[Also see: The Right to Armed Self-Defense]
John Hancock to the Colonies
Gentlemen, Philada. June 7th. 1776. I am commanded by Congress to transmit you the enclosed Resolves, and to request your immediate Attention to the same.(1)
The Article of Lead is so essentially necessary to us at this Juncture, and is withall so scarce, that no Pains should be spared to procure it. The Situation of the United Colonies will be extremely deploreable if we depend entirely upon the Importation of it. Every People should have, within themselves, all the Means of Self Defence. To the Bounty of Providence we owe it, that America has these in the greatest Plenty. Let us not therefore be wanting to ourselves, but faithfully and dilligently cultivate those Means; and I trust we shall, ere long, baffle the most malicious Schemes of our enraged & implacable Enemies.
You will readily perceive the great Importance of the enclosed Resolve, wherein the Congress earnestly recommend to you to remove every Thing out of the Way, that could enable our Enemies to prosecute their Plans of Violence agt. us. It is indeed so apparently the Advantage of Individuals to remove their Stock & grain, that in this Instance, their Interest, & that of the Public are one & the same.
I have the Honour to be, Gentlemen, you most obed. & very hble Svt. J. H. Prest.
LB (DNA: PCC, item 12A).
"Self-defence is the first law of nature, and applies to nations as well as individuals; and to provide for that defence is the duty of every nation, even when in the most profound Peace..."-- William Donnison, Adjutant general, General orders. Head-quarters, Boston, June 13th, 1797.
"Resolved, That the Convention of South Carolina can have no other or greater right to annul or resist the laws of Congress, than any assemblage of an equal number of individuals in any part of the United States; nor can any assemblage, however large, have any other or greater right for such a purpose, than belongs to each individual citizen, considered as a constitutional measure...."-- Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 4, 1833.
"...Suppose a citizen should shut himself up in his castle, and resist your process even unto the death of your officer; would you try, and condemn, and execute him? How, when, where? Suppose your Sergeant should apply to a magistrate of this city for a posse comitatus, and be refused, would punish the magistrate for a contempt? Can you punish editors who speak contemptuously of your proceedings? If so, God help the letter writers! Can you convert this House into a judicial tribunal, which shall be judge, witness, accuser, and prosecutor, in its own case, and inflict any punishment it chooses? If so, where is the freedom of the citizen, where our boasted trial by jury; where that "due process of law," that "liberty" guarantied by the constitution? Carry Out these undefined, discretionary doctrines, and it will demonstrate either your unbounded power or your utter impotency. Tell me not, sir, of the precedents of the British Parliament. That is a body confessedly omnipotent. This is one of limited powers. Their claim to punish for offences of this nature is drawn from a system of recognised law. We are mere agents for the exercise of limited and specific grants; and I thank God that it is so. I rejoice that freedom of speech and the right of self-defence cannot be curtailed; that all your enactments in relation to are void; that gentlemen cannot, if they would, have a legislative auto da fe, and burn every man for contempt who will not follow them or applaud their acts."--Mr. John Francis Hamtramck Clairborne, U.S. Representative from Mississippi, Feb. 10, 1837. [DEBATES IN CONGRESS PART II OF VOL. XIII. REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS: TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME XIII. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1837. Pgs. 1691-93]
"If the witness be sent before the committee, self-defence is the paramount law of our nature. Self-defence is one of the natural rights that all men in this country possess. Self-defence is one of the inalienable rights, dear to this witness, secured to all American citizens by the very nature of our free institutions; and if he goes, he must be permitted to go before the committee armed for his own protection; for he is apprized of the feelings of the honorable chairman of the committee towards him, by the expression of the honorable gentleman made on this floor. Sir, if we force the witness before the committee, and he goes there armed, (and I hold that we cannot think of forcing him there without the power to protect himself,) may not the result be such as we would regret, and would we not be responsible for the consequences? Let me ask, will not Whitney commit a greater contempt by going before the committee armed than he has done in refusing to go before the committee under the circumstances of this case? Then, sir, I believe Whitney, under the circumstances, is justified in refusing to appear before the committee. Then, if we order Whitney into custody, and to be brought to the bar of this House to answer, as a criminal, will we not do so in violation of all his rights as a citizen, and will we not establish a dangerous precedent?"--Mr. Samuel J. Gholson, U.S. Representative from Mississippi, Feb. 10, 1837. [DEBATES IN CONGRESS PART II. REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS: TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME XIII. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON 1837. Pg. 1701]
Mr. BAGG moved to insert the word "white" between the words "every" and "person."
