RSS

Support 2nd Amendment Rights with the “Declaration of Independence,” Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and 9th Amendment

04 Mar

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If I were to construct an argument to justify my right to “keep and bear arms” (including alleged “assault rifles”) under the 2nd Amendment, that argument might consist of several of the following parts:

1) Founders’ Purpose for 2nd Amendment

As I explained in The Purpose of the 2nd Amendment, we can learn the Founders’ intended purpose for the 2nd Amendment by reading the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.

According to that Preamble, the purpose for the 2nd Amendment is not to empower Americans to hunt deer or ducks, or defend against an attack by Indians or even an invasion by Great Britain.  We retain the right to “keep and bear arms” so that we can shoot officers, officials, judges, bureaucrats and employees of the federal government who “abuse or misconstrue” their powers under The Constitution of the United States.  In other words, the 2nd Amendment is intended to guarantee that we have the necessary “equipment” to shoot those members of our own federal government who attempt to subject this nation to despotism (tyranny).

Nevertheless, even if the idea that the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right “keep and bear arms” (own necessary equipment) sounds fairly reasonable, it’s still hard to believe that the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to shoot and even kill federal officers, employees, etc.  Nevertheless, if you’ll take time to read the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,”  you’ll see that the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to retain the right of the People to shoot those officers, officials and employees of the federal government who claim to be endowed with powers under the Constitution but who nevertheless “misconstrue or abuse” their “powers”.

2) The 9th Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words, just because the Constitution expressly references a number of “rights” (say, Freedom of Speech) those are not the only rights secured by the Constitution.  If the People are entitled to other rights that were previously declared to exist by recognized authorities other than the Constitution, those rights can be accessed and claimed under the 9th Amendment.

For example, those of us who are men and women (but not “persons,” “inhabitants,” “occupants,” “residents,” “citizens,” etc.) and members of the “People” can access the God-given, unalienable Right to, say, “Liberty” (as expressly declared in the “Declaration of Independence”) by means 9th Amendment to the federal Constitution.

(Why do I believe the “people” claim such rights while the “citizens,” “residents,” “occupants,” etc. might not be able to make such claims?  Because I view law is a word game very similar to “Simon Sez” or “Mother May I?”.  If you don’t say exactly the right words, you will probably lose in court.  The 9th Amendment does not include the words “citizens,” “residents, etc. but does include the word “people” as the intended beneficiaries of 9th Amendment rights.  If you don’t expressly identify yourself as one of the “people,” you’ll probably have no standing under the 9th Amendment and your claims of rights under the 9th Amendment may therefore be rejected.)

It’s possible that one of the recognized sources of rights that We the People can rely on may be the Bible where rights (as the corollary of duties) were granted to “people” or perhaps to “God’s people.” However, I haven’t yet pursued that line of conjecture so it will have to wait for another time.

For now, it seems clear that the other sources of rights that must be recognized under the Constitution must include:  a) the “Declaration of Independence” (A.D. 1776); b) Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781); and c) the Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787).  (See, The Organic Law of The United States of America)

Therefore, remembering that the 9th Amendment may only apply to those who expressly identify themselves as one of the “people” of The United States of America and/or one of the “people” of one of the States of the Union—not a citizen, inhabitant, occupant, resident, etc.–can we find reference to any rights referenced in the “Declaration,” Articles of Confederation, or North West Ordinance that might affect the 2nd Amendment?

If we could, the 9th Amendment would open the door for claiming those rights in a court of law.  (See, “A 9th Amendment Road Back to Unalienable Rights”.)

3)  The “Declaration of Independence”

I plan to one day read the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) or the Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787) with an eye to finding “other” rights that might be claimed under the 9th Amendment—but I haven’t done so, yet.

However, I have glanced at the “Declaration of Independence” from time to time, and I recall a few bits of text that expressly or implicitly declare various of the People’s “rights” that might be claimed in support of the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.

For example, the “Declaration of Independence” (the cornerstone for The United States of America) begins with five paragraphs that explain the premises and principals underlying the proposed separation from the government of England, followed by 29 paragraphs listing “facts” that would justify such separation, followed a one paragraph conclusion and a one paragraph pledge.

