Concerning
the Right of We The People to
Keep
and Bear our Own Individual Private Arms
The
two Constitutional facts which shall be made absolutely clear by the
evidence presented below, are that:
1.
The Federal government of the United States of America had never been
delegated any authority or power in our Constitution over the right
of the individual citizen to keep and bear their own private arms.
2.
Both the Federal government, and all other forms of American
government, had been expressly forbidden by Constitutional Amendment
from interfering with that right in any way, shape or form. That the
individual right to keep and bear arms had been totally removed out
of the hands of American governments.
It
would be wise to first establish the fact that the individual right
to keep and bear arms legally
existed prior to the adoption of our Constitution. This is easily be
done by recurring to the right as it was granted by the British
monarchy to all subjects of that realm. Which of course included the
American Colonists at that time. The right had been secured in the
British Constitution by the Bill
of Rights of 1689:
An
Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling
the Succession of the Crown
Whereas
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at
Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates
of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February
in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight present
unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of
William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in
their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the
said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:
Whereas
the late King James
the Second,
by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers
employed by him, did endeavour to subvert
and extirpate
the Protestant religion and the
laws
and liberties
of this kingdom;
By
assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of
laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;
By
committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly
petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed
power; . . . .
.
. . By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in
time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers
contrary to law;
By
causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed
at the same time when papists were both armed and
employed contrary to law; . . . .
.
. . All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws
and statutes and freedom of this realm;
And
whereas the said late King James
the Second
having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant,
his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God
to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from
popery and arbitrary
power)
did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers
principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to
the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque
ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of
right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon
the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six
hundred eighty and eight, in
order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and
liberties
might not
again be in danger of being subverted,
upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;
And
thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant
to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a
full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most
serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends
aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case
have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient
rights and liberties declare . . . .
.
. . That the subjects which are Protestants may have
arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as
allowed by law
The
legally acknowledged right to keep and bear arms had existed in
America well before 1689 however:
Virginia
1621:
“The
planters were careless with their arms, never using their swords, and
their fire-arms only for game.”–A
New And Comprehensive Gazetteer Of Virginia
25.
That
men go not to worke in the ground without their arms
(and a centinell upon them).–Laws
and Orders Concluded by the Virginia General Assembly, March 5, 1624.
ACT
X.
ALL
persons
except negroes to
be provided with arms and amunition
or be fined at pleasure of the Governor and Council.–At
A Grand Assembly, 6th January, 1639–Sr Francis Wyatt, Gov.
13thly.
That all amunition, powder and arms,
other then for private use
shall be delivered up, securitie being given to make satisfaction for
it.—Articles
agreed on and concluded at James Cittie in Virginia, March 12, 1651
Maryland
1657:
“The
proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom
Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was recognized.
“The results of all this turbulence were the
right to carry arms,
the practical assertion of the right to make laws and lay taxes,
relief from the oath of fealty with the obnoxious clauses, and the
breakdown of the Catholic interest in Maryland politics. Toleration
was wisely restored. The solid advantages were gained by the Puritan
minority at the expense of the lord proprietary.“–History
For Ready Reference From The Best Historians, Biographers, And
Specialists . . . By J.N. Larned . . . In Five Volumes Volume
III–Greece To Nibelungen Lied Springfield, Mass. The C.A. Nichols
Co., Publishers MDCCCXCIV (1894)
It
is therefore clearly established, that prior to our revolution and
subsequent severing of ties with the British government. All of We
The People; both Catholic and Protestant, had the right to keep and
bear our own individual arms. And that right was in no way contingent
upon being in the militia.
It
is also seen in the above that the reason that the individual right
to keep and bear arms had been demanded to be secured in the British
Bill of Rights to begin with. Was due to partial ‘laws’ which had
disarmed those which held contrary religious beliefs to that
of the established government. (Which of course had played a part in
the reasoning for the future demand for Amendments I and II to be
secured in our current Constitution.)
That
the right to keep and bear arms our own personal arms in defense had
indeed been recognized in America prior to our Revolution is shown in
the following:
“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,
the Delegates of the thirteen United Colonies in North America, have
taken into our most serious consideration, a Proclamation issued from
the Court of St. James’s on the Twenty-Third day of August last.
The name of Majesty is used to give it a sanction and influence; and,
on that account, it becomes a matter of importance to wipe off, in
the name of the people of these United Colonies, the aspersions which
it is calculated to throw upon our cause; and to prevent, as far as
possible, the undeserved punishments, which it is designed to
prepare, for our friends. We are accused of “forgetting the
allegiance which we owe to the power that has protected and sustained
us.” Why
all this ambiguity and obscurity in what ought to be so plain and
obvious,
as that he who runs may read it? What allegiance is it that we
forget? Allegiance to Parliament? We never owed–we never owned it.
Allegiance to our King? Our words have ever avowed it,–our conduct
has ever been consistent with it. 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,
to which neither
the Crown nor
Parliament were ever entitled.
By the British Constitution, our
best inheritance,
rights,
as well as duties, descend
upon us:
We cannot violate the latter by defending the former: We should act
in diametrical opposition to both, if we permitted the claims of the
British Parliament to be established, and the measures pursued in
consequence of those claims to be carried into execution among us.
Our
sagacious ancestors provided mounds against the inundation of tyranny
and lawless power on one side, as well as against that of faction and
licentiousness on the other.
On which side has the breach been made? Is it objected against us by
the most inveterate and the most uncandid of our enemies, that we
have opposed any of the just prerogatives of the Crown, or any legal
exertion of those prerogatives? Why then are we accused of forgetting
our allegiance? We have performed our duty: We have resisted in those
cases, in
which the right to resist is stipulated as expressly on our part,
as the right to govern is, in other cases, stipulated on the part of
the Crown. The breach of allegiance is removed from our resistance as
far as tyranny is removed from legal government."--Journals
of the Continental Congress, Dec. 6, 1775, Report of the Delegates of
the thirteen United Colonies in North America.
"I
cannot, by all the inquiries I have been able to make, learn what
number of arms have been taken
from the tories, where they lie, or how they are to be got at.
The committee of safety for this colony have assured me that no
exertions of theirs shall be wanting to procure arms: but our
sufferings in the mean while may prove fatal, as men without are in a
manner useless. I have therefore thoughts of employing an agent whose
sole business it shall be to ride through the middle and interior
parts of these governments, for
the purpose of buying up such
arms as the inhabitants
may incline to sell, and are fit for use."--George
Washington, May
5, 1776 letter To Congress. [American State Papers, Being A
Collection Of Original and Authentic Documents Relative To The War
Between The United States And Great Britain Published by Special
Permission. Volume The First. 1795. Official Letters To The Honorable
American Congress, Written, during the War between the United
Colonies and Great Britain, By His Excellency, George Washington,
Commander In Chief Of The Continental Forces, Now President Of The
United States. Copied, by Special Permission from the Original Papers
preserved in the Office of the Secretary of State, Philadelphia. VOL.
I. London: Printed For Cadell Junior And Davies, G.G. And J.
Robinson, B. And J. White, W. Otridge And Son, J. Debrett, R.
Faulder, And T. Egerton. 1795. Official Letters From George
Washington To Congress. Pg. 141-42]
The
individual right to keep and bear our own personal arms was
considered as inextricably connected with the inalienable natural
right of Self-defense. Which was by our ancestors as having been the
direct gift from God, and therefore a natural right. This historical
fact is proven by the evidence that follows:
“This
law of nature, being coeval [existing at the same time - ed.] with
mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in
obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all
countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if
contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their
force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this
original.”
“Upon
these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation,
depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be
suffered [permitted] to contradict these.”
