"April 10th (1788). Frankfort. Hocheim. Mayence. The little tyrants round about having disarmed their people, and made it very criminal to kill game, one knows when they quit the territory of Frankfort by the quantity of game which is seen. In the Republic, everybody being allowed to be armed, and to hunt on their own lands, there is very little game left in its territory. The hog hereabouts resembles extremely the little hog of Virginia. Round like that, a small head, and short upright ears. This makes the ham of Mayence so much esteemed at Paris."
- Thomas Jefferson, Miscellany, 1784-1788, TRAVEL JOURNALS, "Memorandums on a Tour from Paris to Amsterdam, Strasburg, and back to Paris" March 3, 1788.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
We The People instituted our government(s) to "SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". We, todays People, ARE that posterity! And those in our government(s) ARE still OUR SERVANTS. And, our SERVANTS have no business subverting our Right. Or, anything that is incidentally necessary to be able to enjoy the unhindered exercise of that specific Right.
On the linked page on Red's website. You will find an Online Petiton. To date, there are 1922 signatures on the petition. Commentary is allowed, as well as anonymity. Let's bury them with signatures....
Special thanks to David Codrea at the War on Guns for bringing this to our attention!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
To put it mildly, Matthew Dennis obviously doesn't know what he is writing about. There is substantial proof of individual right. Following is just some brief crucial facts:
First, The Right to bear arms was a preexistent natural right. Here is as it appeared prior to the Constitution;
"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, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England
And, here is the new and improved right following ratification of the Constitution/Bill of Rights;
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."
"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).
Mr. Madison makes clear the distinction 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]
The U.S. Senate then solidifies it here;
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789.
“...On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words, 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'
“It passed in the negative.
“On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words, 'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'
“It passed in the affirmative.
“On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows: 'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
“It passed in the affirmative....”
It is then even further clarified by Mr. Jonathan Elliot, (a very well recognized authority on the Constitution), here;
"Take a close look, if you will, at the photo copied page below. The copy is of Page XV from Volume I of Elliot's Debates from our United States Government website "The Library of Congress" which has a section named "American Memory", (linked to actual page). Pay particular attention to the second line down, (on the left hand side). Which reads "Rights of the citizen declared to be --". Then look at the fourth line down below the aforementioned heading that reads "To keep and bear arms". Another line on the page that is of interest is line number sixteen, (Page 9); "That the enumeration of certain rights shall not operate constructively against the retained rights". Below the photo copy is a description of Elliot's Debates, also directly quoted from the United States government website...."And there is a vast amount of more irrefutable facts proving an individual right. American's have always been armed. Even our First President provided substantial proof of that fact. The "inalienable right" has been slaughtered, or "infringed" if you will. By usurping Congresses, as well as by the courts. You might want to consider this. When they get done totally slaughtering the Second Amendment. That there will be nothing to prevent them from slaughtering all of the rest. For, what will be in their way to prevent them?
E. David Quammen
Thursday, March 22, 2007
"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control and suppress its enjoyment. . . . A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal constitution. . . . Thus it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce. . . . This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the State. The privilege in question exists apart from State authority. It is guaranteed the People by the federal constitution."
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
"The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the "government", not to "society"; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage."
- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93.
"[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression."
- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93.
"It was absolutely necessary to carry arms for fear of pirates, &c. and ... their arms were all stamped with peace, that they were never to be used but in case of hostile attack, that it was in the law of nature for every man to defend himself, and unlawful for any man to deprive him of those weapons of self defence."
- Boston Independent Chronicle, Oct. 25, 1787.
"But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, &c. [S]o in forming a government on its true principles, the foundation should be laid in the manner I before stated, by expressly reserving to the people such of their essential rights, as are not necessary to be parted with."
- "Brutus", New York Journal, Nov. 1, 1787.
"Let these truths sink deep into our hearts: that the people are the masters of their rulers and that rulers are the servants of the people ― that men cannot give to themselves what they own from nature ― that a free government is no more than a few plain directions to a number of servants, how to take care of a part of their master's property ― and that a master reserves to himself the exclusive care of all that property, and of every thing else which he has not committed to the care of those servants."
- "One of the People", Federal Gazette (PHILADELPHIA), July 2, 1789.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"Please state, in your own words, what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means to you. Do you understand the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual or a collective right?"
“The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of Americans to protect their families and their communities and their nation with firearms. In this age of post-911, Americans, I believe are comforted by the fact that our ability to resist terrorism is not limited to law enforcement or defense agencies but is also within the ability of all gun-owning Americans.” ...
Definitely has some promise, so far! The rest of the article can be read over at J.R's place: A Keyboard and a .45: An Interview With Duncan Hunter
This was a good idea on J.R's part. We should all seriously consider doing the same. We need to let ALL the politicians know. That Americans are, once again, concerned with our God-given, inherent and inalienable rights. And that we expect OUR Constitution to be adherred to. In the same intent as was clearly expressed when it was first written.
Getting the politicians to clearly and concisely state their views on crucial issues. Provides us a more informed method of casting our all important vote wisely....
