“When a strong man armed, keeps his palace, his goods are in peace”–Yehôshua‛, Luke 11:21
“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.
Welcome to RightToBeArmed.org. Here you will discover the historically documented facts concerning the right of We The People of the United States of America to keep and bear arms for our own individual defense. As well as learning that what the majority of our hired servants in our governments tell us about our right is pure lies. This will be done by accurately tracing the right to be armed from origins. Particularly focusing on the right as it was intended by the men that framed our Constitution. Including covering the history of those that had influenced them. In addition, the history of the right to be armed from the perspective of those in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of the local, state and federal governments are covered in detail. As well as the historical views of those in Academia. The history of our right is also covered in historical news and advertisements. And finally, the people that have betrayed We The People throughout our history are also listed. As well as those of honor that had obviously taken their oath to “uphold and defend” our Constitution seriously.
The history is covered all the way up to the point when we were still a Constitutional Republic. For in the late 1800’s, and advancing rapidly in the early part of the 1900’s. Our country has been increasingly under the influence of criminal aristocratic domination. As well as the heavy influence of communist and socialist ideals, mainly in the densely populated Northeast and Northern mid-west part of the country. These people are traitors that have, and continue to, betray We The People and our intended Constitutional Republican form of government on a grand scale.
First, let us establish the fact that the right to be armed for self-defense by American citizens existed prior to our present Constitution. And that it was in no way contingent upon being in the “militia”:
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown . . .
. . . That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law…
But the individual “private” right of the British subjects in America to bear arms existed even prior to that:
“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.
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
“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)
In other words, the individual private right to arms existed well before the “militia”. And this going as far back as time immemorial.
And that one of the main reasons the right to be armed was demanded to be secured in the new federal Constitution. Was due to the fact that the right had been infringed upon by State executives/legislatures/courts.
For it’s not the exercise of a right that should be subject to restraint, but the abuse which results from misuse of the exercise of it:
“To argue against the use of a thing from the abuse of it, had long since been exploded by all sensible people.”–Hon. Edward Rutledge, (Later Governor of South Carolina), Jan. 16, 1788, [Debates In The Legislature And In Convention Of The State Of South Carolina, On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution. [Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV. Pg. 276]
The people that have betrayed us were able to accomplish their treason, in part, by having We The People under a continuous ‘state of national emergency’ since March 9, 1933. [See: U.S. Senate Report 93-549, which states: “That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”] (Which coincidentally, is the same exact thing that had been done under Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany in 1933). This ‘proclamation’, (No. 2039), was declared by the highly treasonous quasi-communistic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, (Democrat). The declared national emergency has never been revoked, and has even been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b). And presidents Clinton [Democrat], George W. Bush, and Obama [Democrat] have all extended and/or expanded upon this perversion.
Another remarkable event done by the U.S. government that resembles the Nazi’s is the 1968 Gun Control Act. Which was enacted and passed by a Democratic Party controlled congress. And signed into ‘law’ by a President which was also a Democrat. This ‘Act’ bears an amazing likeness to both the Gun Control act enacted by the Weimar Republic in Germany in 1928, and the Nazi gun law of 1938. Which resulted in a nationwide seizure of the weapons of their polical opponents, (and Jews), by the Nazi government. The Nazi’s were able to confiscate these weapons using the registration records that were required in the earlier Gun Control act of 1928. Even more sickening is that prior to those German ‘gun control laws‘, the American Army Of Occupation had disarmed the German civilian population in Dec. 1918. [President Woodrow Wilson, (Democrat), was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army at the time.] Thereby making it impossible for the German people to resist the rise of the Nazi Party into power. For the U.S. forces occupied post World War I Germany until Jan. 24, 1923. So they had to have known about the Nazi’s. (For the Nazi Party was formed in 1920, and Hitler became leader of the party in 1921). Are We The People going to permit such a repeat of history here?
The same traitor, (F.D.R.), is also the one which signed into ‘law’ the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, (the same year as the Nazi’s ‘gun control act’). And those aren’t the only similarities the American Democratic party have with Nazi Germany by far. If you really want the truth, then read: Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, And The Rise Of State Power In The 1930’s, By Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Metropolitan Books, 2006. In addition, at the close of World War II the U.S. Democratic administration brought over 1,000 Nazi’s to America to work in our government. Does anyone remember what happened to Germany as World War II was ending? It was almost completely destroyed….