“…The
fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at
present mention, is
that of having arms for their defense,
suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by
law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2.
c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of
the
natural right of resistance and self-preservation,
when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to
restrain the violence of oppression.”--William
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765–1769.
“…This
was the fate of a race of Kings, bigotted to the greatest degree to
the doctrines of slavery and regardless of the natural, inherent,
divinely hereditary and indefeasible rights of their subjects.–At
the revolution, the British constitution was again restor’d to its
original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was
afterwards pass’d into a law, and stands
as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects.
“To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually
violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to
the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts
of law–next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for
redress of grievances–and lastly, to
the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and
defence.”
These he calls “auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve
principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three
great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and
private property”: And that of having
arms for their defence
he tells us is “a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the
natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions
of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence
of oppression.”–How little do those persons attend to the rights
of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault
with a late vote of this town, calling
upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their
defence at any time; but more especially, when they had reason to
fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation
against the violence of oppression….”--Samuel
Adams, Boston
Gazette, 27 Feb. 1769.
“Mr.
Henry for it. Says that a preparation for Warr is Necessary to obtain
peace–That America is not Now in a State of peace–That all the
Bulwarks, of Our Safety, of Our Constitn. are thrown down, That We
are Now in a State of Nature–That We ought to ask Ourselves the
Question should the planns of Nonim [portatio] n & Nonexp
[oratio] n fail of success–in that Case Arms are Necessary, &
if then, it is Necessary Now. Arms
are a Resource to which We shall be forced,
a
Resource afforded Us by God & Nature,
& why in the Name of both are We to hesitate providing them Now
whilst in Our power.”– Silas
Deane’s Diary, [Oct. 3, 1774]. [Letters of Delegates to Congress:
Volume 1 AUGUST 1774 - AUGUST 1775.] (Presumably referring to
Patrick Henry).
“You,
Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body; but, granting
your supposition were true, it would be a matter of no real
importance. When the first principles of civil society are violated,
and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of
municipal law are not to be regarded. Men
may then betake themselves to the law of nature;
and, if they but conform their actions, to that standard, all cavils
against them, betray either ignorance or dishonesty. There are some
events in society, to which human laws cannot extend; but when
applied to them lose all their force and efficacy. In short, when
human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are
necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they
defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null
and void.”–Alexander
Hamilton, The
Farmer Refuted, 23 Feb. 1775, Papers 1:86–89, 121–22, 135–36.
“There
is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean
to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have
been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the
noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we
have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of
our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we
must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that
is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope
with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will
it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are
totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in
every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction?
Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely
on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our
enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if
we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath
placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy
cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess,
are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just
God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up
friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the
strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides,
sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is
now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in
submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be
heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it
come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.”-- Patrick Henry, "Give
me Liberty or Give me Death" Speech, March 23, 1775.
Moving
on, and to in order to further solidify the the preexistence of our
right apart from the “militia”. We then see the following
Resolution of New York concerning arms possessed by its people, that
may be for sale:
Committee-Chamber,
New-York, May 9, 1775.
RESOLVED
1st. That
any person in this city, or county, who has arms, ammunition, or the
other articles necessary for our defence,
to dispose of; or shall import any of these articles for sale, and
shall not within ten days after the publication of these resolutions,
or in ten days after the importation, of such arms, ammunition, &c.
aforesaid, inform the Chairman, or Deputy Chairman, of this
Committee, of the quantity, and quality of the same; he shall be held
up to the public as an enemy to this country.
RESOLVED
2d. That any person in this city or county, who shall, during the
unhappy contest with our parent state, dispose of any arms,
ammunition, or other articles aforesaid, to any person, knowing, or
having reason to believe such person to be inimical to the Liberties
of America; or shall put those articles in the hands of any such
person; or any other person, knowing, or having reason to believe
that they are to be used against those liberties; he shall be held up
as an enemy to this country: which being unanimously agreed to,
Ordered,
That the same be published in hand-bills.
By
Order of the Committee,
PETER
V. B. LIVINGSTON, Chairman, pro. Tempore.
The
distinction between “militia” and people is then
made
perfectly clear in the following. Where
we see that an American government “further recommended
to the Inhabitants
of this Colony . . . that
they carry
their Arms and Ammunition with them
to Meeting, on the Sabbath and other Days”:
In
Provincial Congress, Watertown, June 17th, 1775.
WHEREAS
the hostile Incursions this Country is exposed to, and the frequent
Alarms we may expect from the Military Operations of our Enemies,
make
it necessary that the good People of this Colony be on their Guard,
and prepared at all Times to resist their Attacks, and to aid and
assist their Brethren:
Therefore,
RESOLVED,
That it be and hereby is recommended to the Militia in all Parts of
this Colony, to hold themselves in Readiness to march at a Minute’s
Warning, to the Relief of any Place that may be attacked, or to the
Support of our Army, with at least twenty Cartridges or Rounds of
Powder and Ball. And to prevent all Confusion or Delays, It
is further recommended
to the
Inhabitants
of this Colony, living on the Seacoasts, or within twenty Miles of
them,
that
they carry their Arms and Ammunition with them
to Meeting, on the Sabbath and other Days, when they meet for public
Worship:–Resolved That all Vacancies in the several Regiments of
Militia, occasioned by the Officers going into the Army, or
otherwise, be immediately filled up: And it is recommended to the
Regiments where such vacancies are, to supply them in manner and form
as prescribed by the Resolutions of Congress.
A
true Copy from the Minutes,
Attest………..Samuel
Freeman, Secr’y.
Two
days
later
we then
see
this
broadside,
which also
clearly shows the difference between the individual right to arms and
the “militia”. In fact, it makes it crystal clear that the
individual right to arms existed even
prior
to the “militia”. And every
delegate apparently had signed each
copy that had
been
sent:
"It
becomes the duty of us, in whom you have deposited the most sacred
trust, to warn you of your danger, and of the most effectual means
to ward it off. It is the right of every English subject to be
prepared with weapons for his defence; we conjure you by the ties
of religion, virtue and love of your country, to follow the example
of your sister colonies, and to form yourselves into a Militia; the
election of the officers, and arangement of the men, must depend
upon yourselves; study the art of military with the utmost
attention; view it as the science upon which your future security
depends.
"Carefully
preserve the small quantity of gunpowder which you have amongst you;
it will be the last resource when every other means of safety fails
you; Great-Britain has cut you off from further supplies; we enjoin
you, as you tender the safety of yourselves and fellow colonists, as
you would wish to live and die free, that you would reserve what
ammunition you have as a sacred deposit; he, in part, betrays his
country who sports it away, perhaps in every charge he fires he gives
with it the means of preserving the life of a fellow being.
"We
cannot conclude without urging again to you the necessity of arming
and instructing yourselves, to be in readiness to defend yourselves
against any violence that may be exerted against your persons and
properties."--Wm.
Hooper, Joseph Hewes, Rd. Caswell, North Carolina Committees,
Philadelphia, June 19, 1775. To the COMMITTEES of the several
Towns and Counties of the Province of NORTH-CAROLINA, appointed
for the purpose of carrying into execution the Resolves of the
Continental Congress.
After
the Revolution, and upon forming the Confederation of the now United
States. We had of course retained our individual right to keep and
bear our own personal arms. And there is no historical documentation
that even remotely hints
that we ever had, or intended to
surrender it. A
few of the States had even went so far as to have that right
Constitutionally
secured. The state which had made it the most clear had been
Virginia:
“XVII.
That
the people have a right to keep and bear arms;
that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people
trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free
state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the
circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in
all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and
governed by the civil power.”–A
Declaration of Rights made by the Representatives of the People of
Virginia, June, 12th, 1776. [Written by George
Mason.
