Pages

Monday, December 29, 2014

"Furthermore, it used to be a favorite means with arbitrary rulers to enslave their subjects by forbidding the keeping and bearing of arms."

Article II.–The Right to Bear Arms

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.

   159. The Right Important.–If the people were deprived of the right to keep and bear arms they would be lacking in preparation for war. Furthermore, it used to be a favorite means with arbitrary rulers to enslave their subjects by forbidding the keeping and bearing of arms. But while a person may go about in our country wjth a gun or other deadly weapon in the hand, he is not allowed to carry concealed deadly weapons. However, this is not forbidden by Congress, but by the States.

[The Government of the United States By L.S. Shimmell, Ph.D. District Supervisor Of Schools, Harrisburg, PA. Author Of "The Pennsylvania Citizen," "A History Of Pennsylvania," And "Border Warfare In Pennsylvania During The Revolution" New York Maynard, Merrill, & Co. 1906 Pg. 117]

"where a so styled "armed people," like an avalanche, crushed standing armies of world known fame."

   "An amendment to our National Constitution says: "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." The truth of this provision requires no lengthy comment. The liberty of a people rests on themselves, on their character and institutions, and on their ability to guard against usurpation. The safety of a nation depends on their superiority of culture and the general knowledge the art of war. This was most powerfully demonstrated in the recent Franco-German war in Europe, where a so styled "armed people," like an avalanche, crushed standing armies of world known fame. The enforcement of laws requires often more than ordinary preparations, especially in a Republic as ours, which is subject to constant political fluctuations, and presents a conglomeration of all nationalities with different proclivities and propensities. We cannot, therefore, dispense with a system of military preparations, however cumbersome it may be to an industrious people. A good militia is the more needed as sound Republican principles demand that a regular standing army in a Republic be reduced to an absolute necessity."--Albert Sigel, Adjutant-General of Missouri, [Report Of The Adjutant-General For 1871. Jefferson City, Nov. 20, 1871. Pg. 12]

N.Y. Gov. Horatio Seymour: "one of the sacred rights of every American citizen. The Government has so little confidence in the people of these States that it fears to trust them with the privilege of bearing arms."

   "Turning from the consideration of the military power let us ob- [Pg. 236] serve the policy of the Government. To-day our forces compass the mouth of the Mississippi, are present in the harbor of Charleston, and are struggling for the possession of Georgia under Sherman. But let me tell you, also, that to-day it requires more men to hold in the Union the three States of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, than the whole number originally called for to suppress the rebellion. In the beginning these States repudiated secession. Three years ago the North responded with unanimity to the calls of the Government. When on my return from the West at that time, the people Chicago, like the people of Milwaukee, were animated by a spirit unanimity and patriotism. What do we see now? The Government has so little confidence in the people that by an official order, just issued, it denies to the people of Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, one of the sacred rights of every American citizen. The Government has so little confidence in the people of these States that it fears to trust them with the privilege of bearing arms. The Constitution declares that this right shall not be infringed. Our fathers believed it necessary for the protection of the people from the encroachments arbitrary power. You are told that the people of these States cannot be trusted with arms even to hunt their food upon your broad prairies."

[Pg. 238]

   "...We had been told that the South could not manage their own sectional affairs. We were told that if we were to stop the mouth of the Mississippi the Southern people would starve. We were told much about the superior cost of Southern mail carriage, and that the South could not be driven out of the Union. This course of dangerous agitation has continued until to day. The dominant party approves acts from the contemplation of which they once would have turned away with horror. Had I said here in Milwaukee, three years ago, that a general of the Federal army, this year, would issue an edict denying to the people of the North-west the right to bear arms, or that the writ of habeas corpus would now be suspended, and your citizens be subject to military arrest without the right of trial by jury, I should have been derided and scorned as a madman."--N.Y. Governor Horatio Seymour, speech in Milwaukee September 1, 1864. [Public Record: Including Speeches, Messages, Proclamations, Official Correspondence, And Other Public Utterances Of Horatio Seymour; From The Campaign of 1856 to the Present Time. With An Appendix. Compiled From The Most Authentic Sources, And Printed Exclusively For The Use Of Editors And Public Speakers. Compiled And Edited By Thomas M. Cook And Thomas W. Knox. New York: Published By I.W. England, At The Office of the N.Y. Sun. 1868.]

Sunday, December 28, 2014

March 8, 1748 Pennsylvania Gazette Ad placed by Benjamin Franklin

   "A Parcel of good Muskets, all well fitted with Bayonets, Belts and Cartouch-Boxes, and Buff Slings to cast over the Shoulder, very useful to such as have Occasion to ride with their Arms; To be sold by B. Franklin."--Pennsylvania Gazette, March 8, 1748

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

We are NOT "gun owners"...

   We are armed CITIZENS exercising our God-given and inalienable natural right to be able to defend ourselves from all enemies - foreign or domestic. Which of course includes those domestic "enemies" within our own governments that attempt to steal our rights away.

Here's a post from Blugrass Bruce worthy of attention...