The criminal traitor FDR is also the one that had outright stolen all of We The People’s gold. As well as removed our currency from the Constitutional gold standard. Prior to those two perverse ‘laws’ listed above, there had been ZERO federal ‘gun control’ legislation. Up until that time the federal government had only previously passed laws which had enforced the right to be armed. But the federal government has been for the most part historically criminally negligent in its Constitutionally charged duty to “uphold and defend” our right to be armed. And has instead permitted innumerable local and state violations of our rights. In addition to criminally dismantling our Constitutional militia system.
We The People have been and are continuing to be governed by criminals that have purposefully set our Constitution, and the rights it secures, at naught.
To be more precise, We The People are being ‘governed’ by the largest and most organized criminal syndicate the world has ever known. And their perverse greed has driven them on to ever more rapidly increasing treason and thefts every since. There could be a huge list of tyrannical acts of usurpation listed. [See: Constitution Society: Abuses and Usurpations and Federal Usurpation. As well as Heritage.org Judicial Usurpation and the Constitution.] However that which is listed above is sufficient in order to gain an understanding of just why we are in the situation we are today with our [supposedly] inalienable natural rights.
Now we can fully understand why they have done their perverse best to restrict and/or disarm us. It is done out of fear and cowardice. In order that We The People would be severely hampered if we finally decided to make these criminals pay for their crimes. For criminals, being the lazy cowards that they are, always prefer unarmed victims.
We The People have only ourselves to blame. For we and our recent forebears have allowed this treason to continue unabated. Those that had spilled their blood, sweat and tears to win and secure our freedom and liberty would be totally ashamed of us – their “posterity”.
“Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”–Frederick Douglass, An address on West India Emancipation, (3 August 1857), Selected Speeches and Writings.
The facts presented here will make it crystal clear to the reader. That it was Constitutionally mandated that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means precisely that which was written. And this for the all important reason that We The People would be able to defend ourselves from those in ‘power’ which would attempt to betray us:
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an inﬁnitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.
Now that we have somewhat of an understanding of just how we have arrived at the point we are now. Let’s examine the ultimate Constitutional remedy intended to solve the problem. Which of course involves the right of We The People to be armed.
“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]
“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”–Noah Webster, Oct. 10, 1787, An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution.
The fact that the right to be armed was placed beyond the control of our governments had, after all, been made abundantly clear in the original preamble to our national Bill of Rights itself:
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….
DECLARATORY clause; [Common Defense]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]
the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.
Or in other words, if the clauses were expounded upon they could very well read:
‘One of the chief reasons that the preexisting natural right of the people to keep and bear their own individual arms in self-defense shall not to be infringed upon by American Governments. Is due to the fact that they can combine together in a well regulated militia for their common defense, which is necessary to the security of a free state against all enemies; foreign or domestic.’
The explanation of the above Constitutional construction is done in perfect detail by Mr. James Madison in Federalist #41. Here is an extract:
” . . . Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.”
And, as seen in the prior quotations above, the right to bear arms in self-defense preexisted both the Constitution and Confederation. It was held at that time as being the “palladium of liberty”.
The fact that the individual right to bear arms in self-defense was what was intended in the 2nd Amendment. Is also affirmed by one of the most famous Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall. Mr. Marshall was present at the debates, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, concerning our Constitution. Which means he had first hand knowledge of just what was intended:
“Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers.”–Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
This is what another U.S. Supreme Court Justice, that was also present at the debates. As well as being one of the main promoters of the new Constitution, had to state on the subject:
“The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation — of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.”–U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, [Lectures – 1790-1792.] (Mr. Wilson had Signed the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. He was a congressman, and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Ending up being one of the chief proponents of our present Constitution. In addition he was one of the original U.S. Supreme Court Justices appointed by President George Washington).
And then we have the following [warning] from a very well known and respected legal authority of the time. One that used to be frequently quoted and referenced in early U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government….”
