When you pull out weeds, do you just lop off the tops?

   Or, do you yank them out by the roots? As every gardener knows, if you just pull off the top of the weed that is showing. Then the weed just keeps on growing, and often causes even more weeds to sprout. So the real answer is to yank the whole weed out - root and all.

   The same can be stated about Constitutionally perverse 'gun control laws'. We The People must strike at the root of the problem. Which is to make it clear to the usurpers in [supposed] 'power' within our government(s). That we will no longer tolerate their utter dismissal of our Constitution and the rights which are secured by that Supreme Law. That we will no longer accept their outright lies claiming that they can do whatever they want, despite the clear language of our Constitution to the contrary.

   The prohibition against government intrusion of our right to keep and bear arms is quite simple and plain. For it is made perfectly clear in the "Restrictive clause" of Amendment II:

   "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

   That prohibition is aimed squarely at our government; in fact ALL American governments. As well as all branches of government; executive, judicial and legislative. There is not one hired servant within any of our governments that the express prohibition doe not apply to. There is no ambiguity in those words. There is no interpretation that is necessary or required. For the wording is in clear and concise terms. And there is no mistaking the meaning of what those words actually mean.

   We The People need to INSIST that our hired servants ABIDE by those words. And stop accepting as gospel the perverse government justifications for intruding into where they were expressly forbidden from going. We need to take it all the way back to; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed - PERIOD.

   The point needs to be SLAMMED home. That ALL infringements of that right; past, present and future, are NULL and VOID. That We The People do not accept ANY violations of our rights as being valid. The since traitors in 'power' have obvious contempt for our Constitution. We in turn should have obvious contempt for all of their perverse 'laws' which contravene that supreme instrument. For in Constitutional reality - no 'law' which violates the Supreme law has any validity whatsoever. It should be treated as if it were never written to begin with. And those that authored it, as well as those that passed it. Should be charged with the crime of having violated it. They should not be permitted to continually violate our Constitution at will. For they have gotten away with it for far to long as it is. And it must be STOPPED - NOW.

   We need to return to the point where the government has a healthy and respectful FEAR of We The People, and not visa-versa. A place where the government is DEPENDENT upon the people, and not the people on their creature - the government. Where the government is OBEDIENT to the Supreme Law which created their offices to begin with.

   This can only be done by the pulling out of the weed from the roots. And restoring the Constitution to its original intended splendor. As well by as amending the Constitution to provide for immediate punishment for hired servants; whether elected, hired or appointed, which violate it.

   Another cure for the present day evils found in our 'system'. Is in the removal of the Constitutionally perverse 'party' system. No where in our Constitution is the system of 'party' even hinted at. And many of those instrumental in the framing of our Constitution warned us of the dangers of 'party' politics.

   We The People established a Constitutional Republic and not a 'democratic' republic or a 'republican' republic. All that party politics accomplishes is DIVISION. Where each 'party' tries to get their own [perverse] way. As was noted by John Marshall [later Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court] in the Debates on our Constitution; "United We Stand, divided we fall". The perverse in 'power' of course know this fact. And they have left We The People and our Constitution in the dust while pursuing their own perverse lusts. This can no longer  be tolerated. 'Party' politics has NO sanction in our Constitutional Republic. The Supreme Law is the ONLY thing that should be pursued in our intended Constitutional Republic.

   We need to hit the reset switch on our system of government, and soon. We must, or our hired servants will end up enslaving us.

Your supposed "right" ceases where mine begins....

   Your Constitutionally secured "right" to speak or write ceases. When you use that right to publicly call out for restriction or removal of my Constitutionally secured right. For by so doing, you are indeed engaged in a conspiracy to deprive me of my Constitutionally secured right:

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights

       If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

       If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

       They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

   The people that are publicly advocating for the restriction of removal of our rights are in fact committing overt treason against We The People. And they should face the consequences for their cowardly and treasonous attempts. Just as the courts that rule contrary to our Constitution should. For in reality they are perversely attempting to pull down the whole political fabric of our intended system.

   The men that founded our nation knew that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". And the right to keep and bear arms was intended as one of the most crucial "checks" in our intended  system of checks and balances. In order to keep "power" within its Constitutionally imposed boundries. If "power" is left unchecked, then it soon absorbs everything. And then the only way of dislodging it is by shear brute force.

   Our forebears spilled their blood, sweat and tears to "secure" those "blessings of liberty" for their "posterity". For their "posterity" to call out for the restriction or removal of those very rights is both cowardly and despicable. The cowards that are so doing don't even have the capability of being ashamed of their cowardly acts. It is truly both disgusting and sickening, and should  no longer be allowed.

   We The People either start getting serious about defending our hard won freedom and liberty. Or very soon there won't be any freedom and liberty left to defend. It is nothing more than the classic fight of Good vs. evil. And if Good people do nothing, then evil will triumph.

