I am still left free to again trespass, as long as I am willing to again pay the penalty for so doing. And I can speak or write what I want, when I want. Again; if  I am willing to face the consequences of my words. But society cannot stop me from speaking or writing my words. Nor can society impede my ability to defend myself. For it is my natural right to do so, and it is inalienable. And follows me wherever I have a legal right to be.

   The above also applies to businesses that have an "Open" sign at their entrance, If a business is open to the public, of which I am one. Then my natural rights follow me wherever I go. For that "business" is only allowed to open its doors according to the rules and regulations established by our hired servants in government. And one of those "rules" is that our rights are respected. If that business cannot honor our rights, then it has no "right" to be open. This fact is made clear by the following:
   "But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 16, Tuesday, December 4, 1787.
   Who formed our Government? We The People, that's who. Who is our government? We The People, that's who. What is the government of the United States other than the People of each of the several states United into one? And the Constitution of these United States is "the Supreme Law of the land" which binds ALL that are united underneath it.

   It is true that I can be deprived of arms, (the most expedient means of defense), while in custody for having committed a crime. But the right of Self-Defense nevertheless remains, even while I'm in custody. But once I have served my lawfully imposed sentence, and am again free. Then I have every right to be able to defend myself with the most expedient means available, just as any other free person around me does. And according to the "Supreme Law of the Land", that right "shall NOT be infringed" upon.

'Gun Control Laws' have no Constitutionally legal foundation whatsoever. And, in fact, are nothing more than violations of the Supreme Law of the Land

   The U.S. Constitution, as presented on Sept. 17, 1787, had already delegated limited authority and power over the "militia" in Article I; Section 8; with the following:
   "To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 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." 
   And 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".
   The powers delegated were specifically intended for the "common defense", as is made clear 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".
   We The People however, were not satisfied that the extent of that delegated authority and power was made clear enough. So we demanded that it be made clear that the authority and power already delegated did not extend over arms in the hands of We The People at large. And this was done by amending the Constitution by enacting Amendment II as follows:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
   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.
   The "Restrictive" clause of Amendment II was enacted in order to "secure" that right against any government interferences. Like that made by the British government under General Gage over the people of Boston when he had disarmed them. Which is the one event most responsible for the start of our Revolution. As well as when the Massachusetts state government enacted a 'law' which disarmed those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion for a period of three years. The latter event having taken place just prior to and even during the Constitutional Convention that produced our current Constitution. And which latter event almost brought on another revolution. Those two events are the REAL reasons that Amendment II had been demanded in the first place.

   The true purpose of Amendment II is made clear by one of the most famous Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in the following:
   “Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers.”–Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
   In other words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" means precisely that which is written. Our governments are Constitutionally forbidden from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes that specific right. They have absolutely no Constitutionally legal authority or power over the right PERIOD. All that they have the authority to do, is enact laws that provide punishment for abuse or misuse of the right. All other 'laws' are nothing more than preemptive violations of the right with no Constitutionally legal authority. Which of course makes them null and void, because they have no legal force or Constitutional sanction. Those 'laws' are nothing more than meaningless words on paper.

The truly dangerous nature of 'gun control'

   First; it promotes cowardice, and resultant dependence upon an obviously corrupt government.

   Secondly; it allows our hired servants in government to think that they know better than We The People. And that our Constitution can be circumvented if 'conditions' [supposedly] require it. That the servants are in fact above their masters, and know better.

   Thirdly, it legitimizes further violations of We The People's Constitution.

   But the actual fact is that We The People Constitutionally removed our individual right to keep and bear arms from all government interferences. For it is a right that is crucial to the defense of ourselves and families. We had already delegated limited authority and power over the militia to our governments in our Constitutions. In order for them to be able to effectually provide for the "common defense". Thus leaving the individual free in the exercise of the inalienable natural right to provide for their own defense.

   In order to make it perfectly clear that the authority and power which had been granted only extended to the "common defense", we amended our Constitution. And bound our servants in government from infringing upon our individual right to keep and bear arms. Which is a right that existed prior to our Constitution. It is a right that our Constitution did not grant, nor can it take it away. Our Constitution only secures that individual right from any government interferences. Leaving the government only able to Constitutionally provide punishments for the abuse or misuse of the right.