And parts of which were employed by Thomas Jefferson in drafting the
Declaration
of Independence.]
It
is made clear in the Virginia Declaration of Rights that the
individual right to keep and bear arms is what was first
Constitutionally secured. It then goes on to reference the “well
regulated militia” as the only object of government “regulation”.
The distinction is clarified further by the use of; “composed of
the body of the people trained to arms”. The above
declaration had been both widely read, and even copied, throughout
the United States.
Now
that factual ground has been established concerning the preexistence
of our individual right to keep and bear arms prior to our present
Constitution. We come to the point where We The People of the United
States of America entered into our present
Constitution. And when we did so, we were still in full
possession of that individual right. And once again, that right was
not contingent upon being a member of the militia.
So
it is seen then that one of the main intentions
of Amendment II was in order to prevent our governments from
disarming people as punishment for crimes committed. The
obvious true intention of Amendment II was to secure the right of all
Free American citizens to keep and bear their own private arms. And
remove that right from out of the hands of our governments by
expressly Constitutionally forbidding them from interfering with it
in any way, shape or form.
“The
people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the
facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the
public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There
has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century &
a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century &
half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s
liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms.
The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify
them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our
Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection
of Massachusetts:
[Shay’s
Rebellion] and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a
kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will
be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.”--Thomas
Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith. [William
Stephens Smith, (Nov. 8, 1755 – June 10, 1816), was a U.S.
Representative from New York.
He was appointed by President
Washington to be the
first United States Marshal
for the District of New York in 1789, and later supervisor of
revenue. He was then appointed by President John Adams surveyor of
the Port of New York in 1800. Smith was also elected to the 13th U.S.
Congress, holding office from March 4, 1813 to March 3, 1815.]
We
will next examine in detail the Constitutional foundation upon which
our right is intended to be secured. In order to do this in a proper
manner, and with clarity, we will review some fundamental basics.
First by examining what the word Constitution really means.
The definition provided is from Webster’s Dictionary 1828 Edition.
Which is the same Dictionary the United States Supreme Court uses in
determining the original intent of our Constitution:
CONSTITU'TION,
n. The act of constituting, enacting, establishing, or
appointing….
4.
The established form of government in a state, kingdom or country ; a
system of
fundamental
rules, principles and ordinances for the government
of a state or nation. In free states, the constitution is
paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature,
limiting and controlling its power ; and in the
United States, the legislature is created, and its powers
designated, by the constitution.
Now
let us contemplate just what was the intention of the original
Constitution concerning arms, prior to having been amended by the
Bill of Rights. In order for this to be factually done, it will
be necessary to consult; Congressional
Records, The
Federalist Papers, Pamphlets On The Constitution from that
period, and the original Constitution itself.
There
will of necessity be many quotations from The Federalist Papers which
will be utilized. The reason being is that The Federalist Papers were
the means used in order to induce We The People to adopt our
Constitution. As such, The Federalist has direct legal bearing,
depth, substance and weight. For it was under those
impressions which had been published in The Federalist that we agreed
to bind ourselves. The Federalist Papers provide a detailed clause by
clause explanation of the meaning of our Constitution, (with the
exception of the Bill of Rights, although this to referred to.) The
same legal reasoning as above of course naturally applies to the
Pamphlets On The Constitution from that period. One of which gives a
very good summation of both the reasons for, and the original intent
of the new Constitution:
"The
constitution of England as it stood on paper, was one of the freest,
at that time, in the world, and the American colonies considered
themselves as entitled to the fullest enjoyment of it. Thus, when the
ill-judged discussions of late times in England brought into question
the rights of this country, as it stood connected with the British
crown, we were found more strongly impressed with their importance,
and accurately acquainted with their extent, than the wisest and most
learned of our brethren beyond the Atlantic. [Pg. 136] When the
greatest names in parliament insisted on the power of that body over
the commerce of the colonies, and even the right to bind us in all
cases whatsoever, America, seeing that it was only another form of
tyranny, insisted upon the immutable truth, that taxation and
representation are inseparable; and, while a desire of harmony and
other considerations induced her into an acquiescence in the
commercial relations of Great Britain, it was done from the declared
necessity of the case, and with a cautious, full, and absolute saving
of our voluntarily-suspended rights. The parliament was persevering,
and America continued firm, till hostilities and open war commenced,
and finally the late revolution closed the contest forever.
"It
is evident, from this short detail, and the reflections which arise
from it, that the quarrel between the United States and the
parliament of Great Britain did not arise so much from objections to
the form of government, though undoubtedly a better one by far is now
within our reach, as from a difference concerning certain
important rights, resulting from the essential principles of liberty,
which their constitution actually preserved to all the subjects
residing within the realm. It was not asserted by America, that
the people of the island of Great Britain were slaves, but that we,
though possessed absolutely of the same rights, were not
admitted to enjoy an equal degree of freedom.
"When
the declaration of independence compleated the separation between the
two countries, new governments were necessarily established. Many
circumstances led to the adoption of the republican form, among which
was the predilection of the people. In devising the frames of
government, it may have been difficult to avoid extremes opposite to
the vices of that we had just rejected; nevertheless, many of the
state constitutions we have chosen are truly excellent. Our
misfortunes have been, that in the first instance we adopted no
national government at all; but were kept together by common danger
only; and that in the confusions of a civil war, we framed a foederal
constitution, now universally admitted to be inadequate to the
preservation of liberty, property, and the [Pg. 137] union. The
question is not, then, how far our state constitutions are good, or
otherwise--the object of our wishes is, to amend and supply the
evident and allowed errors and defects of the foederal government.
Let us consider awhile, that which is now proposed to us--let us
compare it with the so much boasted British form of government, and
see how much more it favours the people, and how completely it
secures their rights, remembering, at the
same time, that we did not dissolve our connection with that country
so much on account of its constitution, as the perversion and
mal-administration of it."--Tench Coxe, [Under the pseudonym
"An American Citizen"] An Examination of the Constitution
for the United States of America, Submitted to the People by the
General Convention, At Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787,
and since adopted and ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States,
chosen for the purpose of considering it, being all that have yet
decided on the subject. By an American Citizen. [Pg. 135-137]
[Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During
Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A
Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.] (Mr.
Tench Coxe, (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824), was an American
political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the
Continental Congress. In 1786 he was sent to the Annapolis
Convention, and in 1788 to the Continental Congress.)
Mr.
Coxe had went on to state further in other publications:
“If
a time of public contention shall hereafter arrive, the firm and
ardent friends to liberty may know the length to which they can push
their noble opposition, on the foundation of the laws. Should their
country’s cause impel them further, they will be acquainted with
the hazard, and using those arms which Providence has put into
their hands, will make a solemn appeal to “the power
above.”–Tench Coxe, An American Citizen IV, PHILA. INDEP.
GAZETTEER, Oct. 21, 1787, reprinted in 13 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, supra
note 57, at 431, 433.
“The
militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their
arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and
irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it
feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own
bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American … the unlimited
power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state
governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the
hands of the people.”–Tenche Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to
the Continental Congress, The Pennsylvania Gazette, on Feb. 20, 1788.
“There
is no danger of our forgetting the use of arms, while are
strangers to game laws. A youth of sixteen years of age, who has
trained by necessity or choice, to amusement of hunting in our
American woods, has a better foundation laid for his becoming an
effective soldier, than a whole nation of farmers who have been
educated (from the operation of game laws) in an of fire arms.”
POMPILIUS. Philadelphia, July 26, 1788. [Pg. 225]
“Address
to the printers of throughout the United States: written by Tench
Coxe, esq….”
