In
America today this issue is, if not the most, certainly one of the most widely
discussed and controversial issues we hear about and the controversy is
growing. I believe this is because the very root of this issue is a spiritual
matter. To me the evidence is clear that there exists a spiritual battle being
waged between forces that seek to oppress and control the people of this
Nation, in opposition to a spirit of liberty that seeks ensure that the People
of this Nation retain the means to remain free.
Every
year nearly two hundred thousand people in America die as a direct result of
negligence stemming from medical malpractice, many more are wrongfully declared
dead, brain dead, in an effort by some in the medical field to support the
multibillion dollar industry of organ harvesting and transplantation, yet there
is no great campaign to correct these issues, no great outcry to jail the
perpetrators and severely penalize the businesses that support, defend and work
to perpetuate the medical industry and supply their instruments.
Annually
around thirty three thousand people in America die as a result of some sort of
incident involving automobiles. Often vehicles are used to commit homicide. In
1980 Pricilla Ford drove her car down a busy side walk next to Virginia Street
in Reno, Nevada killing six people and injuring twenty others, again, no outcry
or campaign to ban the instruments related to bringing about these deaths.
Referencing
the statistics stated earlier, the average death toll attributed to the use of
guns in America each year is quite small in comparison, only around eleven
thousand. Now I am not saying that the murders committed by criminals with guns
are not tragedies and should be down played and overlooked, on the contrary. It
just seems peculiar to me that such an inordinate amount of publicity, effort
and money is spent in an attempt to control and /or do away with certain
instruments under the guise of public safety when such instruments can only be
statically associated with a comparatively minute portion of wrongful death
related incidents in this Nation. The grand effort behind controlling firearm
usage as an issue of public safety simply makes no sense. The simple truth is
there are certain people groups in and around this Nation that have risen to a
level of power who are driven by the desire to control, who know that one of
the biggest obstacles in the way of them achieving total domination over
America and its resources is an armed citizenry. Thankfully, the arrogance and
dishonesty through which these people have acted to forward their agendas has
led them to operate with seemingly careless impunity, this has only served to
reveal the utter silliness of their thought processes and have begun to free
the minds of those they once believed they mastered.
We
all know the saying, “Knowledge is power”. The word of God says, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power,
and of love, and of a sound mind.” 2
Tim 1:7. It is in this chapter as in all those contained in this book, that I
hope to help bring to light certain knowledge that hopefully will enlighten,
empower and encourage sound minds that can think and act as God intended,
without fear.
Your right to own a
firearm and to carry it canceled or open exists beyond the scope of the
authority of any government official or agency to regulate. No rules abridging
the right to keep and bear arms can be made compulsory. While voluntarily
submitting to regulations, licensures and
permits may appear to be a proper step for a free people to take in order to
create unity with such an agency, even in an apparent collaborative effort to
maintain this right, it is not a proper step at all. Such submission is
actually the first step in the forfeiture of the right. Why would we ask
permission, on any level, to do something that we have the intrinsic right to
freely enjoy? Let’s examine this issue in greater detail.
“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.”
This amendment to the constitution of the United States of America, with
regards to its true intent, has sparked more heated debates by both learned and
common men then any other throughout time. The popular marketed opinion would
have people believe that the intent of this amendment, by its construct, is to
secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms, ”guns”, but only when a
militia, well regulated by the government, is necessarily created to protect
the security of a free state. My research in to this issue compels me to
completely disagree with this opinion, further I am compelled to believe that
this opinion has been made popular by certain groups of educators, government
officials and media organizations, in an effort to obscure the importance and
true intent of this amendment, as written by the framers of the Constitution. I
believe also, their efforts are designed to limit the ability of the American
people to thwart, by
force if necessary, any agenda to suppress the freedom of the
people.