   By the allowance of prior and further infringements. We The People are basically enabling our hired servants to disregard our Constitution at will. As long as they can come up with a plausible enough excuse which the tyrannical majority will be satisfied with. And therein lies the true danger.

   For if our government can use that same type of perversion against one right. Then what is to stop them from employing that same ruse against our other rights as well? For those that love and crave 'power' are never satisfied - they always want more. And are always able to come up with ready and seemingly plausible justifications for their power grabs.

   The whole intended purpose of a written Constitution, is to make it plain what those delegated authority and power "shall" and "shall not" do. And it applies to all governments in the United States; Federal, State, and Local. As well as to ALL branches of our governments; Executive, Judicial and Legislative. The Constitution - "the Supreme Law of the Land", is very clear about that fact. The Constitution leaves no room for the Executive department to sign into 'law' a bill which violates that Supreme Law. Nor does it permit the Judicial department to "rule" that any "infringement" is permissible. For the Constitution itself expressly declares that the right to keep and bear arms "shall NOT be infringed." And every branch of every government in the United States is expressly Constitutionally BOUND to observe and respect that right. There is no excuse for ANY "infringement" whatsoever.

   It is directly due to the unconstitutional "infringements" already enacted that we are having the problems we see today. If We The people had been left to exercise our right as is Constitutionally intended. Then the criminals perpetrating these cowardly 'mass shootings' wouldn't have stood a chance. They would have been shot down immediately and perhaps permanently the minute they tried their cowardly acts.

   All of these 'gun deaths' can be laid directly at the feet of the devious LIE-berals that caused them in the first place. For they would not have transpired had We The People been armed as is our Constitutionally secured right to be.

   How many more innocent people have to die unnecessarily due to cowardly, treasonous and unconstitutional LIE-beral 'gun control'?

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

The democrat sit-in in Congress . . .

   Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't what the democrats have done, by staging the sit-in in Congress. About the same as what a spoiled rotten brat kid would do? Which is basically; 'If I can't have it MY way, then I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue.' [To which a normal grandmother would reply: "Go ahead, you'll breath again after you pass out."]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

   Does not that statement in the title fit democrats perfectly? First they are the ones that enact the unconstitutional 'gun control' in order to [supposedly] solve a problem. And when it does not work, and instead makes the problem worse. They then enact even more of the same, while thinking it will be different this time. Is that not precisely what these traitors have been doing? And has it worked?

   How about returning to the way that is Constitutionally intended:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed."

  We would then see the roaches scurry back underneath the baseboard. For only a complete idiot would try to pull a criminal act. When it is common knowledge that they could very well pay for the misguided attempt with their life.

   How about we do the RIGHT way for once, and start coming up with different results? Only the cowardly and the guilty have anything to fear from an armed people.

Gun Control is what is directly responsible for all of our current problems

   Not only that, but unconstitutional gun control provides the impetus for creating even more problems. In that it causes We The People to accept the idea that our hired servants can disregard our Constitution. By floating out the idea that reasonable regulations/violations are acceptable. Thus effectively erasing all of the prohibitions We The People stipulated against our hired servants in government in the first place.

   We The People expressly denied our governments any authority or power over our right to keep and bear arms. They can only legally provide punishments for the ABUSE of those rights - not for the exercise of them.

   By allowing and accepting these infringements; under the guise of fear or that the infringements are reasonable. We thereby make it easier for our hired servants to continue on down the same road with ALL of our rights. Where soon our servants come up with plausible excuses to strip away all of them. Think that is taking the matter to far? All of the history of the governments of mankind prove that is precisely the end result. Why? Because; "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is an age-old and valid maxim. And is also one of the main reasons for the enactment of Amendment II. Which is of course meant to keep power in check. With the realization that an armed people are not going to be easily enslaved. That the power mad might very well have to answer for their lust for even more power with their lives. The amendment was intended as a deterrent to all enemies; whether foreign or domestic. It was meant to deter criminals in government, as well as those on our streets.