“…You
are to consider whether freedom of publication, extending to
blasphemy, immorality, treason, sedition, malice, or scandal, does
not destroy the inestimable benefits which result from the liberty of
the press, This privilege is certainly essential to the existence of
a free government; but it consists in avoiding to impose any previous
restraints on publication, and not in refraining to censure or punish
such things, as produce private or public injuries. Every freeman
has a right to the use of the press: so he has to the use of
his arms. But if his publications give an unmerited or deadly
stroke to private reputation, or sap the foundations of just
government, he abuses his privilege as unquestionably as if he were
to plunge his sword into the bosom of a fellow citizen: and the good
of society requires that each offence should be punished….”
PHILODEMOS. [Tench Coxe] [Pg. 181] [THE AMERICAN MUSEUM: OR
REPOSITORY OF ANCIENT AND MODERN FUGITIVE PIECES, &c. PROSE AND
POETICAL. Volume IV. PHILADELPHIA: PRINTED BY MATHE CAREY.
M.DCC.LXXXVIII. 1788.]
“As
civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power
to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed
by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private
arms.”–Tenche Cox, Remarks On The First Part Of The
Amendments To The Federal Constitution, in the Philadelphia Federal
Gazette, June 18, 1789.
“Do
you wish to preserve your rights? Arm
yourselves.
Do you desire to secure your dwellings? Arm
yourselves.
Do you wish your wives and daughters protected? Arm
yourselves.
Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of
faction? Arm
yourselves.
Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or
the good of your country? Arm
yourselves.
To
arms, to arms,
and
you may then sit down contented,
each
man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make
him afraid….If
you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and
ruin, then
arm yourselves;
for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own
security and that of your families. To
arms,
then
to arms.”–”Mentor”
addressed “To the Republican Citizens of Pennsylvania.”,
Philadelphia Aurora, May 21, 1799, at 2, (This edition also contained
an article signed by Tenche Cox). [Tench
Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823 By Stephen P.
Halbrook[a1] and David B. Kopel [aa1] 7 William and Mary Bill of
Rights Journal 347 (1999).]
The
sentiments expressed by Mr. Coxe had received the hearty approval of
both Mr. James Madison and Mr. Alexander Hamilton:
"I
have been favored with yours of the 28 Ult. and thank you for the
paper which it inclosed. Your arguments appear to me to place the
subject to which they relate in its true light*, and must be
satisfactory to the writer himself whom they oppose, if he can
suspend for a moment his preconceived opinions. But whether they
should have any effect or not on him, they will unquestionably be of
service in Virginia, and probably in the other Southern States. Col.
Hamilton has read the paper with equal pleasure & approbation
with myself...."--James
Madison, Jan. 3, 1788 letter to Tench Coxe.
Continuing
on in examination of our present Constitution and the principles
behind it. We see that the sovereign authority which had established
the government of the United States is We The People; in our
individual and collective capacity. This of course includes all of
the people in every state of the Union. For We The People are the
acknowledged original fountain of all power. We can delegate or grant
some of our authority and power into the hands of those that we have;
appointed, elected or hired to serve us. As well as retain, restrain
or remove any of the authority or power that has
already been delegated. For it was not a gift that We The
People had given to our hired servants. It was a grant of
power with stipulations that must be adhered to in order to be
retained by those servants.
"What
is a constitution? it is the form of government, delineated by the
mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles or
fundamental laws are established. The constitution is certain
and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the
people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to
the power of the legislature, and can be revoked or altered only
by the authority that made it.--What are legislatures? creatures
of the constitution, they owe their existence to the
constitution--they derive their powers from the constitution.--It
is their commission, and therefore all their acts must be
conformable to it, or else void. The
constitution is the work or will of the people themselves, in their
original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will
of the legislature in their derivative capacity."--Judge
Patterson's Charge to the Jury in the Wioming case of Vanhorne's
Lessee v. Dorrance; tried at the circuit-court for the United States,
held at Philadelphia, April term, I795. Pg. 182. [Pamphlets On The
Constitution Of The United States, Published During Its Discussion By
The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A Bibliography By Paul
Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
The
Constitution of the United States of America is a contractual
agreement that establishes a framework of government by which all
parties to it have agreed to be bound. It expresses explicitly and
in specific terms what those we hired to serve us “shall”
and “shall not” have the authority or power to do. We The
People created the; branches, departments and bureaus of our
government which we had ordained and established. As well as all of
the offices deemed necessary in order for our hired servants in
government to carry out our will.
"At
any rate, the Congress can never get more power than the people
will give, nor hold it any longer than they will permit;
for should they assume tyrannical powers, and make incroachments on
liberty without the consent of the people, they would soon attone for
their temerity, with shame and disgrace, and probably with their
heads."--Pelatiah Webster, The Weakness of Brutus exposed: Or,
some Remarks in Vindication of the Constitution proposed by the late
Federal Convention, against the Objections and gloomy Fears of that
Writer, Humbly offered to the Public, By a Citizen of Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, Printed for, and to be had of John Sparhawk, in
Market-Street, near the Court House / M.DCC.LXXXVlI. (Nov. 4, 1787)
Pg. 127. [Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States,
Published During Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With
Notes And A Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.:
1888.]
The
express purposes for which
our Constitution was ordained and established are declared 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.
The
preamble, in legal terms, is nothing more than an introductory
part of the Constitution. It does nothing more than state the reasons
and intentions for establishing the Constitution. It cannot be
used in justification for broadening or gaining more authority and
power than that which has already been delegated in the body of the
Constitution itself. To contend any differently would nullify the
intended purpose of a written Constitution.
Unfortunately
our hired servants in government have either willfully or ignorantly
used the preamble.
In
attempts to justify the exercise of authority
and powers
which were either never
delegated or granted. OR; that were expressly withheld
and/or denied.
Thus making them the judges of their own authority
or power,
rather than We The People. In their perverse minds, this allows them
to make an end-run around the limitations
which have been Constitutionally imposed on them. In Constitutional
terms this is what is known as; usurpation
of authority. In all actuality, the only Constitutionally legal
method of gaining additional authority
or power
is by process of Amendment. It must be delegated or granted by those
who originally retain it, which is We The People.
Laws
that have been enacted using the preamble for justification
have no Constitutional validity whatsoever. It is in reality nothing
more than the exercise of tyrannical power gained by
usurpation of authority. And any court that declares
differently is being deliberately
deceptive.
The
following from a man that would soon be appointed one of the original
justices of the United States Supreme Court. Gives a good definition
as to the fundamental meaning of We The People’s Constitution:
"When
the people established the powers of legislation under their separate
governments, they invested their representatives with every right and
authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve: and therefore
upon every question, respecting the jurisdiction of the house of
assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is
efficient and complete. But
in delegating foederal powers,
another criterion was necessarily introduced: and the congressional
authority is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but
from the positive grant,
expressed
in the instrument of union.
Hence, it is evident, that in the former case, everything which is
not reserved, is given: but
in the latter,
the
reverse of the proposition prevails,
and
every thing which is not
given,
is
reserved.
This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those
who think the omission of a bill of rights, a defect in the proposed
constitution: for it would have been superfluous and absurd, to have
stipulated with a foederal body of our own creation, that
we should enjoy those privileges,
of
which we are not
divested either by the intention or the act that has brought that
body into existence.
For
instance,
the
liberty of the press,
which has been a copious subject of declamation and opposition: what
controul can proceed from the foederal government,
to
shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?
