"...that every citizen should be armed..."

"Every citizen is, from the nature of our social organization, a part of the public defense; and he is also, in the last resort, in common with his fellow-citizens, the safeguard of the liberties of all against the government itself. Thus it is that amendments to the Constitution of the United States have provided that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It seems indispensable to the accomplishment of the objects referred to that every citizen should be armed..."-- John C. Edwards, Secretary of State, 11/15/1833. 'Military Affairs', Application of Missouri for the establishment of a depot of arms near the northwestern boundry of that state.

The Original Intent of We The People's Fundamental Law, (U.S. Constitution)

"Undoubtedly what went before the adoption of the Constitution may be resorted to for the purpose of throwing light on its provisions."-- Mr. Chief Justice [Edward Douglass] White, deliver[ing] the opinion of the court, U.S. Supreme Court, MARSHALL v. GORDON , 243 U.S. 521 (1917).

What follows are quotations from the written works which were employed as the means used to sell We The People on the idea of the proposed Constitution. These are excerpts from articles published in various newspapers throughout our nation at that time. Having established that FACT. It can thus be exerted that We The People accepted these writings as the original intent of the proposed Fundamental law. And accordingly, gave our consent to be governed by it:

“For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 25.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28.

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

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

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."--James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes . . . . Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."--James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

"...According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; . . . The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws...."

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

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

"...A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law...."

"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the POWER of the PEOPLEe is SUPERIOR TO BOTH; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental...."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the WHOLE BODY of PEOPLE always POSSESS ARMS, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."--Richard Henry Lee,  Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 53 (1788). [Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 [Univ. of Alabama Press,1975]

"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.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT of the soldier, are the BIRTHRIGHT of an American .... The unlimited power of the sword is NOT in the hands of EITHER the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the HANDS OF THE PEOPLE."--Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, February 1788.

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as 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 article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."--Tench Coxe, under pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789. (Mr. Coxe was a leading proponent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He was appointed revenue commissioner by President George Washington on June 30, 1792).

The courts even arbitrarily dismiss the "TRANSCENDENT Laws of Nature and of Natures God". Which are the BASIS of which ALL American law is INTENDED to be founded. To Wit:

 "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them...."

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity."-- William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..."--The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, July 4, 1776.

  "Unless the people are considered in these two views, we shall never be able to understand the principle on which this system was constructed. I view the states as made for the people, as well as by them, and not the people as made for the states; the people, therefore, have a right, whilst enjoying the undeniable powers of society, to form either a general government, or state governments, in what manner they please, or to accommodate them to one another, and by this means preserve them all. This, I say, is the inherent and unalienable right of the people; and as an illustration of it, I beg to read a few words from the Declaration of Independence, made by the representatives of the United States, and recognized by the whole Union."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

"This is the broad basis on which our independence was placed: on the same certain and solid foundation this system is erected...."

"...The power and business of the state legislatures relate to the great objects of life, liberty and property; the same are also objects of the general government."-- James Wilson, Dec. 4, 1787. The debates in the Several State Conventions. [Elliot's Debates, Volume 2] (Mr. Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and later a Supreme Court Justice).

 "...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. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate.

"The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other. PUBLIUS."--James Madison, Federalist No. 43, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 23, 1788.

 And just what is the First Law of Nature?

 "The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war."--Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan", (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651.

The above quotes are FACTUAL in evidence, and CANNOT be dismissed by the judges as having no bearing. (Even though those very quotations PROVE the courts are acting OUTSIDE of the boundaries IMPOSED upon them from We The People by OUR Fundamental law). For it is in FACT We The People who are the "ULTIMATE AUTHORITY". And OUR Constitution EXPLICITLY states:

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

Only a complete moron, or a subversive traitor could misinterpret those words.

The first 10 amendments had ALREADY been totally "incorporated" on December 15, 1791....

"Congress of the United States;

"Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.

"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 insure 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, namely,-- . . ."

"Art. IV.[Later abridged to II. - Ed. by EDQ]  (The following breakdown of Amendment II by clauses is not contained in the original document - Ed. by EDQ).

"Declaratory" clause:

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

Restrictive

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

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States,

and President of the Senate. 

Attest. John Beckley,

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Samuel A. Otis, Secretary of the Senate.

Which, being transmitted to the several state legislatures, were decided upon by them, according to the following returns:--

By the State of New Hampshire.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 2d article.

By the State of New York.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 2d article.

By the State of Pennsylvania.--Agreed to the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th articles of the said amendments.

By the State of Delaware.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 1st article.

By the State of Maryland.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve amendments.

By the State of South Carolina.--Agreed to the whole said twelve amendments.

By the State of North Carolina.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve amendments.

By the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve articles.

By the State of New Jersey.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the second article.

By the State of Virginia.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve articles.

No returns were made by the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, and Kentucky.

The amendments thus proposed became a part of the Constitution, the first and second of them excepted, which were not ratified by a sufficient number of the state legislatures.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html

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

"The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.''It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions. Several reasons might be assigned for the distinction. I content myself with one, which is obvious and conclusive. The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 44, New York Packet, Friday, January 25, 1788.

There is NO VALID "incorporation doctrine". The U.S. Supreme Court has been LYING to We The People. By playing with our PREEXISTING Rights for over 200 years. The court is actually full of the willfully ignorant, or outright deliberate, TRAITORS.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2011 in relation to Gun Control Laws/NICS Background checks

 (Click on photos to enlarge)

Sources:  Population Figures; Disaster Center:
               http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

               NICS Figures; FBI:
               http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

   (Important note: The number of background checks does not equate to the number of firearms sold. As multiple guns; both Long Guns, and Hand Guns, can be purchased during a NICS background check).

The statistics from the chart were gathered from the Disaster Center referenced above. To which were added the last two columns on the right. Which contain information concerning U.S. gun law enactment periods. As well as crime rate variances, and finally; N.I.C.S., (National Instant Criminal Background Check), numbers,  

As it is plain to see, crime rates started a dramatic rise after the 1968 Gun Control Act. During the years 1981-84 crime rates either leveled out or dropped. From 1985-91 the overall crime rate again rose sharply. During the year 1992 the crime rates again leveled. While in 1993 most crime rates had fallen. Which fails to explain the justification for the Unconstitutional “Brady Bill”.

The 'Gun Control' laws that have been unconstitutionally passed have also had an effect on Firearm sales in the United States. According to National Shooting Sports Foundation, (NSSF), and FBI NICS records. Firearms sales have increased by 54.1% between 2002-2011*. Thus making the claim by John Lott in his book; “More Guns, Less Crime”, a statistical FACT.

'Gun Control laws' also seem to be providing an impetus for increased firearms sales. Which is hardly what the 'gun control' crowd desired, I'm sure. That is of course, unless they are stock holders in firearms related businesses....

* - See: http://www.nssf.org/share/images/PR_NICS_Adjusted_1080.jpg

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights..."

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

- Opinion for the Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

"...The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

"The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

"Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)....
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

"...Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . ."

"...According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; . . . The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws...."

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

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

"...It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental...."

"...But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. . . ."

"...That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. . . ."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.