   The corrupt in power of course are aware of all of the above. And they shudder to think that more American citizens will come to the knowledge of the actual truth. For if We The people were all armed, as is Constitutionally intended. Then that would diminish our need for them to provide for our "defense". When the actual fact of the matter is, that our governments were delegated powers for the common defense. Leaving the individual citizen responsible for their own defense. And because they have successfully unconstitutionally restricted or removed the ability to defend ourselves. It makes We The People turn to them for defense. Which is precisely what they want, for it gives them more power and control. As well as makes us more dependent upon them. Creating massive bureaus, police departments, agencies, etc. All of which is paid for out of OUR pockets of course. How effective have these government solutions been? All one has to do is listen to the news to find out. Most, if not all government 'solutions' are miserably ineffective.

   The unconstitutional restrictions also have another added benefit to the perverse in 'power'. In that it creates a massive 'criminal justice system', which feeds on itself and grows. (One which would hardly exist if we were all armed as is intended.) For the law of Self-Preservation also applies to those with a criminal mindset. If they knew that they would very well pay for their criminal attempts - immediately and permanently. Then that would act as an almost insurmountable deterrent. Which the corrupt in power are also more than aware of.

   We The People need to FORCE our hired servants in government to return to governing as was Constitutionally intended. And stop allowing them to stray off the beaten path. Into areas where they were expressly Constitutionally forbidden from going. Our lives, freedom and liberties absolutely depend on it. Failure to act now, in a peaceful manner. Will result in either abject slavery, or an all out bloody revolution. All the history of mankind testifies of that fact.

James Madison: "as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual" . . .

   Let's examine the meaning of the following statement by Mr. James Madison; "The Father of the Constitution". Which was made when he had first introduced the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Congress:
   "It has been 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, June 8, 1789, U.S. House of Representatives. [The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. 12:196--209]
   Judge St. George Tucker, a man present at the debates concerning our Bill of Rights. Had stated that the "true palladium of liberty" was the "right of self defence". Which right of self defense also of course included the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". To Wit:
   "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."--Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
   So we see then that the right to keep and bear arms was definitely considered as one of the "liberties" intended to be secured in our Constitution.

   Next let us see what Mr. Madison had intended when he stated that "their liberties will be perpetual". The key operative word of course being "perpetual". The word "perpetual" is defined in Webster's 1828 Dictionary as follows:
PERPET'UAL, adjective [Latin perpetuus, from perpes, perpetis; per and pes, from a root signifying to pass.]

1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute.

[Literally true with respect to the decrees of the Supreme Being.]

2. Continuing or continued without intermission; uninterrupted; as a perpetual stream; the perpetual action of the heart and arteries.

3. Permanent; fixed; not temporary; as a perpetual law or edict; perpetual love or amity, perpetual incense. Exodus 30:8.

4. Everlasting; endless.

Destructions are come to a perpetual end. Psalms 9:6.

5. During the legal dispensation. Exodus 29:9.

Perpetual curacy, is where all the tithes are appropriated and no vicarage is endowed.

Perpetual motion, motion that generates a power of continuing itself forever or indefinitely, by means of mechanism or some application of the force of gravity; not yet discovered, and probably impossible.

Perpetual screw, a screw that acts against the teeth of a wheel and continues its action without end.
   So we see then that our rights were intended to be: "Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute." Which is the whole intended purpose of our rights being CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED.

   Why are We The People continuing to allow our hired servants to circumvent our rights? Rights which ALL branches of our governments were expressly Constitutionally FORBIDDEN from interfering with? Does anyone realize just how dangerous that is? That the hired servants have taken it upon themselves to decide that they know better than their MASTERS - We The People? We cannot permit this perversion, (however plausible the perversion may seem), to continue. For if permitted to continue We The People will soon have no rights at all. For ready justifications can and will be proffered by those in 'power' to erode every last one. Thus defeating the whole intended purpose of securing those rights in our Constitution to begin with.

   We The People instituted our government and established our Constitution, in part. In order to: "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." If our "liberties" can be restricted or removed at will by those that we hired to "secure" them. Then the whole intended purpose of our Constitution is defeated.

   This corrupt perversion must end - NOW!