If, indeed, a power similar to that which has been granted for the
regulation of commerce, had been granted to regulate literary
publications, it
would have been as necessary to stipulate that the liberty of the
press should be preserved inviolate,
as that the impost should be general in its operation. With
respect, likewise, to the particular district of ten miles, which is
to be the seat of government, it will undoubtedly be proper to
observe this salutary precaution, as there the legislative power will
be vested in the president, senate, and house of representatives of
the United States. But this could not be an object with the
convention: for it must naturally depend upon a future compact; to
which the citizens immediately interested, will, and ought to be
parties: and there is no reason to suspect, that so popular a
privilege will in that case be neglected. In
truth, then, the proposed system possesses no
influence whatever
upon the press;
and it would have been merely nugatory, to have introduced a formal
declaration upon the subject; nay,that very declaration might have
been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we
undertook to define its extent."--James
Wilson, [Soon
to be appointed one of the original Associate Justices of the United
States Supreme Court] Substance Of An Address To A Meeting Of The
Citizens Of Philadelphia, Delivered, October Sixth, MDCCLXXXVII,
[1787] By The Honorable James Wilson, Esquire, One Of The Delegates
From The State of Pennsylvania, To The Late Constitutional
Convention. Pg. 155-157.
[Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During
Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A
Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
Let
us next enter into the study of the body of the Constitution itself.
In order to see what authority or power had actually
been delegated to our government concerning arms. It will be seen
that in Article. I; Section. 8; Clauses 15 & 16, the Constitution
states the following:
“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”
The
Constitution then goes on to state 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"
Mr.
James Madison himself then slams the point home here:
“Mr.
MADISON thought the regulation of the militia naturally appertaining
to the authority charged with the public defence.”–August 18.
(1787), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption
of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5, Pg. 444]
So
it is seen then, that the only authority or power that
had been expressly constitutionally delegated or granted by We The
People, was over arms in the hands of the “the militia”
for the “common defense”. There is nothing in the body of the
Constitution that even suggests that the authority or power
therein delegated. Had been intended in any way to extend over arms
in the hands of We The People at large. Which, as was shown
previously, is indisputably a preexisting right of We The People. And
it is a maxim of written Constitutions, that where no
authority or power has been delegated – none can be
exercised. As had been made clear by Mr. Wilson in the above
quotation.
Other
excuses illegitimately proffered by our hired servants in attempt to
justify their errant claims of authority and power over
the individual right to keep and bear arms are equally defective. One
such claim, is that of the “necessary and proper” clause. Which
is plainly false, for that clause specifically states its actual
meaning in the following manner:
To
make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other Powers vested
by this Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
In
other words, the “laws” to be made are those which are “necessary
and proper” in order to exercise the authority and power
that had been delegated. And most certainly not to create new
authority or power which had not only never been
delegated, but expressly withheld.
Our
hired servants have also attempted to justify their usurpation of
authority or power with the claim that it is an implied
or incidental power. Which claim is not only unsupported by
sound Constitutional construction. But is thoroughly refuted using
the same reasoning as that applied to the “necessary
and proper” clause. In either event, all such claims are
plainly made void due to all doubt having been removed in the
express terms of the “Restrictive clause” of Amendment II. Which
shows that Congress had been expressly Constitutionally DENIED
the 'authority' and 'power' over arms in the hands of
We The People at large. This fact will be conclusively proven in the
following:
Preamble
to the Bill of Rights
As
presented to the States for Ratification
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
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.
If
Amendment II were expounded upon using the same spirit of law as had
been employed when it was originally presented to the States for
ratification. Then it could very well have read:
‘Due
to the fact that limited authority and power has
already been delegated in the original Constitution over a “well
regulated militia”. And it is hereby declared that the militia is
indeed “necessary to the security of a free state”. Nevertheless,
there has been fears expressed by the people, that the authority
and power delegated might be misconstrued.
And result in the abuse
of that authority or power over their preexisting right to keep and
bear their own personal arms. Therefore, we declare that the right of
the people to keep and bear their
own personal arms shall not
be infringed. Thereby restricting
all authority
and power
over that individual right of the people, in
order to calm their fears.’
Now
let’s delve deeper, and examine the definition of “declaratory”
from out of Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, shall we? Get ready, because
this is a good one:
DECLAR'ATORY,
a. Making declaration, clear manifestation, or
exhibition ; expressive ; as, this clause is declaratory of the will
of the legislature. The declaratory part of a law, is that which
sets forth and defines what is right and what is
wrong. A declaratory act, is an act or statute
which sets forth more clearly and explains the intention of the
legislature in a former act.
Then
let’s take a look at the definition of “restrictive” in all its
forms:
RESTRICT',
v.t. [L. restrictus, from restringo. See Restrain.]
To
limit; to confine; to
restrain within bounds; as, to restrict words to a
particular meaning ; to restrict a patient to a certain diet.
RESTRICTED,
pp. Limited ; confined to bounds.
RESTRICTING,
ppr. Confining to limits.
RESTRICTION,
n. [Fr. from L. restrictus.]
1.
Limitation ; confinement within bounds.
This
is to have the same restriction as all other recreations. Gov. of the
Tongue.
Restriction
of words, is the limitation of their signification in a particular
manner or degree.
2.
Restraint ; as restrictions on trade.
RESTRICT'IVE,
a. [Fr. restrictif] Having the quality of limiting or of
expressing limitation ; as a restrictive
particle.
2.
Imposing restraint; as restrictive laws
of trade.
Can
there be any mistaking the clearly defined meaning of those words?
No, there most certainly cannot. It is therefore made absolutely,
abundantly and perfectly clear. That Congress had not only never
been delegated any 'authority' or 'power' in the
original Constitution over our individual right to keep and bear our
own personal arms. But had been expressly denied any
such claim of authority or power by subsequent
Constitutional Amendment.
To
expound even further; due to apprehensions that the authority
and power which had already been delegated in the original
Constitution. Might be so misconstrued, as intended to have also
extended over the individual right of We The People to keep and bear
our own personal arms, apart from the militia. It was then
demanded to be made clear that is not the intention. So
THAT pretense of any ‘authority’ and ‘power’
having actually been delegated over the preexisting right of the
people was specifically removed.
And
this even though the right was both admitted and understood by the
framers of our original Constitution as having already been
beyond the control of American governments. Which is yet another fact
that is made absolutely clear 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-defence, 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. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can
too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of
the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a
regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it
be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily
obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force
in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed
against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation
there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure
success to the popular resistance.
"The
obstacles to usurpation
and the facilities of resistance
increase with the increased extent of the state, provided
the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them.
The
natural strength of the people
in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the
government, is greater than in a small, and of course more
competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to
establish a tyranny.
But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to
be entirely the masters of their own fate.
Power
being almost always the rival of power,
the general government will at all times stand ready to check the
usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same
disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing
themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate.
If
their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as
the instrument of redress."--Alexander
Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28, Independent Journal Friday, December
26, 1787.
We
then have the following from a famous U.S. Senator of the period:
"It
is true, the yeomanry*
of the country possess the lands, the weight of property, possess
arms,
and are too strong a body of men to be openly offended — and,
therefore, it is urged, they will take care of themselves, that
men who shall govern will not dare pay any disrespect to their
opinions."--Richard
Henry Lee, Oct. 10, 1787, Letters Of A Federal Farmer. Pg. 294
[Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United States, Published During
Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788. Edited With Notes And A
Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
(*
- YEOMANRY, n. The collective body of yeomen or freeholders. Thus
the common people in America, are called the yeomanry.--Webster's
1828 Dictionary).
[Richard
Henry Lee, (Jan. 20, 1732 – June 19, 1794), was an American
statesman from Virginia. Justice of the Peace for Westmoreland
County, Virginia, (1757). Virginia House of Burgesses, (1758–1775).
Member of the Continental Congress, (1774–1779, 1784–1785, 1787).