Mr. B. said--I move the amendment simply because I wish, so far as our sable population is concerned, under the operation of our laws, to keep them in their present sphere. I would extend to them benefits and charity, &c., &c., but I would not let them come into our civil, political, social, conjugal, or connubial relations.
Mr. WILLIAMS--I would like to put one question. I know in Kalamazoo a native born citizen, a man of large possessions, who is a black man. Would you not put the means of self-defence in that man's hands? If a gang of kidnappers were to come into the State, would you deprive that man of the means of defending his home, his children and his property? . . ."
(a) See 2 Story, Const. 1896; 1 Black. Com. 148. [A party may use reasonable force to defend the possession of his property, but he cannot use force against the person in regaining or obtaining the possession of property to which he is entitled. 3 Black. Com. 4, 179; Sampson v. Henry, 11 Pick. 387; 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, 397; 1 Hilliard on Torts, ch. v. ss 12, pp 196, 197.]
(b) [This provision is not infringed by a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. State v. Jumel, 13 La. An. 399.]
[Nashville Union and American, Nashville, Tenn., Friday, January 21, 1870. New Series, No. 435. Pg. 1]
"There is an important distinction between firearms and fireworks. Some general knowledge of firearms is important to the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in case of war to organize promptly an efficient force of volunteers unless the people had some familiarity with weapons of war. The Constitution secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions practises in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right. No doubt a person whose residence or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a pistol for prudent self-defence. . . ."
"...As to guns and pistols, then the citizen who practises with them is in the exercise of a constitutional right; and to mulct him for any unfortunate consequences, proof is needed that he was careless. He must exercise due care to avoid doing mischief. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas--use your gun so as not to hurt another man--is a time honored maxim."--Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of Leading Topics in the Law of the Land. NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE  (Mr. Abbott graduated from New York University in 1850, and Harvard Law School in 1851. He was the secretary of the New York Code Commission, which drew up the state's penal code in 1864. He also served on a commission created to revise the statutes of the United States from 1870-1872).
"The court, in effect, said-or the jury may, not unreasonably, have understood the court as declaring-that preparation by arming, although for self-defense only, could not be followed, in any case, by manslaughter, if the killing, after such arming, was not, in fact, in necessary self- defense. Such we understand to be the meaning of the charge. In our opinion, the court erred in so charging the jury. If the accused was justified in the eye of the law in arming himself for self-defense,[Page 153 U.S. 183, 192] and if, without seeking, but on meeting, his adversary, on a subsequent occasion, he killed him, not in necessary self-defense, then his crime was that of manslaughter or murder, as the circumstances, on the occasion of the killing, made it the one or the other. If guilty of manslaughter, looking alone at those circumstances, he could not be found guilty of murder by reason of his having previously armed himself solely for self- defense."-- Mr. Justice HARLAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Gourko v. U.S., April 16, 1894.
"...The principal question in the case arises out of those parts of the charge in which the court instructed the jury as to the principles of the law of self-defense..."
"...'A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, habitation, or property against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a known felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary, and the like, upon either. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but may pursue his adversary until he has secured himself from all danger; and if he kill him in so doing it is called justifiable self-defense..."-- Mr. Justice HARLAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895.
"...The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 559, 15 S. Sup. Ct. 962. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him..."-- Mr. Justice [Oliver Wendell] HOLMES, U.S. Supreme Court, BROWN v. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
Other United States Supreme Court Decisions Concerning: The Right of [Armed] Self Defense;
Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876.
Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894.
Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894.
Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895.
Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895.
Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896.
Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896.
Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896.
Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896.
Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896.
Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914.
Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947.
". . . The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."-- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981).