“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.” Most
scholars hold that the Constitution was written with close attention to common
proper English so that all, learned and commoner, could understand the intent
of the document. It is widely believed that if one reads the document with a
common knowledge of proper English, the document is really not open to
interpretation. That each idea claim or decree is as it stands in print. When
these principles are applied to the reading of the sentence that makes up the second
amendment, we find that the sentence is purposefully structured to simply
express that each fractional statement separated by commas in the sentence
allows each idea to stand severally as well as collectively, individually on
its own as well as in totality with each other, combined. For instance, “A well
regulated militia”, “comma” means the people have the right to form a well
regulated militia, and since the bill of rights was inarguably drafted to
define some inalienable rights of the people we can rest assured that it was
the intent of the framers to confirm that it is the people who have the right
to form a well regulated militia and also that it is to be regulated by the
people, not government. “Being necessary to the security of a free state”, “comma”
means that the people have the right to defend the security of a free state.
This, coupled with the first portion of the sentence, means the people have the
right to form a militia regulate the militia and use the militia in defense of
the free state. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” means the
people have a right to own guns and other weapons as the term arms was defined
at the time the Bill of Rights was crafted. This coupled with the first two
portions of the sentence meant that the people had the right to own guns and to
form a militia, regulate the militia, arm the militia and use the armed militia
in defense of the free state. “shall not be infringed”, means the rights as
defined within the sentence cannot be denied by any means to the people, in any
fashion.
"When rights secured
by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
Now, given this, if what many anti gun supporters would have us believe were
true of the intent of the second amendment wouldn’t it make sense that the
framers would have written something more definite to support their claims?
Something such as
“If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Or
“When a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the state to arm the people shall not be infringed.” The framers
intentions with regards to this amendment are clear.
It is important to note that at the time the Constitution was crafted, the term
“State” meant the embodiment of the people collectively within the boundaries
of the several states forming a political system of governance under the
Constitution, not to be construed with a political body within the state made
up of only public officials and their offices governing over the people of that
state. After 1933 when the government of the United States declared bankruptcy
and each state was forced to incorporate in order to facilitate the bankruptcy
and adopt the new corporate policies and private monetary system, under the
uniform commercial code, the term “State” became to define the corporate entity
and offices and/or the political system of each state. Herein lies the
confusion that many antigun advocates and our Admiralty courts suffer from and
would have the common person believe. Their belief that the founders intended
that the “State” is to regulate the militia could be construed as true if you
insert the then definition of the “state” meaning the collection of individuals
living within that state’s boundaries. However this assertion fails completely
by the present understood definition of State meaning, the State corporate government.
Today’s commonly understood definition of State cannot be applied.
Sadly it seems that in the present time whenever any law enforcement officer,
public official, or court officer swears under oath to serve and protect the
“State” their oath is to that of the corporate State structure as defined, no
longer the people or individuals living within the “state”.
James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of
three authors of the Federalist papers. The Federalist Papers were published in
newspapers to explain, argue for, and support ratification of the Constitution.
In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could
not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that
based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could
not field more than 25,000 to 30,000 men. He wrote:
“To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of
citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among
themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by
governments possessing their affections and confidence."
"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."
Thomas Jefferson, though not directly a framer/crafter of the Constitution, did
write the Declaration of Independence and was certainly one of our most revered
founders who’s influences, knowledge and guidance were instrumental in forming
the laws of our new nation. Here is some of what he had to say regarding arms
ownership by the citizens.
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time
to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take
arms."
Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball,
and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character
on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your
walks."
Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.
"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, 1824.
These quotes reveal the common mindset of the founding fathers at the time of
the crafting of the Declaration of independence, the federalist papers, the
constitution of the United States of America and the bill of rights, and how
they envisioned the people of a free society to enforce the constitution and
maintain their freedoms. Are we to believe that these highly revered men
intended for the people only to have guns, when approved by government? I think
not, quite the contrary.
The notion that the second amendment grants government the power to limit the
right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, through legislation, to, in the
event of a militia well regulated by the government, necessary to the security
of a free State, is repugnant to the intentions of our forefathers and to the
Constitution.