“….This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty….The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
“…In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty…”–St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries,(1803). (Mr. Tucker was a Lawyer and Professor of law at the College of William and Mary. He was appointed one of the committee to revise the laws of Virginia, and he served with James Madison and Edmund Randolph as Virginia commissioners to the Annapolis Convention. In 1803 Tucker became a judge of the highest court in Virginia. In 1813 he was appointed by President James Madison to be the United States district judge for Virginia. Tucker also, as District Court judge, sat with Chief Justice John Marshall on the U.S. Circuit Court in Richmond.)
It should be noted that Mr. St. George Tucker was present at the debates in the U.S. Congress concerning our Bill of Rights. To Wit:
“Mr. Tucker hoped the words would not struck out, for he considered them of importance; besides, they were recommended by States of Virginia and North Carolina, he noticed that the most material part by those States was omitted, which was, a declaration that the people should have a right instruct their representatives. He would to have those words inserted as soon as the motion for striking out was decided.”–[U.S. House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, August 15, 1789. [The Debates And Proceedings In The Congress Of The United States; With An Appendix, Containing Important State Papers And Public Documents, And All The Laws Of A Public Nature; With A Copious Index. Volume I. Comprising (With Volume II) The Period From March 3, 1789, To March 3, 1791, Inclusive. Compiled From Authentic Materials, By Joseph Gales, Senior. Washington: Printed And Published By Gales And Seaton. 1834. Pg. 760].
And here is the opinion of another early, and very much respected, U.S. Supreme Court Justice:
“…Baldwin J* charged the jury….”
“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.”
“. . . he had a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either. . .”–U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Circuit Court of The United States, [Johnson v. Tompkins, (13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]
And here is a quotation from an early American that was an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. As well as a Representative, U.S. Senator, Governor, etc.:
“And it is Rome, though in her decline politically, that, since the invention of gunpowder, has helped to civilize both Asia and America, as well as Europe . . . as well as the invention of gunpowder itself, all contribute, in the end, to diminish the waste of human life.
“It is contended, also, by some, and not without plausibility, that the introduction of fire-arms has assisted much to elevate the lower classes…”
“. . . arms allowed to be in the hands of all who had anything to defend, and all the laws like the shell of the marine animal, formed not to suit others, or by others, such as the inheritable Lycurguses or Solons of a monarchy, but to suit as well those who needed the laws as those the laws were destined to protect….”
“The dragon’s teeth of oppression, which had been by England, started up armed men everywhere; men accustomed the rifle from the cradle; restrained by no game laws from a chase; claiming a natural, afterwards a constitutional right to keep and bear arms….”–U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice [as well as Representative, U.S. Senator, and Governor] Levi Woodbury, [Writings of Levi Woodbury, LL.: D. Political, Judicial and Literary. Now First Selected And Arranged. In Three Volumes. Vol. III.–Literary. Boston: Little, Brown And Company. 1852.]
We then have what may very well be the best quotation from a state Supreme Court Chief Justice yet discovered:
“Jackson, Miss., Nov. 28, 1895.
“Editor of The Times-Democrat;
“Reading your editorial on car[r]ying concealed weapons leads me to write that, after an experience of nearly a half century, in active connection with the enforcement of laws, my judgment is that all laws against carrying weapons are wrong and should be repealed. They cannot be enforced, and for that reason should not exist. They operate unequally and harmfully, by being a restraint on those in whose hands the weapons would be harmless and often useful, and imposing no restraint on those in whose hands they are dangerous and often destructive.
“My view is that all should be free to carry arms, as they please, and that every girl especially should be taught to use them expertly. We would then hear less of rapes, and burglaries, and such crimes as so often occur, and there would not be a crime more by reason of the unrestrained right to carry arms.
“It would prevent rather than promote crime. The man disposed to commit crime is never restrained by the law against carrying concealed weapons, while the good citizen ofted is, and is thus placed at a disadvantage, being at the mercy of the villain who assails him and is emboldened to do it by the confidence that his victim is unarmed.