This is priceless! - "Democracy, then, and does, embody, employ and advocate the following principles and measures . . . the right to bear arms..."

The Hartford Herald, “Democracy, then, and does, embody, employ and advocate the following principles and measures . . . the right to bear arms…”, Oct. 22, 1884

"And the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby . . ."

U.S. Constitution; Articles VI; Clause II:

   "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

U.S. Constitution; Amendment II; Restrictive Clause:

   "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

   The "Declaratory clause" of Amendment II cannot be used to justify "rules", regulations", or "laws" against "the right of the people". For that right was expressly Constitutionally removed from government regulation. Our government can indeed enact limited rules and regulations for the "militia":

Article I; Section 8; Clauses 15 & 16:

   "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

   "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Article II; Section 2; Clause 1:

   "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

   However arms in the hands of the people at large, which are not enrolled in the militia. Are Constitutionally removed from the purview of our governments. Our governments are expressly Constitutionally denied any and all authority over that specific right. All that they have power to do is provide punishment for abuse or misuse of that right. But they are expressly Constitutionally FORBIDDEN from removing the right. 

   They CANNOT remove the right as punishment for a crime, for they are expressly forbidden from doing so. For that was the whole intended purpose of Amendment II to begin with. It was demanded by We The People due to the fact that the State of Massachusetts had passed a 'law' which disarmed those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion for 3 years. Which 'law' almost brought on another revolution because it had caused universal disgust throughout America. And THOSE are the ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS.

   It is most certainly not the duty of the court to decide which 'infringements' are permissible and which are not. As the Constitution itself declares that the right "shall not be infringed" PERIOD. There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation in those words. And the court is as much BOUND to obey our Constitution as any other hired or elected servant. 

   So then, as is Constitutionally PROVEN above, the treasonous Supreme Court has violated our Constitution and the oaths they have taken to "uphold and defend" it. Which of course makes their ruling NULL and VOID. In FACT, it can justly be held that the court has committed treason. For the right of all Free American citizens to keep and bear arms in Self-Defense is one of the INALIENABLE Natural rights held most dear by the men that framed our Constitution:

    “We condemn, and with arms in our hands,–a resource which Freemen will never part with,–we oppose the claim and exercise of unconstitutional powers”–Journals of the Continental Congress, Dec. 6, 1775.

   “At a time when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question.

   “That no man should scruple or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would beg leave to add, should be the last resource, the dernier resort.”–George Washington, April 5, 1769 letter to George Mason. [University of Virginia, The Papers of George Washington, LB, DLC:GW. From The Papers, Colonial Series, 8:177-80.]

   “We established, however, some although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person,freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”–Thomas Jefferson, To John Cartwright. vii, 356. (M., 1824.) (Jefferson Cyclopedia).

   “The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the must 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..]

   As well as those that followed after them:

   “To take from the people the right of bearing arms, and put their weapons of defence in the hands of a standing army, would be scarcely more dangerous to their liberties, than to permit the Government to accumulate immense amounts of treasure beyond the supplies necessary to its legitimate wants.”–President Andrew Jackson, Message to U.S. House and Senate of Dec. 5, 1836.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873. TUESDAY, December 6, 1836.]

   “The right of suffrage is one of which every American citizen is justly proud. But this right is of no importance, if the power it confers is to be destroyed by the fraudulent votes of others. In what do the citizens of this country differ from the subjects of the despots of the old world? Mainly in the fact that they possess the right of suffrage, and the right to keep and bear arms in its defence. It is the right of suffrage and the right to bear arms, which principally distinguishes the freeman from the slave. It is by means of this right that the people govern–that they legislate for themselves, and execute the laws when made, through agents of their own choice. Take this right from us, and we are no longer free. Preserve it from fraud and corruption, and we never can be slaves.”–Gov. Wilson Shannon, December 8, 1840. [Democratic Standard, Georgetown, O., Tuesday, December 22, 1840. New Series.–Vol. I. No. 21. Pg. 4 – (Cont’d from Pg. 1)]

5/17/1884: “The first eight constitute what is commonly called The Bill of Rights, covering as they do the ordinary civil rights of the citizen. . . . The second gives the right to keep and bear arms.”

Lexington Weekly Intelligencer, “The first eight constitute what is commonly called The Bill of Rights, covering as they do the ordinary civil rights of the citizen. . . . The second gives the right to keep and bear arms.”, May 17, 1884

4/26/1884: “It is well known to be the habit of many litigants, witnesses and attorneys to walk into Court armed . . . "

The Pacific Commercial Advertiser, “It is well known to be the habit of many litigants, witnesses and attorneys to walk into Court armed . . . There should be a rule or a law, without respect to persons, requiring that all weapons should be left at the Court House door”, April 26, 1884

This one is certainly fitting for today....

The Home Journal, “that he by his vote never meant to surrender his undeniable and constitutional right to bear arms.”, March 21, 1883

   Yeah, just like all other politicians. As long as it doesn't apply to them, and just the 'common folk'... 