A Signer of the Declaration of Independence, (1776). Virginia House
of Delegates, (1777, 1780, 1785). President of the Confederation
Congress, (Nov. 30, 1784 – Nov. 4, 1785). U.S. Senator from
Virginia, (March 4, 1789 – Oct. 8, 1792), President pro tempore
during the Second Congress, (April 18 – Oct. 8, 1792).
As
well as this gentleman in reference to the fears of a standing army:
“The
eighth section was again read.
"The
Hon. Mr. SEDGWICK went into a general answer to the objections which
had been started against the powers to be granted to Congress by this
section. He showed the absolute necessity there was that the body
which had the security of the whole for their object, should have the
necessary means allowed them to effect it; and in order to secure the
people against the abuse of this power, the representatives and
people, he said, are equally subject to the laws, and can, therefore,
have but one and the same interest; that they would never lay
unnecessary burdens, when they themselves must bear a part of them;
and from the extent of their objects, their power ought necessarily
to be illimitable. Men, said he, rarely do mischief for the sake of
being mischievous. With respect to the power, in this section, to
raise armies, the honorable gentleman said, although gentlemen had
thought it a dangerous power, and would be used for the purpose of
tyranny, yet they did not object to the Confederation in this
particular; and by this, Congress could have kept the whole of the
late army in the field, had they seen fit. He asked, if gentlemen
could think it possible that the legislature of the United States
should raise an army unnecessarily, which, in a short time, would be
under the control of other persons; for, if it was not to be under
their control, what object could they have in raising it? It was, he
said, a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could
ever be enslaved. How is an army for that purpose to be obtained from
the freemen of the United States? They certainly, said he, will know
to what object it is to be applied. Is it possible, he asked, that an
army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves and
their brethren? or, if raised, whether they could subdue a nation
of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and
who have arms in their hands?”--The Hon. Mr.
[Theodore] Sedgwick, Thursday January 24, 1788 Debates In The
Convention Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts, On The Adoption Of
The Federal Constitution. [Elliots Debates Vol. 2, Pgs. 96-97]
There
can be no mistaking the plain intent of what Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Lee or
Mr Sedgwick had stated above. It is beyond any possibility of
argument or refute. It simply cannot be brushed aside as being
inconsequential or irrelevant. Or claimed as having no real bearing,
depth, substance or weight. It is the actual cold, hard
Constitutional FACT of the matter. And is plainly the original widely
accepted intent of our Constitutional Republic even prior to the Bill
of Rights. We The People were intended to be armed against all
enemies; foreign or domestic. And this for our own individual
Self-Defense, as well as the common defense.
Due
to the fact that the "Restrictive clause" of Amendment II
was made “part” of the Constitution. The prohibition then extends
to all forms of American governments; local, state, and federal as
well. For by the process of having amended the Constitution and
including that right as one of the "liberties" to be
"secured" by the Supreme Law. It thereby makes it "valid
to all intents and purposes" as part of that Supreme instrument.
Therefore the guaranties and prohibitions within the original
Constitution apply as well to Amendment II. To Wit:
Article
IV
Section
1
Full
Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section
2
The
Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.
No
one can possibly contend that "the right to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" is not an "immunity". For the
words "shall not be infringed" expressly declare that it is
indeed.
Section
4
Article
V
The
Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application
of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a
Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall
be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as
part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by
Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no
Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight
hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth
Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
Since
Amendment II, specifically the Restrictive clause; "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Has
been adopted as part of the Constitution; it "shall be valid
to all Intents and Purposes, as part of
this Constitution". Which of course means the following
applies:
Article
VI; Clauses 2 & 3:
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.
The
Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial Officers, both of the United
States and of the several States, shall be bound
by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States.
The
intention of the above is undeniably clear. All State Constitutions
are to be in harmony with the United States Constitution. And
anything in the laws or Constitutions of any State that conflicts
with the Supreme Law has no true legal standing or validity. For the
language of that Supreme Law cannot possibly be misinterpreted nor
mistaken. That the above is indeed the correct understanding of the
purpose of Amendment II is made clear by this famous U.S. Senator in
the following:
“From
among the rights
retained
by our policy, we have selected those of self
defence
or
bearing arms,
of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew
the vast superiority of our policy, in
being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and
happiness, out
of the hands of governments;
the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles,
and
beyond
the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other,
unable to reserve
to the people, and to withhold
from governments, a variety of rights.”–John Taylor, U.S.
Senator, (1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24). [An
Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the
United States: Section
the Sixth; The
Good
Moral
Principles
Of
The
Government
Of
The
United
States,
(1814).]
And
when Mr. Madison had originally presented the Amendments to Congress,
he had stated that our liberties were intended to be “perpetual”:
“It
will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every
member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among
his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they
valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are Amendments
desired of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution, and
they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part
of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will
evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have
hitherto been distinguished. . . . We ought not to disregard their
inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to
their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind
secured under this constitution. . . .”
“.
. . It is 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, Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives,
June 8th, 1789.
How
can something intended to be secured
in “perpetual” fashion be infringed
upon? Simple; it cannot.
The
facts presented above conclusively
prove beyond all shadow of
doubt. That Congress has done nothing more than tyrannically usurp
‘authority’
and ‘power’
over our individual right,
(as have some American
cities and States). Thus
making any 'Gun Control
Laws'
which they
have already enacted,
or may
enact in the future, legally
null and void.
For not only were they never
delegated any
'authority'
or 'power'
to enact such 'laws'.
But they had been
expressly forbidden
from enacting any such 'law' by
Constitutional Amendment.
Which Amendment, as
seen above is; “to
be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of
the said Constitution.”
Mr.
Alexander Hamilton again makes the point directly above perfectly
clear here:
"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."--Alexander
Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
He
then went on to state:
"This
independence of the judges is equally requisite to
guard the constitution and the rights of individuals
from the effects of those ill humours which the
arts of designing men,
or the influence
of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people
themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better
information and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the
mean time, to
occasion dangerous innovations in the government,
and
serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.
Though I trust the friends of the proposed constitution will never
concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of
republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter
or abolish the established constitution whenever they find it
inconsistent with their happiness; yet it is not
to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the
people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a
majority of their constituents incompatible
with the provisions in the existing constitution,
would, on that account, be
justifiable in a violation
of those provisions;
or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to
connive at infractions
in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of
the representative body. 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. But it is easy to see, that it would require an
uncommon portion of fortitude in the
judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the constitution,
where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major
voice of the community."--Alexander
Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
That
the above is indeed the correct Constitutional construction according
to actual rule of law is conclusively proven by the following:
“Baldwin
J charged the jury….”
“The
first section of the bill of rights in the constitution of
Pennsylvania declares that all men have the inherent and
indefeasible right of enjoying and defending life and liberty
of acquiring possessing and protecting property that no man can be
deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers
or the law of the land Sect 9 That the right of citizens to bear
arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be
questioned Sect 21 The second section of the fourth article of the
constitution of the United States declares the citizens of each
state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens
in the several states. The tenth section of the first article
prohibits any state from passing any law which impairs the
obligation of a contract. The second amendment provides that
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.”
“…We
shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political
rights of the states composing the union–in recalling your
attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy,
we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent
and unalienable–so recognised by all our
fundamental laws.
“The
constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights,
or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their
plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but
protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures
or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws.
“…A
higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme
laws 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” Const U.S., art. 6, clause 2.
“An
amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it
has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of
the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a
declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3
Dall 382.
“We
have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the
United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you
see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or
regulations which are repugnant to them,
or
which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured;
the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than
stated.”--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Baldwin, Charge to the Jury,
Circuit Court of The United States, [Pennsylvania April Term 1833
Before
Hon.