* – Supreme Court of Mississippi Chief Justice J.A.P., (Josiah Arthur Patterson), Campbell. Chief Justice Campbell served 18 years on the Mississippi Supreme Court – 1876 to 1894. He wrote the Mississippi Code of Law which established legal and official White Supremacy. Chief Justice Campbell had both a white and black family, and spent most of the last 27 years of his life with his Black family teaching them how to break the system of White Supremacy. [See: The Father of White Supremacy by James Meredith, whom is the African American great grandson of Justice Campbell]
And yet another excellent quote from a State Supreme Court Chief Justice:
“A man has a right to keep whatever arms he pleases in his house, and to introduce men to use them. And he can take them when he pleases, whether he apprehends danger or not. This is a freeman’s privilege. Any man who cannot arrest another in the perpetration of a felony, has a right to take his life, as a measure of necessity.”–Chief Justice John Bannister Gibson, Pennsylvania Supreme Court [Indiana State Sentinel, Indianapolis, January 2, 1845. Volume IV – Number 28. Pg. 4]
Next there is this from a scholarly U.S. Senator that was also present at the time of the debates and adoption:
“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), and Revolutionary Soldier. [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 another quotation from an early U.S. Senator that slams the point home quite nicely:
“Not in the regular Army, but in volunteer and self-created bodies; self-trained, and mounted on their own horses, and armed with their own rifles, and other arms, such as they could procure; all at their own expense, without the aid, or even the knowledge the General Government….”
“…Those men and officers did not fight your battles for money. They never cost your government a single cent. They furnished their own rifles, with which they principally fought. They furnished their own clothes, and their own horses; and their slender and humble rations they picked up where they could find them; and, like the other citizens who fought our battles, without the aid of government…”–U.S. Senator William Smith, of South Carolina, Debate in Congress, Jan. 29, 1828.
As well as yet three more quotations from well known and respected early U.S. Senators:
“I put on arms, supposing it possible that I might be attacked, and simply for the purpose of defending myself. Having a constitutional right to bear arms in my own defence, I exercised it.”–U.S. Senator, (and later Gov. of Mississippi), [Henry S.] Foote*, of Mississippi, In Congress Of The United States, Thirty-First Congress–First Session. Wednesday, April 17, 1850. Senate [Slavery–Select Committee.] [The Daily Union, “Liberty, The Union, And The Constitution.” City Of Washington, Thursday Morning, April 18, 1850. Volume V. Number 302. Pg. 2]
“The rifle has ever been the companion of the pioneer, and, under God, his tutelary protector against the red man and the beast of the forest. Never was this efficient weapon more needed in just self-defence, than now in Kansas, and at least one article in our National Constitution must be blotted out, before the complete rights to it can in any way be impeached”–U.S. Senator Charles Sumner, Speech in the U.S. Senate May 19-20, 1856. [Belmont Chronicle, St. Clairsville, Ohio, Thursday, July 3, 1856. New Series, Vol. VIII, No 39. Whole No. 934, Pg. 1 – Excerpted from the article; “The Crime Against Kansas. The Apologies for the Crime. The True Remedy….”]
“Was that by virtue of an indictment for carrying arms? Were the muskets of the freemen of this country indicted as nuisances? I have not heard that they were I read in the highest law of the land that the right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed. There is no pretense of any law for this outrage. No law exists or can exist in these United States which will authorize a Sheriff–admitting now that he is the valid Sheriff–or a Marshal, to go to a town and demand from its citizens their arms.”–U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, June 9, 1856 Speech in the U.S. Senate.
In addition to the above facts. There is also the fact that the commonly employed term for the military usage of arms of that period. (And this both in America as well as Great Britain). Was that the militia/military employed the term: “carry arms”. While the term employed for civilian usage was to “bear arms“. Any militia/military manual of the late 1700’s, or well into the 1800’s, makes this distinction quite clear. And the manuals that do not make the distinction obviously neglect to do so because it was “assumed”, as indicated in the above referenced quote by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall.
“Self-defence is the first law of nature, and applies to nations as well as individuals; and to provide for that defence is the duty of every nation, even when in the most profound Peace…”– William Donnison, Adjutant general, General orders. Head-quarters, Boston, June 13th, 1797.