1st Paragraph to the “Declaration of Independence”

“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 “people” are entitled by the laws of Nature and of nature’s God to claim certain rights.  This opens the door making claims on rights found within or implied by the Bible.

It’s worth noting that, to significant degree, the Founders justified their resistance to King George and English government on spiritual grounds.  The first American Revolution was not justified by simple concerns of politics or commerce, but was instead ultimately based on rights and duties found in our common faith.  It’s reasonable to suppose that the success of any future American Revolution might have more to do with the people’s faith than with the level of political oppression or commercial poverty.

Before you start talking “revolution,” you’d better first talk “faith”.

2nd Paragraph to the “Declaration of Independence”

“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.”

The “people” are composed of men and women, but (under the word game called “law”) probably not “citizens,” “residents,” etc.

More, “men” (as “people” or part thereof) get their most important rights—their “unalienable Rights”—from God, Himself, as an attribute of their creation (not birth).

Here (in the Declaration’s second paragraph) we see evidence of officially-recognized rights flowing to the “people” from God.  These God-given, unalienable Rights are accessible under the 9th Amendment and, by example, may open the door to further claims of rights under the Bible.

More, these God-given, unalienable Right are declared to be “self-evident” truths.  That means no evidence is required to prove their existence.  These God-given, unalienable Rights are the axioms on which this nation was built.  Because these unalienable Rights are “self-evident,” no American court should ever deny their existence.  However, if you try to claim such rights in some capacity (“citizen,” “resident,” fiduciary, etc.) other than that of one of the people, your claim might be denied for lack of standing.

I’m not suggesting that a claim of right under the Bible would be easy.  I am suggesting that a claim of right that was based on a number of authorities—including the Bible—would be stronger than a claim of rights made with no biblical foundation, whatsoever.

3rd Paragraph to the “Declaration of Independence”

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

The primary duty, the primary reason for the existence of de jure government, is to secure the God-given, “unalienable Rights” to each man and woman of the people.

More, all “just powers” are derived by the de jure government from the people and by the consent of the vast majority of people.

If government claimed a power that was not derived from the people or was taken by force from the people and without the people’s consent, it would be “unjust” for that power to be exercised against the “people”.  (But it might not be “unjust” to exercise that same power against the “citizens,” “inhabitants,” “residents,” “occupants,” etc..)

Further, insofar as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights declares the purpose of the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is to prevent “misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution, it appears that anyone acting in the capacity of an officer, official, politician, or employee of the federal government who exercises “unjust powers” (powers taken from the People but without the people’s express consent) would thereby “misconstrue or abuse” the constitutional powers of his office or employment.  This “misconstruction or abuse” might thereby create a “right” in People to shoot such power-grabbing officers and employees if no other means could be found to stop such misconstruction/abuse/unjust-exercise of powers.

In other words, suppose we find some jackass in federal government who routinely misconstrues, abuses, or unjustly exercises powers associated with an office or employment under the Constitution.  What do we do?  We sue him in federal court, or we might even file criminal complaints with a federal prosecutor.

But what do we do if the courts and prosecutors are just as corrupt as the jackass of whom we complain?  What if the courts and prosecutors and politicians refuse to allow us to sue or prosecute the jackass who’s abusing his alleged “powers”?  What if the government comes to protect other members of the government who “misconstrue or abuse” the powers of the Constitution?

For example, what if some of the officers of the government grant immunities to government employees who violate the constitution by “misconstruing or abusing” their powers under the Constitution?   What if the government bands together to grant itself “immunities” from suit or prosecution by the People for violating the Constitution?  What if government bands together to protect even its overtly criminal members against the people’s right to justice?

Must we simply allow and endure the injustice committed by a governmental thug to slide?

4th paragraph in the Declaration answers that question:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

First, paragraph 4 of the Declaration declares that the “People” have a right to “alter or abolish” any government that becomes “destructive of these ends”.

What “ends”?

Those “ends” were described in the third paragraph:  to “secure” our God-given, unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness declared to exist in the second paragraph.

The Declaration’s express description of a “right” to “alter or abolish” an existing government could be claimed as one of the “other” rights under the 9th Amendment.