Wednesday, December 10, 2014 New York State Deems 278 Gun Owners Too “Unstable” For Firearms New York State is set to confiscate firearms from nearly 300 individuals who the state has judged to be “mentally unfit”, reports say....
This is a dangerous precedent that we cannot afford to allow to be set.

“Self preservation is a paramount law, which a nation, as well as an individual, may find it necessary to invoke.”

  “Self preservation is a paramount law, which a nation, as well as an individual, may find it necessary to invoke.”–United States District Court Judge Humphrey H. Leavitt in the Habeas Corpus case of U.S. Rep. C.L. Vallandigham [The Alleghanian, Ebensburg, PA., Thursday, May 28, 1863. Volume 4. Number 35. Pg. 1] (Humphrey Howe Leavitt, (June 18, 1796 – March 15, 1873), was an Ohio attorney and politician who served as U.S. Representative from Ohio, and in the Ohio House of Representatives. As well as United States District Court judge, appointed by President Andrew Jackson.)

“I said that he had no right to take a man’s rifle, that he had no right to enter a man’s house, except he had a search warrant, or to take a rifle there unless it was stolen"

Taken before the Congressional Committee: Col. John A. Perry: “I said that he had no right to take a man’s rifle, that he had no right to enter a man’s house, except he had a search warrant, or to take a rifle there unless it was stolen . . . my reply was that if any man entered my house to take my rifle I had a perfect right to shoot him and he had no redress”, July 25, 1856
One of the main pertinent quotations from the above follows:

    "I said that he had no right to take a man’s rifle, that he had no right to enter a man’s house, except he had a search warrant or to take a rifle there unless it was stolen and described in his search warrant; he agreed to all this: I then told him I had been asked in council by the citizens of Lawrence my legal opinion of his right to take men’s rifles, and my reply was that if any man entered my house to take my rifle I had a perfect right to shoot him and he had no redress, even though it was Mr. [U.S. Marshal] Donaldson himself; I asked him if that was so; he laughed and said ‘ Yes.” Some one spoke up and said ”That’s cool;” I told the [U.S.] Marshal that I had given my opinion and my advice, and I wanted to know if I was right; he said I was..."--Col. John A. Perry, testimony taken before the [U.S.] Congressional Committee, June 9, 1856. [New-York Daily Tribune, New-York, Friday, July 25, 1856. Vol. XVI.......No. 4,763. Pg. 6]

“This is but the conservative right to self-defence–a right possessed by individuals, independent of all constitutions, and in defiance of all human laws...."

  “This is but the conservative right to self-defence–a right possessed by individuals, independent of all constitutions, and in defiance of all human laws. Self-Defence is “the first law of nature, and of nature’s God;” and I hold, sir, that it is not less the right and duty of individuals, assembled for lawful public objects. and for the performance of public duties, than of every private citizen, to effectuate those objects, and to defend themselves against every aggressor.”–Mr. Beardsley, of New York, U.S. House of Representatives, May 9, 1832 [Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 22nd Congress, 1st Session Part II. Of Vol. VIII. Washington: Printed And Published By Gales & Seaton. 1833. Pg. 2910]

Monday, July 28, 2014

Here's an interesting historical discovery....

Washington [D.C.] Mayor James H. Blake: “Citizens Of Washington. . . . every man exempt from military duty, who is able to carry a musket . . . Such as have no arms and ammunition, will be furnished”, Aug. 20, 1814

   And following is a quote excerpted from the title page of the publication the above was found in:
 
   The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.--Washington.

Yeah, and that's why they want us disarmed...

  “The principle upon which we professed to act, and really did act, was, that whenever a prince neglects or abandons his duty as the protector and guardian of his subjects–whenever he endeavours, by the terror of his power, the weight of his authority, or the force of arms, to compel them to a surrender of their essential privileges, instead of protecting them in the exercise of their immunities, a people have a right, by their own strength, to protect these rights, and to adopt every measure which may be necessary to effect this purpose. This is the fundamental principle of American law; it lays at the foundation of our government; it is the corner-stone of our political existence and sovereignty; and on this ground were our constitution and the congressional declaration of independence founded.”–Chief Justice Kinsey, Supreme Court Of Judicature Of The State Of New-Jersey, Den v. Brown. Nov. 1799. [Reports Of Cases Argued And Determined In The Supreme Court Of Judicature Of The State Of New-Jersey. By William Halsted, Jun. Reporter. Volume II. Trenton: Printed By Joseph Justice. 1824. Pg. 334]

Funny how we never here about this little piece of history....

Encyclopædia Americana, “the Greeks were disarmed in November, 1821, and almost all the inhabitants of Larnica, with the archbishop and other prelates, murdered”, 1835

   While the people that DIDN'T give up their arms:

"But the peasants in the mountains, and the inhabitants of the small island Sphakia, called the Suliots of Candia, refused to give up their arms, collected, and drove the Turks back again into the towns."

Interesting how that works, ISN'T IT?