And now that the military has been introduced, we have this little historical piece of testimony before a U.S. Congressional Committee:
“I said that he had no right to take a man’s rifle, that he had no right to enter a man’s house, except he had a search warrant or to take a rifle there unless it was stolen and described in his search warrant; he agreed to all this: I then told him I had been asked in council by the citizens of Lawrence my legal opinion of his right to take men’s rifles, and my reply was that if any man entered my house to take my rifle I had a perfect right to shoot him and he had no redress, even though it was Mr. [U.S. Marshal] Donaldson himself; I asked him if that was so; he laughed and said ‘ Yes.” Some one spoke up and said ”That’s cool;” I told the [U.S.] Marshal that I had given my opinion and my advice, and I wanted to know if I was right; he said I was…”–Col. John A. Perry, testimony taken before the [U.S.] Congressional Committee, June 9, 1856. [New-York Daily Tribune, New-York, Friday, July 25, 1856. Vol. XVI…….No. 4,763. Pg. 6]
As well as these interesting quotations by high ranking American military officers:
“Among the dearest rights of the freeman was that of bearing arms–give this right to the nations of Europe, and they cannot but soon be free…”–Maj. Gen. [Charles W.] Sandford, Dec. 12, 1851, at the Municipal Dinner in New-York to honor Gov. Kossuth of Hungary, by the Committee of Thirteen appointed to secure the legal defense of persons claimed as Fugitive Slaves. [New-York Daily Tribune, Saturday, December 13, 1851. Vol. XI….No. 3,325. Pg. 5]
“All private arms purchased by citizens will be taken to the respective homes of those who bear and own them.”–Col. Ezekiel John Ellis, [Later State Senator and U.S. Representative] General Order No. 7, Sept. 17, 1874. [The Indiana State Sentinel, Indianapolis, Tuesday, September 22, 1874. Vol. XXIV—No. 7. Whole Number 1,767. Pg. 3]
The evidence above shows beyond all shadow of doubt that it was Constitutionally intended that none of our governments; Federal, state or local. Were delegated any authority over the right of We The People to keep and bear arms. In fact they were expressly denied the authority. And forbidden from interfering with the right of the individual private citizen in any way, shape or form. [See: The Extent of Government Authority and Power] Which of course makes all laws; whether those ‘laws’ are federal, state or local. Clear violations of We The People’s Constitutionally secured right. All such ‘laws’ are therefore null and void from the moment they were enacted. For they are nothing more than tyrannical exercises of authority that was not delegated. And in fact, they were expressly forbidden from exercising any such ‘authority’. Which makes these ‘laws’ clear and direct violations of We The People’s Constitution. And this regardless of whether the ‘courts’, (whom are in reality coconspirators in the treason), declare them to be so or not.
Any agent or agency of government that attempts to enforce such ‘laws’. Is in clear violation of the solemn oath they have taken to “uphold and defend” our Constitution. Making the government guilty of violating its own ‘RICO’ Statute. For it is indeed engaged in “an ongoing criminal enterprise”, not to mention conspiracy to commit treason against We The People. Who are indeed, along with our Constitution, the true “sovereign authority” in the United States of America.
The only power that our governments have over our right. Is to provide punishment for criminal abuse or misuse of the right. And once a person has served their lawfully imposed sentence and is again at liberty. Then they have paid the penalty for their criminal action(s). For to continue to punish a person after they have already served their sentence is “cruel and unusual punishment”. [In addition to making, in effect as well as in fact, the citizen who had previously offended a slave.] Which is just another clear violation of the United States Constitution. And is precisely that which the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution was intended to prevent. Which of course makes the “felon in possession”, among other such perverse ‘laws’, a clear and direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Our governments were expressly delegated the power to provide for the “common defense”. As in making rules and regulations for the “militia” that apply only “when called into the actual Service of the United States“. In addition to being Constitutionally delegated the authority over the importation and exportation of arms to or from foreign nations. However, they were expressly forbidden from interfering in any way with the inalienable natural right of individual self-defense. Which of course includes access to everything necessary in order to exercise that right unimpeded. This makes the edicts spewed forth from the overtly criminal and treasonous ‘bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives’. As well as ‘executive orders’ [from a petty tyrant wannabe dictator] drooled out from the ‘white house’, totally unconstitutional and void. [Not to mention the other bureaus under the dept. of [in]’justice’ and the equally treasonous treasury dept., as well as from the legislative body itself.]
