Saul Cornell lies again....

The disingenuous Saul Cornell is at it again. His latest attempt at subversion is called; "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America". Mr. Cornell's lies can easily be disproven with the following quotes:

The PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL British-American 'subject' BEFORE the Constitution;

"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.

The DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED NATURAL RIGHT of the new American citizen AFTER the Constitution;

"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."

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

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

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

"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."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[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).]

If the above quotations aren't enough, then the following surely is:

"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 . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia
(1821).

"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."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. [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).]

“Afforded us by God & Nature”

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”

“...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”

Life, Liberty and Property

George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People

"the overruling law of self preservation"

'for the common defence' (?)

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"

"The Right to Self Defense"

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories:

Origins

Precedent

After The Fact

Amendment II and the Law

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."

- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.

Saul has been shown this information before. So, one can only conclude that he is either blind, or a deliberate and treasonous liar.....

Obama and the democratic party:

   Obama and the democratic party are nothing more than Philistines. To Wit:

   Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make [them] swords or spears:–1 Samuel 13:19

   This is the reason why we must never allow the disarming of American Citizens:

   So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that [were] with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found.–1 Samuel 13:22

   “A View of that great and flourishing City of BOSTON, when in its purity, and out of the Hands of the Philistines.”–A Declaration Setting forth the Causes and Necessity Of their taking up Arms, July 6th, 1775.

The first weapon banners......

I now have the appropriate name for Gun-Banners. And it goes WAY back! However, it has been used as a disparaging term for a number of years. The first recorded instance of one people banning another people's right to be armed, is the....

.

Philistines!

.

This is outlined in the Book of 1st Samuel in the Bible;

1Sa 13:19
Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make [them] swords or spears:
1Sa 13:20
But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.

1Sa 13:21
Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

1Sa 13:22
So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that [were] with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found.

1Sa 13:23
And the garrison of the Philistines went out to the passage of Michmash.

.

So this is now the Official GunShowOnTheNet term for people such as;

Jim Brady

Sarah Brady

Bill Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Susan Collins

Kent Conrad

Jon Corzine

Thomas Daschle

Mark Dayton

Mike DeWine

Christopher Dodd

Byron Dorgan

Richard Durbin

John Edwards

Diane Feinstein

Peter Fitzgerald

Al Gore

Bob Graham

Judd Gregg

Tom Harkin

Ernest Hollings

Daniel Inouye

James Jeffords

Edward Kennedy

John Kerry

Herbert Kohl

Kate Krisik

Frank Lautenberg

Patrick Leahy

Joseph Leiberman

Carl Levin

Blanche Lincoln

Richard Lugar

Barbara Milkulski

Patty Murray

Bill Nelson

Mark Pryor

Jack Redd

John Rockefeller

Paul Sarbanes

Charles Schumer

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Gordon Smith

Olympia Snowe

Debbie Stabenow

George Voinovich

John Warner

Ron Wyden

.

All people listed above, in addition to being TRAITORS to your fellow countrymen, can now be called by your REAL name;

.

Philistines!

Ongoing discussion at 'The Volkh Conspiracy' - "St. George Tucker versus Saul Cornell on the Second Amendment:"

The following is my last reply on the post. It is mainly in response to a question concerning weapons of mass destruction in the hands of citizens, (Nukes, NBC agents, etc.) :
.
Below is my response to the follwing question that was posed:
.
"The SCotUS ruled that a saw-off shotgun isn't a viable "militia" weapon, is that the standard?"
.
Congress has delegated authority over the militia. That is a fact, that cannot be contested. And, if I'm not mistaken. The case you referenced was argued on the basis of the defendant(s) being in the militia.
.
The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms is a pre-existent Right of Nature. It is a stand alone inherent, and natural right that has NOTHING to do with the militia. Other than joining with others in your community if the situation demanded it. The militia was declared as necessary to the security of a free state in the "Declaratory" clause. The right of the people was removed from debate in the "Restrictive" clause. It was specifically kept from being intruded upon by ANY acts of government/law.
.
Because Congress illegally, with the concurrence of S.C.O.T.U.S., stuck their nose in. And this, in a place where it was specifically denied any intrusion upon, or any authority over. Does that make their decisions right and legally correct? NO. It makes it an Usurpation of authority and an exercise of unconstitutional power. How can "Shall NOT be Infringed" possibly be mistaken in its meaning? It cannot. The ONLY legal authority they have, is punishment for misuse of the God-given, Inherent and Natural right.
.
However, the government is specifically charged with the duty of:
.
"...insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
.
How can a right be secured, if it is allowed to be infringed? If a person is free from confinement - they are free, they have paid their debt for their crime. They are once again in 'the state of nature' and entitled to defend themselves. Anything different than this can very well be construed as cruel and unusual punishment.
.
The weapons that are capable of causing mass destruction cannot, and must not be left up to the use of individual discretion. That would defy the whole purpose of instituting a government to begin with - security of the whole society. Which government, is supposed to have a series of checks and balances to ensure against, as far as is possible, incorrect and arbitrary decisions in the use of power.
.
The decision for use of a weapon of mas[s] destruction would be an arbitrary one, in the case of an individual. And brings in others that may not concur with its use. Thusly causing an adverse effect on the noncombatants liberty. As much Individual liberty as is possible, within the bounds of respect for the liberty of others, is the guiding rule. Or, it is supposed to be.
.
The right of self-defense/preservation is the First Law of Nature. The whole American governmental system is based upon "the transcendent laws of nature and of natures God". And is supposed to be guaranteed to each and every free American citizen without distinction. It is the basis on which our Constitution was formed - the very foundation. It cannot be discarded, or whittled down by technical misconstructions. For it is THE Fundamental law on which all others stand. It is a pillar, as well as self-defense/preservation being the guardian of ALL of the other rights. And, we are to be like armed as the military force, in the hands of usurpers, that may be employed against us. However, we do not have the right of taking those, whom are not involved by their own choice, with us. Which the use of a weapon of mass destruction would most certainly entail.
.
And, as indicated in an earlier post. If we have a government that has, or is using weapons of mass destruction on the people, than that government needs altered or abolished.