•  Second, if we have a right to “abolish” an existing government and institute a new government based on whatever principles we believe are most likely result in our “Safety and Happiness,” then it appears that, as members of the people, we must have an even more fundamental right to our “Safety and Happiness” which could also be claimed under the 9th Amendment.

The Declaration recognizes our unalienable Right to the “pursuit of Happiness”.  Does that “Happiness” mean we are all entitled to go to Disneyworld or Las Vegas for free?

No.

In the 1990s, I was reading an early dictionary from the 1800s and stumbled on a definition that included reference to the “pursuit of Happiness”.  This definition explained that the unalienable Right to the “pursuit of Happiness” is the “Happiness” of eternal salvation.  That definition has stuck in my mind for 20 years or more, but I do not recall which dictionary I was reading from (BouviersBlacksWebsters A.D. 1828?), nor do I recall what particular definition I was reading.

So, while I can’t produce evidence that the “pursuit of Happiness” was intended to refer to our “pursuit” of eternal salvation, that meaning is obvious.  I.e., which would you rather have—which would make you “happier”:  1) a Ferrari, $ 1 million and a blond with a big set of bazooms; or 2) eternal salvation?   The answer’s obvious.

But note that the Declaration does not declare our “unalienable Right” to “happiness”—it declares our right to the “pursuit of Happiness”.   I.e., some of us may pursue that “Happiness” and find it; some may fail.  The Declaration cannot and does not guarantee that you or I will actually find eternal salvation, but it does guarantee each of us the right to pursue that “Happiness” however each of us sees fit.

That means we each have the unalienable Right to freedom of religion.  After all, how can anyone pursue his eternal salvation except by means of his faith?  You get to pursue your “Happiness” (eternal salvation) any way you like.  That pretty much opens the door to practicing virtually any religion that you choose.

Of course, your right pursue your “Happiness” by means of any religion does not entitle you to harm others. They have the same rights as you, and when your faith conflicts with mine, neither faith can impose itself on the other.  We have to allow anyone else’s faith to be exercised freely, so long as that exercise does not impose itself upon or seek to deny the faith of someone else.

Thus, in conjunction with the 9th Amendment, the unalienable Right to the pursuit of Happiness opens a big, big door to claiming rights under your religion.

Again, you can’t claim a right under your faith to harm others of another faith.  Their right to their particular style of the “pursuit of Happiness” is every bit as valid as your own.  However—so long as you are peacefully exercising a right that can be traced to your religion—you might be able to ward off some government intervention.

For example, it wouldn’t be easy to argue that:  1) you have a God-given right to travel; and 2) therefore you don’t need a drivers license since it interferes with what might be your unalienable right to travel.  I doubt that more than one man in ten who tried make such argument would succeed.  But I also don’t doubt that one in ten might succeed in such argument.

•  Third, note that the Declaration (A.D. 1776) uses the phrase, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations”.  That phrase seems nearly synonymous with the phrase “misconstruction or abuse” found thirteen years later in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (A.D. 1789) with regard to the exercise of powers under the Constitution.   This similarity could support an argument of a link between the fundamental purposes in both the Declaration and the Bill of Rights (including 2nd and 9th Amendments).

•  Fourth, insofar as the Declaration implicitly guarantees we each have fundamental rights to “Safety and Happiness,” it’s apparent that my right to “Safety” should include my right to “keep and bear arms”.    Of course, some “gun control nuts” would argue that their safety, perhaps even my safety, and our children’s safety, is enhanced by eliminating guns.  But that argument can be defeated by evidence as obvious as the 2nd Amendment that proves the Founders never imagined or intended that American’s safety would be enhanced by eliminating guns.  Clearly, the Founders believed that we would be immeasurably safer with guns than without.

•  Fifth, the Declaration declares that whenever these “abuses and usurpations” of powers over the People are persistent and thus evidence of a “design [a conspiracy] to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government . . . .”

I.e., if we the People see evidence of a conspiracy within our own government to subject We the People to “despotism” (but, under the word game of law, not necessarily “fascism” or even “tyranny”) that evidence creates and/or justifies the exercise of our “right” to “throw off such government”.  Thus, before we start barking about “tyranny” etc., we might do well to learn the express meaning of “despotism” and use that term to describe oppressive government.