We The People were intended to be armed as our servants in the military and law enforcement are armed. In order to ensure that our governments would not have a monopoly on force:
“This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, 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.
“I will attempt to illustrate this, by putting one or two cases.–Every man has a right to possess military arms, of every sort and kind, and to furnish his rooms with them.”–Mr. Christopher Gore, Attorney for the Defense, TRIAL OF T.O. SELFRIDGE, ESQ. Aug., 1806. (Christopher Gore, (Sept. 21, 1758 – March 1, 1827), was a prominent Massachusetts lawyer, Federalist, and U.S. diplomat. He had a successful law practice in Boston, and entered politics in 1788. Serving briefly in the Massachusetts legislature before being appointed U.S. District Attorney for Massachusetts. He was then appointed by President George Washington to a diplomatic commission dealing with maritime claims in Great Britain. He returned to Massachusetts in 1804, and reentered state politics becoming Massachusetts Governor in 1809. He was then appointed to the U.S. Senate by Governor Caleb Strong in 1813.)
“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).]
“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.
And Mr. James Madison concurred with the assessments of Mr. Coxe here:
“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. . . .”
” . . . I propose to send a copy of yours to S. Carolina by the first conveyance; and to put another into the hands of some Gentleman who corresponds with Georgia if I can find one. I have no correspondent in that State.
“I never till very lately received an answer from Virga. on the subject of your former observations in support of the fOEdl Constitution. I find now that the three first letters were published at Richmond in a pamphlet with one or two other little pieces, and that they had a very valuable effect. The 4th was circulated in the Newspapers, not having arrived in time to be put into the pamphlet.”–James Madison to Tench Coxe, Jany. 3d. 1788. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24]
No power on earth has the authority to remove the inalienable right of Self-Defense from any free American citizen.
“The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
“In a people permitted and accustomed to bear arms, we have the rudiments of a militia, which properly consists of armed citizens, divided into military bands, and instructed at least in part in the use of arms for the purposes of war. Their civil occupations are not relinquished, except while they are actually in the field, and the inconvenience of withdrawing them from their accustomed labours, abridges the time required for military instruction. Militia therefore never amount to perfect soldiers, unless the public exigencies shall have kept them so long together as to absorb the civil, in the military character.”–U.S. District Attorney William Rawle, [A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, By William Rawle, L.L.D. Second Edition. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, Law Bookseller, No. 175, Chestnut Street. 1829.] (Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791.)
And any hired servant in our governments that attempts to limit in any way, or disarm us, is guilty of the high crime of treason. As well as any media or political group, (such as the democratic party – [See: The stances of the major American Political Party’s on ‘Gun Control’]), that is calling out for even more ‘gun control’. For they are indeed publicly engaged in conspiracy to commit treason against We The People.Think that is being too harsh? Think again:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
How many American citizens have died because they were unable to defend themselves due to Constitutionally repugnant ‘gun control’ laws? The numbers are at least in the THOUSANDS, if not TENS OF THOUSANDS.
People that are free and at liberty not only have the right, but the duty to provide arms for their own defense:
“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.
“But, if you exert the means of defence which God and nature have given you, the time will soon arrive when every man shall sit under his own vine and under his own fig-tree [I Kings 4:25], and there shall be none to make him afraid.”–Journals of the Continental Congress, An Address Of The Congress To The Inhabitants Of The United States Of America, May 8th, 1778.
“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.]
“[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.”–Roger Sherman, Debates on 1790 Militia Act; Debates in the House of Representatives, editor Linda Grand De Pauw, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3. [Roger Sherman, (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793), was the only person to sign all four great state papers of the United States: Declaration of Independence, Articles of Association, Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution. Sherman served as Justice of the Superior Court of Connecticut from 1766 to 1789, then left to become a member of the U.S. Congress.]