Lessons learned...

   The lessons learned from the British having disarmed the people of Boston. And from the State of Massachusetts disarming those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion, for a period of three years. Are what had prompted the DEMAND that the individual "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" be Constitutionally secured.

   The new federal government had already been delegated limited authority and power over the "militia" in the original Constitution. The reason for the insertion of the "Declaratory clause" in Amendment II: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Is due to the fact that that is the only aspect concerning the right to bear arms the federal government had anything to do with; the "common defense".

   The insertion of the "Restrictive clause": "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed." Was intended to remove all doubt that the authority and power that had already been delegated. Extended in any way, shape or form over the preexisting right of We The People to keep and bear our own personal arms for Self-Defense.

   This is made clear by one of the most famous Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court here:

   “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.”–Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [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).]

   As well as by Mr. Alexander Hamilton here:

   “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 usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an 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 defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.

   The actual facts cannot be disputed, regardless of how many people don't like it. Those are the FACTS, and those facts are here to stay.

The return of 'arbitrary rule' here in America

   A written Constitution is meaningless if it can be altered at will by the 'opinions' of legalized monkeys in black robes. That is NOT what the men that founded our Constitution had in mind. As is evidenced by Mr. Alexander Hamilton:

   “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 usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an 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 defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.

   Does not the treasonous kourt understand the meaning of the word "paramount"? Mr. Hamilton goes on further:

“…It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. 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. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

   “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….”

“…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. . . .”

“…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. . . .”

   “The Judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

   THAT is the TRUE meaning of our Constitution, and NOT what the monkeys in black robes have treasonously 'opined'. Our Constitution IS the "Supreme Law of the Land" - NOT the slanted 'opinions' of legalized monkeys in black robes. Their 'opinion' is nothing more than a blatant violation of We The People's Constitution. Which Mr. Hamilton again makes perfectly clear:

   “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . .”

“. . . There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid….”

   “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”–Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

   And as far as the authority of the Federalist goes:

   “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).

    “The Federalist is regarded as the highest contemporary authority on the construction of the Constitution….”–Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1868.]

   Sorry justices, but your 'ruling' has NO legal authority. All that you have accomplished by your 'ruling' is to make clear your blatant disregard for the Supreme Law of the Land. Which of course makes you not only useless to We The People, but traitors as well. You are nothing more than worthless servants that have [once AGAIN] betrayed your "rightful masters". You can go straight to hell.

   When those charged with making, upholding and defending the laws, hold the Supreme Law in contempt. Then all respect for and obedience to those laws which violate the Supreme Law comes to an end. For it is then that no one is truly legally bound to observe them. And not only that, but the people have the moral duty to FORCE a return to obedience of the Supreme Law by their hired servants. Or set up a new system of government which will be obedient.

This threat is SERIOUS

   We cannot dismiss it. Nor can we sit back and rest on our laurels. While thinking that 'there is no way it can happen here'.There are people that have combined togather in an obvious conspiracy to deprive us of a vital Constitutionally secured right. And the calls for treason are being made all across our once free nation through the 'press'.

   Currently there are quite a few people calling out for the repeal of Amendment II, including a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice. These [treasonous] people are calling out for removal of a right that is absolutely vital to our freedom and liberty. A right that is directly responsible for having won our precious freedom and liberty to begin with. This treason needs to stop and STOP NOW.

   We need to make these treasonous people so afraid that they will crawl back underneath their baseboards and never show their ugly heads again. We need to make sure that the FEAR of reprisal is so stark. That they will shudder if the thought ever comes back into their [perverse] minds.

   What these traitors are calling out for is a total reversal of that which We The People established our Constitution to begin with. Which, according to the preamble of our Constitution is to:

"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

   And one of the most crucial "liberties" that is secured is the right to keep and bear arms. As was made clear by this U.S. District Court Judge:

    “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). (Mr. Tucker was a Lawyer and Professor of law at the College of William and Mary. He was appointed one of the committee to revise the laws of Virginia, and he served with James Madison and Edmund Randolph as Virginia commissioners to the Annapolis Convention. In 1803 Tucker became a judge of the highest court in Virginia. In 1813 he was appointed by President James Madison to be the United States district judge for Virginia. Tucker also, as District Court judge, sat with Chief Justice John Marshall on the U.S. Circuit Court in Richmond.)

   While it is my personal belief that natural rights which preexisted the Constitution cannot be amended away. It is painfully obvious that that belief is not shared by all. In fact, it almost seems as if those attempting to betray us are trying to force a confrontation. And this in order to stamp out the last remaining vestiges of freedom and liberty that we have left. For the traitors are not just attacking Amendment II. But are going after Due Process of Law and our First Amendment secured rights as well.