"As a general principle, state actors cannot be held liable for private acts of violence under a substantive due process theory. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989); see also Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 2810. We recognize two exceptions to this rule: (1) when the state has a special relationship to the victim, and (2) when the state creates the danger that led to the victim’s harm. Jones v. Union County, 296 F.3d 417, 428 (6th Cir. 2002)."-- Hudson v. Hudson, United States Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Jan. 16, 2007.
"the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed."
The right to self-defense in America, was recognized and recorded as being acceptable as early as 1641:
4. If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.-- The Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641.
It was another 131 years before the right was again touched upon in a recognizable manner. (Other than in the 1689 English Bill of Rights). In 1772, Mr. Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin produced a work titled 'The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting' or, better known as "The Rights of The Colonists". In which, Mr. Adams and Mr. Franklin describe "self-preservation" as not only a right, but a duty of the colonists.
In the one and a half years of continuous study of the original intentions of the framers of our present Constitution. The best description of the right of self-defense I've yet come across is by a gentlemen whom played a major role in framing our Constitution:
"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."-- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792, (Signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).Doesn't get much more clear than that, does it? In consideration of Mr. Wilson's credentials, one has to wonder what it is that the current people in our government(s) are thinking? Either the Congress, and the Supreme Court, are both filled with people that have the intelligence of kindergartners. Or, we have one of the most massive criminal conspiracies ever in the history of mankind occurring right before our very eyes. Hope that I did not offend any of the kindergartners. If so, please accept my humble apology.
What are our supposed representatives and public servants thinking? Or, are they even using the process of thought? By all appearances, if examined in a logical manner, a rational being would have to say no. Those in our government that are perpetrating these Usurpations of authority cannot possibly be exercising rational thinking. For they are undermining the whole purpose for which our government(s) were instituted to begin with – the protection of our Natural Rights.
There is ample evidence that we have not only the right, but the duty to resist unconstitutional laws. Witness:
"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-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with 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 defense. 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."(Not if they have ALREADY been DISARMED by their USURPERS, Mr. Hamilton! And notice how Alex infers the people to FORM A REGULAR OR SYSTEMATIC PLAN OF OPPOSITION!).
"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."(I wonder if THAT'S WHY the LARGEST POPULATIONS CENTERS in the United States have already been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISARMED? - YOU THINK?!!!!).
"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.(Yeah, THAT worked out well, didn't it?)
"How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28
Courtesy; The Constitution Society
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
"As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).
"...Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in OPPOSITION to that of The People, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the LATTER rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental.
"...This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community....
"...But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.
"That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.
"There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge."
"...It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law."-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, 31 October 1823.
"...At the same Court, Hate-evil Colston of Colo. Nixon's Regiment was tried for entering the house of Reuben Crosby, an Inhabitant of Frederick'sburgh, by force of Arms in company with one more, and taking from thence about three hundred dollars in Continental Money, one Musquet...."
“...He is determined to make Examples which will deter the boldest and most harden'd offenders. Men who are called out by their Country to defend the Rights and Property of their fellow Citizens, who are abandoned enough to violate those Rights and plunder that Property deserve and shall receive no Mercy.”-- George Washington, October 23, 1778, General Orders. [The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.]
Based upon data obtained on 04/13/2006
Total Armed personnel = (local/state/fed)..(3,534,518).
(Total Armed includes; Military, Law Enforcement and 1,300,000 reserves).
Total U.S. Pop.............................................(297,941,185).
Gun Owners (Approx. 44%)........................(131,094,121).
Can count on at least 5% of those**...............(20,855,883).
(+ Not ALL government employees are TRAITORS)
* - The total number of guns and owners is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. There is no way of verifying the total number of guns, because info. wasn't kept until the last 20 or so years. Also, people will not give accurate or truthful info. in regards to if they own guns or not. There are estimates ranging from 25% - 60% of total population. Estimates also tend to indicate that there are well over 200,000,000 guns in the U.S.
In other words, there is no concrete data on actual number of gun owners. Tried to hit a happy medium, based upon various available sources of information.
** - The percentage of people that would stand comes from the Revolutionary war. (About 3.5 million pop., 250,000 rose and fought = approx. 7%).
The more we are UNITED - the safer we shall be....
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you....
"It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end."-- Thomas Jefferson, Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:180
(Who will guard the guards?)