“We established, however, some although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person,freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”–Thomas Jefferson, To John Cartwright. vii, 356. (M., 1824.) (Jefferson Cyclopedia).
“The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the must sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”– President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818..]
“To take from the people the right of bearing arms, and put their weapons of defence in the hands of a standing army, would be scarcely more dangerous to their liberties, than to permit the Government to accumulate immense amounts of treasure beyond the supplies necessary to its legitimate wants.”–President Andrew Jackson, Message to U.S. House and Senate of Dec. 5, 1836.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873. TUESDAY, December 6, 1836.]
“The right of suffrage is one of which every American citizen is justly proud. But this right is of no importance, if the power it confers is to be destroyed by the fraudulent votes of others. In what do the citizens of this country differ from the subjects of the despots of the old world? Mainly in the fact that they possess the right of suffrage, and the right to keep and bear arms in its defence. It is the right of suffrage and the right to bear arms, which principally distinguishes the freeman from the slave. It is by means of this right that the people govern–that they legislate for themselves, and execute the laws when made, through agents of their own choice. Take this right from us, and we are no longer free. Preserve it from fraud and corruption, and we never can be slaves.”–Gov. Wilson Shannon, December 8, 1840. [Democratic Standard, Georgetown, O., Tuesday, December 22, 1840. New Series.–Vol. I. No. 21. Pg. 4 – (Cont’d from Pg. 1)]
Molon labe (Greek: μολὼν λαβέ molṑn labé; Ancient Greek: [molɔːn labé]; Modern Greek: [moˈlon laˈve]), literally meaning “come and take”. It has become the classical expression of defiance. That had reportedly originated from King Leonidas I. Which was in response to the Persian army’s demand that the Greeks surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. The Persian army was a vastly larger force and had superiority in arms. The Greeks did unfortunately lose that particular battle. However the Persian army suffered a major defeat later that year, and was utterly defeated one year later.
Firearms in the hands of criminally corrupt governments have killed far more people than any other cause known to mankind. Think that it can’t happen here? Just ask any of the original Natives or African Americans if that is the historical reality. Thus, using the same [supposed] ‘logic’ that our perverse hired servants employ to justify their tyranny and usurpation. It is only logical that the ‘government’ itself is the one that truly needs disarmed….
The greatest threat to Life, Liberty and Property is not from the common everyday criminal. No, it is when the government, instituted to protect the aforementioned, itself becomes criminal. And any government that operates outside of the bounds that were Constitutionally imposed upon it is most assuredly criminal in nature.
Hence we see that the apparent way many American governments perceive our Second Amendment is as follows:
‘A well armed law enforcement and military being necessary to the security of corrupt government, (and the cowardly vassals willingly in subjection to it), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed.’
Those who cry out for “protection” or “security” usually end up being dominated and/or enslaved by those they have cried out to for it. Our governments were instituted, in part, in order to provide for the “common defense”. Leaving the citizens to provide for their own self-defense – against all enemies, whether foreign or domestic. Which of course includes security against the elected/hired servants in our governments; should they attempt to betray the trust granted them by We The People.
One has to but ask themselves; what is of paramount importance, and truly right. Is it obedience to cowardly and corrupt elected/hired servants, or the defense of your life and all that you hold dear?
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”–John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton, (1834–1902). Acton was commonly known as Lord Acton. The quotation was from a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton written in 1887.
“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 . . . 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. . . .”
” . . . But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the Constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose. . . . 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…”–James Madison, U.S. House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789.
And anyone that doesn’t see or admit that we presently have one of the most corrupt, fiscally irresponsible, and inept governments in the history of mankind is totally blind to reality.
“That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”–George Mason, The Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776. [Mr. Mason was known as “the Father of the Bill of Rights.” Virginia’s Declaration of Rights was utilized by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.]
Being able to hold our public servants accountable would be the only way to make the above statement by Mr. Mason a reality.
The Right of We The People to be armed was intended to keep ‘power‘ in check. If we allow it to be stolen from us by the elected/hired servants in our governments. Then we shall be slaves not long thereafter….