   We The People need to STAND UP for freedom and liberty. And make it LOUD and CLEAR that we will not tolerate any more treason against our rights. It is far better if we can do it now - peacefully. Rather than having to fight a bloody struggle to win them back after they have been removed by the traitors.

How is it that so many are unaware of the difference between rights?

   There are quite a few people, including those within our governments. That think the right to keep and bear arms is a "civil right". When in actuality it is a natural right. Due to the fact that it has been inextricably linked to the inalienable natural right of self-defense.

   "Civil rights" belong to us as a result of having come together in a Constituted society. Where the people have outlined or permitted their fellow citizens to all have certain rights under certain conditions. And that the exercise of those civil rights are contingent upon obeying the rules of a regulated society.

   Whereas natural rights belong to us as a result of merely being born. These rights exist whether society agrees with them or not. Such as the right to speak or write my own opinions. Or to move freely within the bounds of public property or my own personal property. As well as the inalienable natural right to defend myself, otherwise known as "the first law of nature". These rights are only subject to penalties for violations of the rights of others. Such as if I were to intrude uninvited onto the property of another. Which in legal terms is known as trespassing. But my natural rights cannot otherwise be removed or limited by society. I am still left free to again trespass, as long as I am willing to again pay the penalty for so doing. And I can speak or write what I want, when I want. Again; if  I am willing to face the consequences of my words. But society cannot stop me from speaking or writing my words. Nor can society impede my ability to defend myself. For it is my natural right to do so, and it is inalienable. And follows me wherever I have a legal right to be.

   The above also applies to businesses that have an "Open" sign at their entrance, If a business is open to the public, of which I am one. Then my natural rights follow me wherever I go. For that "business" is only allowed to open its doors according to the rules and regulations established by our hired servants in government. And one of those "rules" is that our rights are respected. If that business cannot honor our rights, then it has no "right" to be open. This fact is made clear by the following:

   "But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 16, Tuesday, December 4, 1787.

   Who formed our Government? We The People, that's who. Who is our government? We The People, that's who. What is the government of the United States other than the People of each of the several states United into one? And the Constitution of these United States is "the Supreme Law of the land" which binds ALL that are united underneath it.

   It is true that I can be deprived of arms, (the most expedient means of defense), while in custody for having committed a crime. But the right of Self-Defense nevertheless remains, even while I'm in custody. But once I have served my lawfully imposed sentence, and am again free. Then I have every right to be able to defend myself with the most expedient means available, just as any other free person around me does. And according to the "Supreme Law of the Land", that right "shall NOT be infringed" upon.

'Gun Control Laws' have no Constitutionally legal foundation whatsoever. And, in fact, are nothing more than violations of the Supreme Law of the Land

   The U.S. Constitution, as presented on Sept. 17, 1787, had already delegated limited authority and power over the "militia" in Article I; Section 8; with the following:

   "To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." 

   And in Article II; Section 2:

   "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, >when called into the actual Service of the United States".

   The powers delegated were specifically intended for the "common defense", as is made clear in the preamble of our Constitution:

   "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

   We The People however, were not satisfied that the extent of that delegated authority and power was made clear enough. So we demanded that it be made clear that the authority and power already delegated did not extend over arms in the hands of We The People at large. And this was done by amending the Constitution by enacting Amendment II as follows:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

   Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

   THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

   RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

   ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution . . .

    . . . Amendment II

DECLARATORY clause; [Common Defense]

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]

    the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.

   The "Restrictive" clause of Amendment II was enacted in order to "secure" that right against any government interferences. Like that made by the British government under General Gage over the people of Boston when he had disarmed them. Which is the one event most responsible for the start of our Revolution. As well as when the Massachusetts state government enacted a 'law' which disarmed those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion for a period of three years. The latter event having taken place just prior to and even during the Constitutional Convention that produced our current Constitution. And which latter event almost brought on another revolution. Those two events are the REAL reasons that Amendment II had been demanded in the first place.

   The true purpose of Amendment II is made clear by one of the most famous Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in the following:

   “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.”–Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [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).]

   In other words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" means precisely that which is written. Our governments are Constitutionally forbidden from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes that specific right. They have absolutely no Constitutionally legal authority or power over the right PERIOD. All that they have the authority to do, is enact laws that provide punishment for abuse or misuse of the right. All other 'laws' are nothing more than preemptive violations of the right with no Constitutionally legal authority. Which of course makes them null and void, because they have no legal force or Constitutional sanction. Those 'laws' are nothing more than meaningless words on paper.

The truly dangerous nature of 'gun control'

   First; it promotes cowardice, and resultant dependence upon an obviously corrupt government.

   Secondly; it allows our hired servants in government to think that they know better than We The People. And that our Constitution can be circumvented if 'conditions' [supposedly] require it. That the servants are in fact above their masters, and know better.

   Thirdly, it legitimizes further violations of We The People's Constitution.