“he, she, or they, may lawfully seize such gun or offensive weapon, and convert the same to his, her, or their, own use”

A Digest Of The Laws of South-Carolina, “he, she, or they, may lawfully seize such gun or offensive weapon, and convert the same to his, her, or their, own use”, 1740/1819

   Let's see now, shall we? "He, she, or they" . . . Well that eliminates the old, tired and errant 'right of the militia' theory quite nicely, now doesn't it? That is, unless you are aware of female militia members back in 1740 or 1819. But even if that were the case. There's another law posted on the linked page that grinds any [lame and fallacious] argument into powder.

   Then there's this little quote from Blackstone, (that the author used on the title page):

"Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum, aut incognitum."
["Wretched is the thraldom where the law is either uncertain or unknown."--William Blackstone: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, Commentaries 1:401--4]

Thursday, July 10, 2014

"it was in no wise uncommon in this country for persons to carry arms, where they had the right so to do: he might have produced Tucker's Blackstone in his favor"

The Trial of Col. Aaron Burr, “it was in no wise uncommon in this country for persons to carry arms, where they had the right so to do: he might have produced Tucker’s Blackstone in his favor”, 1807

   This article has been updated and expanded. And has proven to be quite interesting. Especially when it comes to who was present and had participated at the trial. This case alone was evidence enough that our right to arms has always been an individual one.

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

"to grant permits to such persons, as in their judgment, are entitled to them, to retain private arms for sporting purposes"

The Norfolk Post, "authorized to grant permits to such persons, as in their judgment, are entitled to them, to retain private arms for sporting purposes", Sept. 12, 1865

   "Sporting purposes" . . . now where have I heard THAT before? . . . .

   Oh yeah, the Nazi's used it in their law of 1938. And the [treasonous] democrats used it in the Constitutionally perverse 1968 Gun Control Act.

   And this perverse 'general' having made this proclamation despite the fact that THAT is precisely what the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent


Monday, July 07, 2014

We need more of the following example set presently....

[Pg. 138]
September 19. [1775]
 Affair in Duchess County.
   Last Saturday night, in Duchess County, New York, James Smith, Esq. a judge of the Court of Common Pleas for that county, was very handsomely tarred and feathered, for acting in open contempt of the resolves of the county committee, as was Coen Smith, of the same place, for the like behavior. They were carted five or six miles into the country. The judge undertook to sue for, and recover the arms taken from the Tories[*] by order of said committee, and actually committed one of the committee, who assisted at disarming the Tories, which enraged the people so much, that they rose and rescued the prisoner, and poured out their resentment on this villanous retailer of the law.[3]
 [*] “Tories” were American colonists who supported the British side during the American Revolution.
 [3] Upcott, iv. 327
 [Diary of the American Revolution. From Newspapers and Original Documents. By Frank Moore. Vol. I. New York: Charles Scribner, Grand Street. London: Sampson Low, Son & Company. MDCCCLX.]

”The Rev. Mr. Payson . . . at the head of a party of his own parish . . . he has taken up arms in defence of those rights, civil and religious, which cost their forefathers so dearly...

 The following has just been added, (among quite a few other recent associated  discoveries), on the Biblical Quotes on Arms and Defense page.

April 19. [1775]

[Pg. 65]

…During this time an express was sent to General Gage, who despatched a reinforcement under the command of Earl Percy, with two field-pieces. Upon the arrival of this reinforcement at Lexington, just as the retreating party had reached there, they made a stand, picking up their dead, took all the carriages they could find, and put their wounded thereon. Others of them–to their eternal disgrace be it spoken–were robbing and setting houses on fire, and discharging their cannon at the meeting house.

[Pg. 66]

   While this was transacting a party of the militia at Menotomy, [1] attacked a party of twelve of the enemy, who were carrying stores and provisions, killed one of them and took possession of their arms and stores, without any loss.

[1] This party was led by the Rev. Phillips Payson, D.D.,* to whom the following extract refers:–”The Rev. Mr. Payson, of Chelsea, in Massachusetts Bay, a mild, thoughtful, sensible man, at the head of a party of his own parish, attacked a party of the regulars, killed some and took the rest prisoners. This gentleman has been hitherto on the side of government, but oppression having got to that pitch beyond which even a wise man cannot bear, he has taken up arms in defence of those rights, civil and religious, which cost their forefathers so dearly. The cruelty of the King’s troops, in some instances, I wish to disbelieve. They entered one house in Lexington where were two old men, one a deacon of the church, who was bed-ridden, and another not able to walk, who was sitting in his chair; both these they stabbed and killed on the spot, as well as an innocent child running out of the house.”–Pennsylvania Journal, August 2.

* Dr. Payson was born at Walpole, Massachusetts, on the 18th of January, 1736. He graduated at Harvard College in 1754 and from the time of his ordination (three years after) until his death, he was constantly and jealously engaged in the service of the church. During the Revolution, he boldly advocated the cause of the Colonists. He died January 11, 1801.

[Diary of the American Revolution. From Newspapers and Original Documents. By Frank Moore. Vol. I. New York: Charles Scribner, Grand Street. London: Sampson Low, Son & Company. MDCCCLX.]