"All laws which are
repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury ~vs~ Madison, 5
US (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of government and to ensure
that the people would always have the means to defend themselves against
governmental tyranny and to maintain their sovereignty over government. Why
would our fore fathers declare independence from oppressive rule, fight so long
and hard against such tyranny, create and establish a Republic society, a
society certified by a Constitution wherein the beliefs are held that all men
are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights like life,
liberty, privacy in their persons and effects, property and security from rule
by tyranny, where government is limited in its powers and established as
servant unto the people, then, in complete conflict, declare that the very
arms, the means by which the people can protect themselves against the
possibility of a corrupt tyrannical government, should be regulated or
controlled by the very government we would seek to protect ourselves from.
After the Constitution was written13 amendments were proposed by some of the
men we know today as the framers of the Constitution. These amendments were
greatly debated by groups of framers and other officials who supported
differing opinions on the inclusion of the first amendments and labeling them the
bill of rights. Some of the framers and others in office believed that it was
imperative to describe in detail some of the rights they considered
inalienable, unchangeable, so that the common American citizen could understand
the protection of his/her most important rights protected by the Constitution.
While others held that inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution
were given by God, and as such, so numerous they could not possibly list all
that the American people were entitled to, also that being God given rights no
man could infringe upon because man is not God and thus has not the power to do
so. These men believed that to list a few specific rights would somehow cause
the American people and future government to believe those listed were all that
the Constitution provided protection for. Given this, in the ninth amendment it
was decided to add, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.
This means basically that those rights described within the constitution should
not be misunderstood to diminish or deny other rights that do exist but are not
specifically described in the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. This satisfied
enough of those who opposed the addition of the “Bill Of Rights” and so, by
agreement ten of the proposed amendments were agreed upon, the bill of rights
was crafted and ratified.
Was it not the intent of the framers when they wrote the second
Amendment to confirm to the common citizen that he/she had the inalienable
right to own, possess, and use arms (guns) in the defense of their own freedoms
severally and for those of their fellow citizens collectively? I believe it
was. Further, was it not their intent to send a clear message to all
governments including that which governed within the United States of America
that the citizenry were armed and capable of such a defense against any
government or standing army foreign or domestic that would attempt to subjugate
them? I believe that the evidence is clear on this. I will even go further to
say that given the air of not only the statements made by James Madison in the
federalist papers, the mind set was not only to ensure the arming of the
citizenry as a deterrent, but also it was important that the capability of the
armed citizenry surpasses the ability of any standing army that might be set
against them.
The following are a few examples from state constitutions, as shared in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding Nordyke v. King; April 2004. I
include these to assist in supporting the previous assertions and that
inarguably the intention and mindset of those who preceded us was to secure the
power and authority of “We The People”.
"The people have a right to bear
arms, for the defense of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace,
are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up; and that the military
should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil
power." N. C. Declaration of Rights, § XVII (1776)
"The people have a right to bear
arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the
time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And . . .
the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by,
the civil power." Penn. Const. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII (1776)
"The people have a right to bear
arms for the defense of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in
time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and . . .
the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the
civil power." Vt. Const. ch. I., art. 16 (1777)
All and any ordinances, codes, rules, or laws attempting to limit the ability
of the citizen to possess arms freely, is repugnant to the Constitution and as
such, has no force and effect.
"An unconstitutional act is not law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates
no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.