   But the actual fact is that We The People Constitutionally removed our individual right to keep and bear arms from all government interferences. For it is a right that is crucial to the defense of ourselves and families. We had already delegated limited authority and power over the militia to our governments in our Constitutions. In order for them to be able to effectually provide for the "common defense". Thus leaving the individual free in the exercise of the inalienable natural right to provide for their own defense.

   In order to make it perfectly clear that the authority and power which had been granted only extended to the "common defense", we amended our Constitution. And bound our servants in government from infringing upon our individual right to keep and bear arms. Which is a right that existed prior to our Constitution. It is a right that our Constitution did not grant, nor can it take it away. Our Constitution only secures that individual right from any government interferences. Leaving the government only able to Constitutionally provide punishments for the abuse or misuse of the right.

   By the allowance of prior and further infringements. We The People are basically enabling our hired servants to disregard our Constitution at will. As long as they can come up with a plausible enough excuse which the tyrannical majority will be satisfied with. And therein lies the true danger.

   For if our government can use that same type of perversion against one right. Then what is to stop them from employing that same ruse against our other rights as well? For those that love and crave 'power' are never satisfied - they always want more. And are always able to come up with ready and seemingly plausible justifications for their power grabs.

   The whole intended purpose of a written Constitution, is to make it plain what those delegated authority and power "shall" and "shall not" do. And it applies to all governments in the United States; Federal, State, and Local. As well as to ALL branches of our governments; Executive, Judicial and Legislative. The Constitution - "the Supreme Law of the Land", is very clear about that fact. The Constitution leaves no room for the Executive department to sign into 'law' a bill which violates that Supreme Law. Nor does it permit the Judicial department to "rule" that any "infringement" is permissible. For the Constitution itself expressly declares that the right to keep and bear arms "shall NOT be infringed." And every branch of every government in the United States is expressly Constitutionally BOUND to observe and respect that right. There is no excuse for ANY "infringement" whatsoever.

   It is directly due to the unconstitutional "infringements" already enacted that we are having the problems we see today. If We The people had been left to exercise our right as is Constitutionally intended. Then the criminals perpetrating these cowardly 'mass shootings' wouldn't have stood a chance. They would have been shot down immediately and perhaps permanently the minute they tried their cowardly acts.

   All of these 'gun deaths' can be laid directly at the feet of the devious LIE-berals that caused them in the first place. For they would not have transpired had We The People been armed as is our Constitutionally secured right to be.

   How many more innocent people have to die unnecessarily due to cowardly, treasonous and unconstitutional LIE-beral 'gun control'?

The democrat sit-in in Congress . . .

   Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't what the democrats have done, by staging the sit-in in Congress. About the same as what a spoiled rotten brat kid would do? Which is basically; 'If I can't have it MY way, then I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue.' [To which a normal grandmother would reply: "Go ahead, you'll breath again after you pass out."]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

   Does not that statement in the title fit democrats perfectly? First they are the ones that enact the unconstitutional 'gun control' in order to [supposedly] solve a problem. And when it does not work, and instead makes the problem worse. They then enact even more of the same, while thinking it will be different this time. Is that not precisely what these traitors have been doing? And has it worked?

   How about returning to the way that is Constitutionally intended:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed."

  We would then see the roaches scurry back underneath the baseboard. For only a complete idiot would try to pull a criminal act. When it is common knowledge that they could very well pay for the misguided attempt with their life.

   How about we do the RIGHT way for once, and start coming up with different results? Only the cowardly and the guilty have anything to fear from an armed people.

Gun Control is what is directly responsible for all of our current problems

   Not only that, but unconstitutional gun control provides the impetus for creating even more problems. In that it causes We The People to accept the idea that our hired servants can disregard our Constitution. By floating out the idea that reasonable regulations/violations are acceptable. Thus effectively erasing all of the prohibitions We The People stipulated against our hired servants in government in the first place.

   We The People expressly denied our governments any authority or power over our right to keep and bear arms. They can only legally provide punishments for the ABUSE of those rights - not for the exercise of them.

   By allowing and accepting these infringements; under the guise of fear or that the infringements are reasonable. We thereby make it easier for our hired servants to continue on down the same road with ALL of our rights. Where soon our servants come up with plausible excuses to strip away all of them. Think that is taking the matter to far? All of the history of the governments of mankind prove that is precisely the end result. Why? Because; "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is an age-old and valid maxim. And is also one of the main reasons for the enactment of Amendment II. Which is of course meant to keep power in check. With the realization that an armed people are not going to be easily enslaved. That the power mad might very well have to answer for their lust for even more power with their lives. The amendment was intended as a deterrent to all enemies; whether foreign or domestic. It was meant to deter criminals in government, as well as those on our streets.

