"are required to possess firearms"

[New-York Tribune, Sunday, September 19, 1920. Vol. LXXX No. 26,971 Pg. 15]

   Now isn't THAT ironic? For it was originally "required" that We The People "possess firearms". Yet the United States Army whines about New York's regulations on arms. When it involves U.S. Army Reserves having pistols in their possession whether on duty or not. And New York is basically told to pound sand by the U.S. Attorney General. Yet the fact that New York passed an unconstitutional law concerning arms in the hands of the people, it isn't even mentioned. Thus, the hired servants were elevated above their rightful masters. (A fact which the newspaper doesn't even bother to mention.)

   Apparently these ignorant hypocrites have no shame at all. For one of the stated reasons for We The People to "be at all times armed". Was intended to be used against the "army" itself, in the event they became the willing tools employed in the hands of usurping tyrants.

   But it is not even hinted at, that the "army" is one of the main reasons We The People are supposed to be armed to begin with. Which was a fact most definitely discussed during the formation of We The People's Constitution. To Wit:

   "A standing military force, with an overgrown executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim, to excite a war whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved, the people."--James Madison, Friday, June 29, 1787. [The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 5 (Debates in Congress, Madison’s Notes, Misc. Letters)(1827).]

"...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the PEOPLE AT LARGE, than to have them properly ARMED and EQUIPPED .... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, LITTLE, if at ALL, INFERIOR to them in discipline and the USE OF ARMS, who stand ready to DEFEND THEIR OWN RIGHTS, and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 9, 1788. 

   "Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the WHOLE BODY OF PEOPLE ARE ARMED, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."--Noah Webster, Oct. 10, 1787, An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution, (Written under the pseudonym "By a Citizen of America").

   "When we consider the great powers of Congress, there is great cause of alarm. They can disarm the militia. If they were armed, they would be a resource against great oppressions. The laws of a great empire are difficult to be executed. If the laws of the Union were oppressive, they could not carry them into effect, if the people were possessed of proper means of defence."--William Lenoir, Delegate, North Carolina State Senator, July 21, 1788, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

   It is therefore made quite clear that it was intended that We The People are to be at all times armed. And this, in order to oppose any attempts of our governments to establish a tyranny. That any such attempt would be resisted by armed citizens. A fact which one of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court had clearly recognized in his authoritative writings:

   “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”--Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Constitutional scholar, [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833; Book III at 746, § 1890)]

   That the current court refuses to acknowledge or rule favorably to uphold the right. And strike down all the violations of it that have been perpetrated. Only proves that the court is complicit in the treason. And worthy of the same punishment as those that passed the tyrannical laws to begin with. As well as those that continue to let the tyrannical 'laws' remain in force, and even attempt to pass new tyrannical acts. They are all equally guilty and complicit in the treason. And are all equally worthy of the same punishment for the high crime of treason against We The People. Just because they were able to get away with the crime for so long a period. Does not turn the criminal act into a rightful one by perversely applied legal 'precedence'. That which was wrong originally, is still wrong presently. And no amount of repetition will EVER make it right.