What all American citizens need to understand is that in the United States of
America, among people, there is no status greater than that of the common
sovereign citizen, one who is bound by no duty, contract, or obligation to the
government. There has been a role reversal in America where the government is
no longer considered, as it should be, a servant unto the people, but now it is
assumed that the people are servants unto the government and the corporate
bureaucrats that hold office. As Americans sleep through the issues, we give
these public servants our tacit agreement, by not denying in few or in mass,
consent to operate as they see fit. If we do not deny we imply thus they
mandate. In this lies the power of the few, who are boisterous, over the masses
who are silent and acquiescent. This holds true with anti gun legislation. The
constitution provides for no power of the government to regulate arms (guns) with
respect to law abiding citizens, in fact, as I have shown previously, the
Constitution specifically states “the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.” But as superior power, the citizenry, severally
and/or collectively does have the ability to waive any right at any time for
any reason, and unfortunately most do simply by volunteering to contract
through offered licensure and registration or by not belligerently claiming and
jealously protecting the existence of said rights, or by simply remaining
silent and not denying government the ability to regulate our God given
freedoms. By not denying consent we imply consent, in that, is where rogue
government obtains its mandate to regulate beyond the scope of what you may
perceive as being Constitutional. Acquiescence is key, however, keep in mind
that though you may chose to waive a right knowingly or unwittingly, that right
still steadfastly exists for your neighbor and fellow Americans no matter your
belief and can always be reclaimed by you, also that no person or group of
people can, in any form, mandate the diminishment of, or repeal of, for any
reason, any right. They exist as long as the Creator who endowed us exists. As
previously discussed man is not God therefore man has not the power to
controvert that which is given by God. Only he has the authority and power to
grant rights, not man. The recognition of a Creator vastly superior to all men,
commanding that all men are created equal, is fundamental to the foundation of
our free Nation. This knowledge secures our freedom. It keeps in check those
who would seek to claim superiority and rule by tyranny. The founders
steadfastly held this belief. A failure to recognize God will lead to a
collapse of the principles of our Constitution and crumble the foundations upon
which it is designed.
In a most eloquent and refreshing opinion written by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals regarding the case of Nordyke v. King, filed April 5, 2004, before
Circuit Judges Arthur L. Alarcón, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Ronald M. Gould,
many of the truths I have discussed previously are supported. The following are
some excerpts taken from the text of the opinion as published. I would,
however, encourage any person who is interested in gaining a more in depth
knowledge into this subject, research the entire history of this case and
familiarize yourself with the complete text of the opinion.
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing
en banc:
“I respectfully dissent. I join fully in Judge Gould’s superb
dissent, which explains coherently and most admirably why
the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep
and bear arms”.
“Our court has erased 10% of the Bill of Rights for 20% of
the American people. No liberties are safe if courts can so
easily erase them, and no lover of liberty can be confident that
an important right will never become so disfavored in popular
or elite opinion as to be vulnerable to being discarded like the
Second Amendment”.
“Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated
relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that
constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of
earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless,
unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who
believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a
good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution
of the United States, or only to their preferences in public
policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague
aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply
it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the
Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution
does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser.”
4168 NORDYKE v. KING
IV
“The Second Amendment protects the right “of the people.”
It protects the people’s right not only to “bear arms,” which
may be read as having a military connotation, but also to
“keep arms,” which can only be interpreted as having an individual
one. By rejecting the individual right to keep arms,
Hickman fails to do justice to the language of the Second
Amendment. Hickman also disregards the important lesson of
history that an armed citizenry can both repel external aggression
and check the danger of an internal government degenerating
to tyranny”.
I do not think that individual rights under the Second
Amendment are outmoded, for reasons expressed in my earlier
concurrence in this case: “[The Second Amendment] was
designed to provide national security not only when our country
is strong but also if it were to become weakened or otherwise
subject to attack. As the people bear the risk of loss of
their freedom and the pain of any attack, our Constitution provides
that the people have a right to participate in defense of
the Nation. The Second Amendment protects that fundamental
right.” Nordyke, 319 F.3d at 1198 (Gould, J., specially
concurring).
I say, hail to these gallant men who in the face of political correctness,
public opinion campaigns and political or professional assassination of those
who openly dissent from the overt world community agenda, courageously uphold
justice. They abide in the sacred truth of our Constitution and affirm that the
tragedies, and sacrifices born by those who have given their lives for our
freedom, still have not been in vain.
"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