   The corrupt in power of course are aware of all of the above. And they shudder to think that more American citizens will come to the knowledge of the actual truth. For if We The people were all armed, as is Constitutionally intended. Then that would diminish our need for them to provide for our "defense". When the actual fact of the matter is, that our governments were delegated powers for the common defense. Leaving the individual citizen responsible for their own defense. And because they have successfully unconstitutionally restricted or removed the ability to defend ourselves. It makes We The People turn to them for defense. Which is precisely what they want, for it gives them more power and control. As well as makes us more dependent upon them. Creating massive bureaus, police departments, agencies, etc. All of which is paid for out of OUR pockets of course. How effective have these government solutions been? All one has to do is listen to the news to find out. Most, if not all government 'solutions' are miserably ineffective.

   The unconstitutional restrictions also have another added benefit to the perverse in 'power'. In that it creates a massive 'criminal justice system', which feeds on itself and grows. (One which would hardly exist if we were all armed as is intended.) For the law of Self-Preservation also applies to those with a criminal mindset. If they knew that they would very well pay for their criminal attempts - immediately and permanently. Then that would act as an almost insurmountable deterrent. Which the corrupt in power are also more than aware of.

   We The People need to FORCE our hired servants in government to return to governing as was Constitutionally intended. And stop allowing them to stray off the beaten path. Into areas where they were expressly Constitutionally forbidden from going. Our lives, freedom and liberties absolutely depend on it. Failure to act now, in a peaceful manner. Will result in either abject slavery, or an all out bloody revolution. All the history of mankind testifies of that fact.

James Madison: "as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual" . . .

   Let's examine the meaning of the following statement by Mr. James Madison; "The Father of the Constitution". Which was made when he had first introduced the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Congress:

   "It has been a fortunate thing that the objection to the government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable on that ground to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the government by those who promoted its adoption."--James Madison, June 8, 1789, U.S. House of Representatives. [The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. 12:196--209]

   Judge St. George Tucker, a man present at the debates concerning our Bill of Rights. Had stated that the "true palladium of liberty" was the "right of self defence". Which right of self defense also of course included the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". To Wit:

   "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . The right of self defence 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. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."--Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

   So we see then that the right to keep and bear arms was definitely considered as one of the "liberties" intended to be secured in our Constitution.

   Next let us see what Mr. Madison had intended when he stated that "their liberties will be perpetual". The key operative word of course being "perpetual". The word "perpetual" is defined in Webster's 1828 Dictionary as follows:

PERPET'UAL, adjective [Latin perpetuus, from perpes, perpetis; per and pes, from a root signifying to pass.]

1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute.

[Literally true with respect to the decrees of the Supreme Being.]

2. Continuing or continued without intermission; uninterrupted; as a perpetual stream; the perpetual action of the heart and arteries.

3. Permanent; fixed; not temporary; as a perpetual law or edict; perpetual love or amity, perpetual incense. Exodus 30:8.

4. Everlasting; endless.

Destructions are come to a perpetual end. Psalms 9:6.

5. During the legal dispensation. Exodus 29:9.

Perpetual curacy, is where all the tithes are appropriated and no vicarage is endowed.

Perpetual motion, motion that generates a power of continuing itself forever or indefinitely, by means of mechanism or some application of the force of gravity; not yet discovered, and probably impossible.

Perpetual screw, a screw that acts against the teeth of a wheel and continues its action without end.

   So we see then that our rights were intended to be: "Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute." Which is the whole intended purpose of our rights being CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED.

   Why are We The People continuing to allow our hired servants to circumvent our rights? Rights which ALL branches of our governments were expressly Constitutionally FORBIDDEN from interfering with? Does anyone realize just how dangerous that is? That the hired servants have taken it upon themselves to decide that they know better than their MASTERS - We The People? We cannot permit this perversion, (however plausible the perversion may seem), to continue. For if permitted to continue We The People will soon have no rights at all. For ready justifications can and will be proffered by those in 'power' to erode every last one. Thus defeating the whole intended purpose of securing those rights in our Constitution to begin with.

   We The People instituted our government and established our Constitution, in part. In order to: "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." If our "liberties" can be restricted or removed at will by those that we hired to "secure" them. Then the whole intended purpose of our Constitution is defeated.

   This corrupt perversion must end - NOW!

How does more Constitutionally perverse 'gun control laws' solve problems first caused by 'gun control laws' to begin with?

   The actual fact of the matter is that it does not. Two wrongs will NEVER make a right. If the first supposed [perverse] "cure" didn't work. Then how can one logically believe that another equally perverse "cure" will solve the problem? We must not only extract ourselves form this vicious cycle. But undo all of the perversions unconstitutionally applied to begin with.

   It is unconstitutional 'gun control laws' that have caused most of the problems we have today with violence. When the actual fact of the matter is, that an armed people were intended to STOP violence. And, if We The People were left unimpeded in the exercise of our Constitutionally secured inalienable right to defend ourselves. Then just the knowledge that we were resolved to stand up against aggression. Is all that would be needed to stop the cowards intent on shooting down at will unarmed targets.