Henry Baldwin, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court,
Hon Joseph Hopkinson District Judge, Johnson
v Tompkins (13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]
“The
Constitution and laws of the United States “are
the supreme law of the land,” anything in the Constitution or laws
of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding.”
Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: “Whatever
conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force.
Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States
Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen.
Within their legitimate
sphere, they
command the obedience of all,
and
no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom….As
it is both
the right and duty of every citizen
to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to
discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the
ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the
press and of speech are
guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes;
and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for
the redress of grievances, and
to keep and bear arms, cannot
be lawfully abridged or infringed.”–Charge
To The Grand Jury By The Court, United States Circuit Court, District
Of Missouri, Special July Term, Present:
Hon. John Catron,
An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States.
1861. JULY 10, 1861.
“Judge
Woods, [later associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1880–87)],
charged the jury as follows:
“The
right to bear arms is also a right protected by the Constitution and
laws of the United States.
Every
citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms,
provided it is done for a lawful purpose and in a lawful manner. A
man who carries his arms
openly, and
for his own protection,
or for any other lawful purpose, has
as clear a right to do so as to carry his own watch or wear his own
hat.”–Circuit
Court
of the United States Fifth
Circuit
and District
of Louisiana, The United States vs. William J Cruikshank et al.
[United States v. Cruikshank, 25 F. Cas. 707 (1 Woods, 308) (C.C.D.
La. 1874) (No. 14,897), aff’d, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). ]
The
courts have obviously and plainly laid aside their sworn “duty
as faithful guardians
of the constitution”. And have instead upheld and
defended clear violations of “the Supreme Law of the land”. Thus
making them complicit in those unconstitutional violations. Proving
that they are no longer “faithful”, and are instead guilty
of aiding and abetting in the systematic violation of our
Constitution.
The
courts have concurred with and upheld as well as defended
almost every last violation; federal, state and local, of our right
to keep and bear arms. Instead of doing their Constitutionally
charged duty of ensuring that the right “shall not be infringed”.
What else can that be called, other than shear contempt for our
Constitution and the right intended to be “secured” by that
Supreme instrument? Not to mention an utter contempt for We
The People ourselves? And we are paying for these judges and justices
salaries? So that they can continue on a course of betraying us?
Which begs the question, who are these supposed hired servants really
working for? All evidence proves that it most certainly is NOT We The
People.
Just
because our hired servants have been permitted to get away with the
exercise of their tyrannically usurped authority and power
in the past. By no means provides legal justification for them to
continue in violating our Constitution even further. And this,
despite any ruling that any court may declare to the contrary.
For the Constitution is the “Supreme law of the
land”, and not the courts. The courts themselves are
expressly bound by that Supreme instrument, and can in no wise rule
against it. Any attempt by the court to do so provides clear evidence
of either criminal intent, or outright ignorance.
No,
what it really means is that none of the prior violations,
or rulings upholding them, have any Constitutional validity
whatsoever. Nor will any future violations, or rulings
which may uphold them, be valid by any means. For all such violations
or rulings are in reality
nothing more than clear and direct violations
of our Constitution - “the
Supreme Law of the land”. And We The People are under no
truly legal obligation to observe those repugnant
laws or rulings. For we had expressly bound
ALL our hired servants in government from doing any such thing. A
written Constitution is meaningless if it can be disregarded at will
by those which were intended to be bound by it.
How
can it possibly be contended, with any real sense of honesty or
integrity, that the creature is above the ones which created it in
the first place? The mere suggestion that such is what was actually
intended by the establishment of our Constitution is utterly insane.
For what would have been the real purpose of establishing a limited
Constitution. If limitations imposed by that Supreme instrument could
be ignored by the very ones against whom those limitations were
intended to apply? Establishing such a Constitution would have been
nothing more than an actual exercise of futility - a totally
meaningless gesture. The same as would be the claim by the creature;
if it were to contend that it has the power to set aside the express
will of its master. And this, if only it can indeed come up with a
plausible enough excuse to do so. Yet this is precisely the same type
of faulty reasoning and excuses that our hired servants expect us to
swallow from them. In essence all that they are actually doing is
attempting to baffle us with pure bullshit. Such as the
following quote by the U.S. Supreme Court in their Heller
decision:
"The
Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
How
can that claim by the court, which itself is just a mere creature of
the Constitution, stand up against the Supreme Law of the land, which
states:
"the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed"?
Especially
in light of what the Supreme Law states in Article VI; Clause 2:
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.
Basically
what the court had insinuated in the above Heller quote. Is
that; 'previous infringements cannot be questioned because we say
so, regardless of what the Supreme Law states to the contrary'.
Which of course is an outright lie. For repugnance to the
Constitution is still repugnant, regardless of how
'longstanding' that repugnance has been permitted. And that a
court has the unmitigated gall to declare infringements to be
‘lawful’, is just as
repugnant to that Supreme Law. There are no qualifications,
exceptions, or exemptions in the “Restrictive clause” of
Amendment II PERIOD. The words; “ shall not
be infringed” make that entirely and perfectly clear. All the court
had accomplished in their Heller opinion, is the dismissal of
our Constitution and justifications of prior infringements. Even
though the court [finally] admitted that we have an individual right.
They then turned around and upheld
and defended the prior infringements of that Constitutionally
secured right. Which is of itself nothing more than a plain violation
of the Constitution that the court is sworn by solemn oath to
uphold and defend.
Does
that not clearly indicate that the court actually thinks that
it is indeed above the Constitution itself? And has in fact ruled
that prior violations of the Constitution should not be "cast"
into "doubt"? How can that possibly be? Because one of the
creatures states it to be so? Hardly. All it actually proves,
is either the gross ignorance
of the court itself. Or, that the court has willingly combined
with the legislature and executive departments, (also merely
creatures of the Constitution), in open conspiracy to
violate our Constitution.
Past
infringements most certainly do not justify previous, current
or future infringements. As ALL infringements
are expressly prohibited by the “Supreme Law of the land”. What
our Constitution, and the rights secured by that Supreme instrument,
meant back in 1791. It still means NOW, regardless of what our hired
servants in government perversely claim to the contrary.
There
is another fact which bears very convincing testimony that the
federal government not only lacks the delegated authority and
power to enact any ‘gun control laws’. In addition
to the fact of being expressly denied that authority
or power by Constitutional Amendment. For history itself
provides irrefutable proof of those very facts, in that there were no
federal ‘gun control laws’ from 1791 to 1934. The
only ‘laws’ the federal government had enacted during those 143
years. Were those intended to enforce or support the
right of We The People to keep and bear our own personal arms. From
whence then did the federal government magically connive this
supposed ‘authority’ and ‘power’? The answer is
simple, by the only means they possibly could have: tyrannical
usurpation.
The
only true Constitutional authority or power that our
governments have over our right to keep and bear arms. Is in
providing punishments for abuse or criminal misuse of that right. But
they are expressly forbidden from interfering with or inhibiting that
right in any degree. As it is clearly the Constitutionally secured
right of all free American citizens.
Any
officer in our governments that attempts to enforce unconstitutional
‘laws’ is in clear violation of their solemn oath to “uphold
and defend” our Constitution. And should suffer punishment for so
doing. As should the courts, who have repeatedly upheld and
even defended these open violations of our Constitution. Oh,
and let’s not forget the presidents,
governors and mayors
that have signed these perversions into laws.
Which of course makes them equally as guilty as the legislatures
and courts.