Monday, March 19, 2007
"The right of the people to bear arms in their own defence, and to form and drill military organizations in defence of the State, may not be very important in this country, but it is significant as having been reserved by the people as a possible and necessary resort for the protection of self-government against usurpation, and against any attempt on the part of those who may for the time be in possession of State authority or resources to set aside the constitution and substitute their own rule for that of the people. Should the contingency ever arise when it would be necessary for the people to make use of the arms in their hands for the protection of constitutional liberty, the proceeding, so far from being revolutionary, would be in strict accord with popular right and duty."
- Thomas M. Cooley, The Abnegation of Self-Government, The Princeton Rev., July-Dec. 1883, at 209, 213-14, [Levinson, supra note 15, at 649 n.64.]
"The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the Gun Owners Alliance both claim that the GCA was inspired by the earlier National Weapons Law of Nazi Germany. This claim, disputed by some, is based on the JPFO's findings that the GCA's author, Senator Thomas J. Dodd, requested that the Library of Congress translate a copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law of Germany (which he most likely obtained while serving as a war-crimes prosecutor at Nuremberg), and adapt its language to the American legal system. A side-by-side comparison of the two laws supports the existence of several similarities with the Nazi-era law, which was used to strip opposition groups, dissidents, Jews, and other undesirables from their ability to defend themselves or conduct an effective underground resistance movement within Nazi Germany. The primary similarities stem from key gun control concepts like 'sporting use' and 'prohibited persons', all of which subsequently appeared in the Gun Control Act of 1968."
Sunday, March 18, 2007
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
"More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
- U.S Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
"It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them."
- Thomas Jefferson, Note on Crimes Bill. Washington ed. i, 159. Ford ed., ii, 218. (1779).
Friday, March 09, 2007
Quote from SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge:
"Appellants contest the district court's dismissal of their complaint alleging that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as today's National Guard. We reverse."
(Click post title to access full PDF on the ruling).
Thursday, March 08, 2007
An Estimate of the National Debt, viz:
Due to the farmers general of France, ... 1,000,000
To individuals in France on unliquidated accounts, estimated, ... 3,000,000
To the Crown of France, including a loan of ten millions borrowed in Holland, and for which France is guarantee, ... 28,000,000
To ditto, a loan, for 1783, ... 6,000,000
at 5 livres 8 sous per dol. ... 7,037,037
To lenders in Holland, received in part of the loan contracted for by Mr. J. Adams, 1,678,000 florins, ... 671,200
Borrowed in Spain by Mr. Jay, ... 150,000
One year's interest of Dutch loan of 10,000,000 livres, ... 26,848
Foreign debt, 1 January, 1783, ... 7,885,085
On loan-office certificates, reduced to specie value, ... 11,463,802
Interest unpaid for 1781, ... 190,000
Ditto 1782, ... 687,828
Credit to sundries in treasury books, ... 638,042
Army debt to 31 December, 1782, ... 5,635,618
Unliquidated debt, estimated at, ... 8,000,000
Commutation to the army, agreeable to the act of 22 March last, ... 5,000,000
Bounty due to privates, ... 500,000
Deficiencies in 1783, suppose ... 2,000,000
... 34, 115, 290
Total debt, ... 42,000,375
Annual Interest of the debt of the United States:
On the foreign debt, part at 4 and part at 5 per cent. ... 369,038.6
On the domestic debt, at 6 per cent. ... 2,046,917.4
[Note 1: 1 This estimate was also entered in the Book of Estimates, No. 12. Another estimate of the public debt in the writing of Thomas FitzSimons is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 26, folio 403. The interest, however, on the foreign debt is computed at 4 %, and gives the amount as $315,403.]
2, 415, 956
- Journals of the Continental Congress, TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1783
And that was after seven years of war. Which was paid off in the early 1800's. Gee, look at us now....
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
In the construction of a law, even in judiciary cases of meum et tuum, where the opposite parties have a right & counter-right in the very words of the law, the Judge considers the intention of the law-giver as his true guide, and gives to all the parts & expressions of the law, meaning which will effect, instead of defeating, it's intention. But in laws merely executive, where no private right stands in the way, and the public object is the interest of all, a much freer scope of construction, in favor of the intention of the law, ought to be taken, & ingenuity ever should be exercised in devising constructions, which may save to the public the benefit of the law. Its intention is the important thing: the means of attaining it quite subordinate. It often happens that, the Legislature prescribing details of execution, some circumstance arises, unforeseen or unattended to by them, which would totally frustrate their intention, were their details scrupulously adhered to, & deemed exclusive of all others. But constructions must not be favored which go to defeat instead of furthering the principal object of their law, and to sacrifice the end to the means....
- letter to William H. Cabell, August 11, 1807. (Click headline to read full letter).
Thursday, March 01, 2007
...We have drawn our Swords in defence of a good Constitution & for the priviledge of being governed by laws of our own making. While you continue to the people these objects they will support you to the last penny in their purse & the last drop of their blood. Infringe their rights, invade the Confederation, & you can no longer assure yourself of the peoples support....
- [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 19.]