   Constitutionally perverse 'gun control laws' give criminals assurance that they are safe in plying their trade. That they will be met with little to no resistance.

   An armed people are a safe and free people. For the natural law of Self-Preservation keeps even those with evil intent in check. The thought of possibly facing immediate retribution keeps even the most staunch offender at bay. The threat of prison obviously doesn't work. For we have the largest prison system in the world, and it grows daily. Which again is directly attributed to Constitutionally perverse 'gun control laws'. But, if We The People were all armed, as is Constitutionally intended. Then these criminal types wouldn't even dare attempt much of their criminal actions.

   The perverse criminals in our [supposed] 'criminal justice system' are well aware of the above fact. Which is why they insist upon Constitutionally perverse 'gun control'. For they know that if We The People were all armed. Then there would be little need for them and their 'services'. It is 'gun control' which provides them a paycheck. And this perverse system MUST be dismantled. For if we allow it to continue and grow. Then soon we will ALL be criminals, and nothing more than 'subjects' of the state.

   We The People need to RESTORE the knowledge that WE are the government. And that those that we employ in our governments are nothing more than our hired servants. And, that these hired servants will STOP interfering with our inalienable right to defend ourselves. As well as return to following the Constitution that we created; in both spirit and letter.

The Constitution cannot be selectively enforced

   Our Constitution, every single last word thereof; including the Amendments, is the "supreme law of the land". And is clearly intended to apply on every square inch of United States territory. For much to long now it has been selectively; enforced and interpreted. Being subjected to the personal 'feelings' of those in our executive, judicial and legislative branches. Thus defeating the whole intended purpose of a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. This perversion must end. Either ALL of the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", or none of it is. There is no middle ground. The Constitution is quite clear about that. ALL of it is to be obeyed and enforced, not just select portions.

   The only way We The People can ensure that our Constitution is enforced. Is to stand up and MAKE our hired servants abide by it. Which is the whole intended purpose of Amendments I and II. First we must publicly make it known to our hired servants that we DEMAND that they abide by our Constitution. And that We are resolved to back our demands by FORCE, if necessary.

   Those that went to clown college, and think that our Constitution is a 'living, breathing document'. MUST be made to see that they are suffering from a delusion. The Constitution was formed in order to keep 'feelings' and 'party' views in check. By first delegating precisely defined authorities and powers. And secondly, by making sure those hired by We The People stayed within the CONFINES of our Constitution. Which was intended to be accomplished by diffusing 'power' among the various branches of our governments. In order that each branch would be a check on the others. This due to the natural jealousy found among competing interests. In order that these branches would not combine and go beyond the limits defined in our Constitution.

   But obviously We The People have a problem. For those entrusted with 'power' HAVE combined. And they regularly go beyond the limits defined in our Constitution. By offering [supposed] plausible excuses for their treasonous activities. Excuses that are often provided due to current events. Events which seemingly provide justification for stepping beyond the limits imposed in our Constitution. This MUST cease. For there is NO justification for not abiding by We The People's Constitution. We The People need to INSIST that our Constitution be adhered to. And not permit ANY overstepping of the bounds of our Constitution by our hired servants PERIOD.

   We The People either STAND UP, and DEFEND our Constitution and the rights which that document secures. Or, our hired servants will continue to overstep their bounds. And we will soon have no right nor even Constitution left. This fact has been made abundantly clear throughout the history of written Constitutions. The People either defend their Constitution - as written. Or they are enslaved by being ground down into submission. We need to REVERSE that trend; and instead ground our hired servants down into submission.

   The choice is simple. Either We The People stand up, while it is still possible to do so. And DEMAND that our Constitution be respected and adhered to. Or, become enslaved as has happened to the millions before us down throughout history. Those that had failed to stand up to corrupt 'power' before it was to late. And be forced to fight against our hired servants in actual battle. In order to regain our lost rights and Constitution.

   All that it takes for tyrants to pay attention. Is often only a show of firm resolve not to be bullied into submission any longer. Backed by millions of armed citizens willing to take a stand and announce their resolve.. Wouldn't it be better to accomplish it without violence? Rather than be forced into a bloody revolution as our forebears were?

   The answer to the age-old question:

"Who will guard the guards?"

   Is; We The People. At least that is how it was originally intended here in the United States of America. We need to return to following the MAXIMS pointed out by the wisdom and experience of those which preceded us.

   Why continue going down the path of cowardice. As is set forth in the LIE-beral agenda. Which never has, and never will work. Instead of keeping on the hard-won path discovered by our predecessors? The path of STRENGTH, FREEDOM and LIBERTY?

The "due process of law" LIE

   The whole intended purpose of a written Constitution and Bill of Rights. Is to outline what "shall" and "shall not" legally be done. The "due process of law" ruse is merely intended to circumvent our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a seemingly legalized method of doing that which was expressly forbidden to be done in our Constitution. Admitting that it can be done is the same as stating that the Constitution is meaningless. What the words "shall not be infringed" actually mean. Is that there can be no law enacted which interferes with the right to keep and bear arms. That due to the fact that the right is Constitutionally secured. It removes that right from both government and public scrutiny, and any action against it.