The
institution of our government was originally done under the
presumption that there is a Divine Creator in control of human
affairs. Only We The People are not obliged to believe in God as
dictated by a government controlled church, or a church controlled
government. Nor are we mandated to believe in God at all, if that is
our choice. We The People, operating under the “transcendent law of
nature and of natures God” in our collective and individual
capacity. (As we have operated since the signing of the Declaration
of Independence.) Hold our rights at the suffrage of our Creator,
and not our governments. We formed our governments, in part, to
“secure” those “blessings of liberty”. Not to tell us what
our liberties are, or how, when and where we can exercise them. Our
governments were established in order to make sure that we could and
would be able to exercise them without any interference.
We
The People are the “legitimate” and ultimate authority” here in
the United States. And when our government operates in a manner that
conflicts with one of the main purposes for which it was originally
established. Which is of course for the security of our natural
rights. Then that “institution must be sacrificed”:
“9.
“The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be
sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the
States, ratifying the same.
“This
article speaks for itself. The express authority of the people
alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have
required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would
have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or
corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of
foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have
rendered inexcusable.
“Two
questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this
occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the
solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without
the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to
subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution,
and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
“The
first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute
necessity of the case; to
the
great principle of self-preservation;
to
the transcendent
law
of nature
and of nature’s God,
which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the
objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all
such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be
found without searching beyond the
principles of the compact itself.”--James
Madison, The
Federalist No. 43, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 23, 1788.
We
The People possess certain natural rights that are the direct gift of
our Creator. We do not hold these rights at the behest of our
governments, but of God. And We The People formed our
governments, in part, to “secure” those natural rights to us
perpetually:
“But
although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought
necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that
country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The
people of many States have thought it necessary to raise
barriers against power in all forms
and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if
once bills of rights are established in all the States as well as the
Federal Constitution, we shall find that although some of them are
rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary
tendency.
“It
may be said, in some instances, they do no more than state the
perfect equality of mankind. This, to be sure, is an
absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be
inserted at the head of a Constitution.
“In
some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the
people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other
instances, they
specify those rights which are retained
when
particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature.
In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to
result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be
considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social
compact which regulates the action of the community, but
is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the
pre-existent rights of nature.”--James
Madison, Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives,
June 8th, 1789.
Since
our Constitution is, in fact; “binding
upon themselves collectively, as well as individually”. That means
that ALL of We The People are bound by that Supreme instrument. And
since
“no
presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their
representatives in a departure from it.” That
clearly provides
that our right to keep and bear arms applies on every square inch of
sovereign United States territory. And no ‘government’ entity
whatsoever, or business, school, etc. Which themselves are only
permitted
to operate under the rules and regulations that We The People have
set down. Has
any authority
or power
to insist that We The People first divest ourselves of our
Constitutionally secured right before entering those premises. If it
wasn’t for We The People; those governments,
businesses
or other institutions wouldn’t even exist to begin with. WE
allowed
them to exist, and they will in turn allow us to exercise our
inalienable natural right. Otherwise we will CEASE in permitting
them to operate on our sovereign territory. Simple
and valid proposition,
isn’t it?
Our
Constitution was established under the assumption that there would be
enough people with honesty, honor and integrity within our government
to “uphold and defend” it. If not, then there would be enough
brave and enlightened citizens that would stand up. And exercise
their rights secured by Amendments I & II, in order to force our
hired servants to abide by it. But as should be painfully obvious to
all, neither of the above appears to be the case any longer.
If
our hired servants have chosen to loosen themselves from the bounds
of our Constitution. Then We The People are no longer bound in
obedience to them as well. We owe them nothing more than our utter
contempt. Our true allegiance lies to our Creator, and in maintaining
the rights that He blessed us with. Not to the vile creature that we
ourselves created, which no longer has allegiance to anyone or
anything. Other than itself, its greed, and its lust for more control
and power.
The
only reason that these tyrants have been able to get away with their
obvious treason. Is due to the fact that they have been successful in
dividing us: By race, religion, political party, social, economic and
various other means. John Marshall, (before becoming Chief Justice of
the U.S. Supreme Court), while sitting in the debates at the Virginia
Ratifying Convention. Had made the now famous statement; “United We
Stand, divided we fall”. And it certainly appears that he was
correct in his assessment. For our nation is definitely in a downward
spiral. Realistically, we are already financially enslaved.
And the value of our dollar isn’t even worth the paper that it is
printed on. It costs more to print than it’s worth. We are getting
very close in appearance to Germany just prior to the takeover by the
Nazi’s. Do we really want to go down that same type of path?
"No
form of government can preserve a nation which can't controul the
party rage of its own citizens; when any one citizen can rise
above the controul of the laws, ruin draws near. 'Tis not possible
for any nation on earth, to hold their strength and establishment,
when the dignity of their government is lost, and this dignity will
forever depend on the wisdom and firmness of the officers of
government, aided and supported by the virtue and patriotism of
their citizens."--Pelatiah Webster, The Weakness of Brutus
exposed: Or, some Remarks in Vindication of the Constitution proposed
by the late Federal Convention, against the Objections and gloomy
Fears of that Writer, Humbly offered to the Public, By a Citizen of
Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Printed for, and to be had of John
Sparhawk, in Market-Street, near the Court House / M.DCC.LXXXVlI.
(Nov. 4, 1787) Pg. 131 [Pamphlets On The Constitution Of The United
States, Published During Its Discussion By The People 1787-1788.
Edited With Notes And A Bibliography By Paul Leicester Ford.
Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888.]
We
used to be one of the most admired and envied nations in the entire
world. Now we are one of the most despised and detested, and for very
valid reasons.
If
one cannot recognize and acknowledge the fact that the people in
power perpetrating this treason are nothing more than pure
evil. Then any hope of appealing to your sense of reason is
hopelessly futile. And if you are one of those that are actually
assisting in the perpetration of this treason against We The People.
(And you know who you are; those in the media, major corporations,
banking industry, press, etc.) You are nothing more than useless
underlings that are unworthy of drawing another breath of free
American air. When your ‘masters’ turn on you, and turn on you
they will. Just remember that you yourselves were the authors of your
own destruction. You will have no one else to blame other than
yourself. You are no better than the ones Stalin had referred to as
“useful idiots”. And you can be assured that your
‘masters’ will dispose of you once your usefulness to them
is no longer required. For corrupt power has no loyalty to any
one or anything.
This
nation has morphed into some perverse combination of; aristocratic,
communist, democratic, Nazi, and socialist style of government.
Rather than the intended Constitutional
Republican form that was originally established.
If
We The People are willing to have our right to keep and bear arms
perverted by our hired servants in government. Then what other rights
are we equally as willing to have perverted? For by allowing the
establishing of a precedent in the perversion of one right. It
establishes the justification for the perversion of all of the rest
of our rights. That is just the way corrupt power in government
works. And once rights are permitted to be destroyed, then soon total
domination takes place not long thereafter. History has proven it
over and over again repeatedly.
How
do We The People stop the open disrespect and repeated violations of
our Constitution?
As
well as the continued utter disregard for our liberties and rights?
Will
we be forced to fight to regain our rights and liberties, as our
predecessors had to?
Or
will enough real American people finally come to their senses and
realize the errors of their ways?
The
latter is certainly the event to be most hoped for. And it is indeed
possible, if enough of us stand up to make the actual truth be known.
For truth will always triumph over lies in the end. Truth must be
shouted from the rooftops however, and has to be loud and clear in
order to be heard.
The
point is, that something must be done while we are still able to do
so. Otherwise, the chains that our forebears had refused to have
riveted on their necks. Will soon be fashioned around the necks of
their posterity. And anyone who actually thinks that “it
can’t happen here”. Is woefully ignorant of the history of
this world, as well as of the evil present in fallen human nature. If
you can’t hear the rattling of the chains off in the distance, then
you need new batteries for your hearing aids.