   The right to keep and bear arms is inseparably linked to the inalienable natural right of Self-Defense. Which is a right possessed by every living creature. And which right can never be fully removed. If a citizen has committed a crime and is incarcerated. Or has participated in open armed rebellion to legally delegated authority. Then of course they can be disarmed while they are in custody. But once that citizen has paid the price for their crime, and is again at liberty. Then that person has the same right to defend themselves as any other creature. And no law can legally be enacted which prevents that person from being armed for their defense.

   The Constitution IS the ultimate "due process of law". It clearly outlines what legally "shall" and "shall not" be done. And any law enacted contrary to that "Supreme Law" is null and void. Regardless of how "reasonable" or sugar-coated it is. So in reality, the actual "due process of law" is in the government and public adhering to the terms and conditions of the Constitution.

    It is the Constitutionally bound duty of the legislative branch. To not enact any law which will contravene the right to keep and bear arms. The role of the executive is to ensure that any law presented by the legislature which contravenes that right is vetoed. And the role of the judicial isn't in determining what infringements are permissible. Regardless of however plausible or reasonable they may seem. But rather, that any infringement whatsoever is declared null and void. The fact that our courts currently use prior infringements as justification for even further infringement. Is not only ludicrous, but downright ignorant. For two wrongs certainly do NOT make a right.

   The reason that we are seeing all of these mass shootings is BECAUSE of Constitutionally perverse gun control. For if We The People were all armed as is Constitutionally intended. Then the nut-cases perpetrating these mass shootings wouldn't even attempt it. For the law of Self-Preservation would make them realize that any attempt to go on a random shooting spree. Would very soon result in their own demise.

   These shootings can directly be attributed to the unconstitutional actions of our governments. As well as the cowardly sycophants which prompt those in our governments to do something about it. I use the term coward, because they are to afraid to provide for their own defense. These cowards wrongfully think that it is the role of our governments to provide for their defense. While it is plainly shown in our Constitution that our governments are NOT delegated the authority or power to do so. Our governments are charged with the duty of providing for the "common defense" - NOT individual.

The Alpha and Omega K.J.M.V. Reference Study Bible - w/expanded References through Matthew 16 & Two new sections

   The Deliverer and The Redeemer sections have also been added to the work. The Bible is in PDF format, now 31.82 MB in size, and can be downloaded

HERE

The Alpha and Omega K.J.M.V. Reference Study Bible - w/expanded References through Matthew 16:18 and major additions

   There have been two new sections added to the work. One is called The Rock and Stone Of Salvation, and the other Scriptures on Arms and Defense. The file is in PDF format and is now 30.94 MB in size. It can be downloaded

HERE

The Alpha and Omega K.J.M.V. Reference Study Bible - w/expanded References through Matthew 13

   There have been further additions and revisions as well. The file is in PDF format and is now 30.56 MB in size. It can be downloaded

HERE

In any way, shape or form. . . .

   The courts are nothing more than creatures of the Constitution. Just as is any other branch of our governments; whether they be local, state or federal. As such, the courts are just as expressly bound from infringing upon the Right to keep and bear arms. The true purpose of the courts is to pronounce as void any attempts by the executive, [lower] judicial or legislative branches to infringe upon that right. And this, whether the attempt is done by a local, state, or federal government branch. For the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and applies on every inch of sovereign United States territory. And "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has no need for judicial interpretation. For the sentence is amazingly simple and succinct. So much so that even a two-year old child has the brains enough to know what "shall not" means.

   The courts are NOT permitted to decide whether or not the right can be infringed. Just because another branch has provided [supposedly] plausible justification to do so. Nor are they permitted to ascertain the extent of 'allowable' infringements. For any interference with that right on the part of any of the branches of our governments. Against the legal exercise of that right, is an infringement. And is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of the United States of America. And since "We The People" ARE the government of the United States of America. The Supreme law also applies against any tyrannical majority of the "people" themselves. Which might attempt to prevent any possible minority from the exercise their Constitutionally secured right to keep and bear arms.

   The only time that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. Is either when a citizen is in open armed rebellion against the legally constituted authorities. [Which are operating lawfully within the bounds of the Constitution.] Or, when a citizen has violated a law and has been duly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. However, once that lawfully imposed sentence has been served, and the citizen is again free. Then that citizen not only has the right, but the duty to provide for their own defense. And our governments are expressly Constitutionally forbidden from interfering with that right in any way, shape or form.

The Alpha and Omega K.J.M.V. Reference Study Bible - w/expanded References through Matthew 10

   File is in PDF format and is now 30.3 MB in size. It can be downloaded

HERE