Webster’s A.D. 1828 Dictionary defines “despotism” as:

“1. Absolute power; authority unlimited and uncontrolled by men, constitution or laws, and depending alone on the will of the prince; as the despotism of a Turkish sultan.

“2.  An arbitrary government, as that of Turkey or Persia.”

Webster’s A.D. 1828 Dictionary defines “despot” as:

“An emperor, king or prince invested with absolute power, or ruling without any control from men, constitution or laws.  Hence, in a general sense, a tyrant.”

I’m not going to explore the meaning of “despotism” except to say that it’s pretty much synonymous with “tyranny” (the word I’m inclined to use).  The word “tyranny” also appears in the Declaration.  However, insofar as we’re playing the word game called “law,” and we claim the right to “throw off” a government, we might tend to describe that government as a “despotism” rather than a tyranny.

When the Founders declared the right to “throw off such Government,” they weren’t talking about voting the tyrants (“despots”) out.  They understood that tyrants only leave feet first or, at best, at the point of a bayonet.  Thus, to “throw off” despots, we need “arms”—and the American Revolution perfectly demonstrates that point.

The ultimate right to resort to violence and arms to enforce our liberties by “throwing off” despotic government makes perfect sense because despots—by definition—don’t give a damn about the people’s opinions and therefore don’t give a damn about the people’s votes.  Despots agree with Joseph Stalin that “it doesn’t matter who votes—it only matters who counts the votes.”  Despots mean to “count” the vote to ensure that the “vote” always favors despotism.

Thus, if you had evidence that your government was “fixing” the elections and vote counts, you’d have evidence of the kind of despotism that we have a God-given, unalienable Right to “throw off”.

You can’t vote despots out of office.  You either “suffer” the evils of despotism “while evils are sufferable,” or you take up “arms” to shoot (or at least intimidate) the bastards.

Insofar as the Declaration of Independence expressly declares that we the People have a right to “throw off” despotic government, the 9th Amendment guarantees us access to that right today.

Insofar as it’s virtually impossible to “throw off” a despotic government by peaceful means, the right to “throw off” such government necessarily implies the right to “keep and bear arms” for that purpose.   The “right” to “throw off” despotic government is meaningless without the preliminary “right to keep and bear arms”.

It’s even arguable that the People should be allowed to keep “arms” that are at least comparable to the arms retained by a (potentially) tyrannical government.  We can’t be expected to exercise our right to “throw off” tyrannical government with sling shots, bows and arrows and flintlocks, when the government is armed with full-automatic rifles, shotguns and drones.  If the government has high-tech weapons, we should be at least entitled to “keep and bear” semi-automatic (assault) rifles and probably full-automatic weapons.

Gun control advocates would probably dismiss the idea that the people should be entitled to some sort of “parity” in arms with the federal government as crazy.  A lot of people would agree with them.  However, they’d be wrong.  The original “militias” that were referenced by the 2nd Amendment were “armies” of each of the States of the Union.   Those State militias had rifles, grenades, cannons, tanks, etc.  In the 20th century some of those State militias even had their own “air force”.    Thus, for over a century after the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it was recognized that the People of the States of the Union had a right to keep and bear arms that were far more potent than todays alleged “assault rifles”.

Remember, 2nd Amendment is not about protecting the federal government.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the People of the States of the Union (and perhaps their State governments) against the “misconstruction or abuse” of constitutional powers by the federal Government.

•  Sixth, and almost astonishingly, the Declaration not only declares that we have a “right” to “throw off” despotic government, we have even a “duty” to do so (“it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”).  Insofar as we each have a duty to throw off tyrannical government, we can’t hope to perform that “duty” without the necessary equipment.  Our “duty” to “throw off” despotic government presupposes not only a “right” to “keep and bear arms” but also a “duty” to keep and bear arms.

If I could successfully argue that I have a “right” to perform my “duty” to “throw off” any government that become “despotic,” that “right” would necessarily include my right to “keep and bear arms” needed to perform my “duty”.

•  Seventh, the Declaration lists a number of rights that could be accessed by the 9th Amendment in support of the 2nd Amendment.  This list isn’t merely of historical interest.  I.e, those rights do not merely apply to the past—they expressly apply to the future.

Insofar as the Declaration declares, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security,” we have both a right and duty keep and bear arms not merely to shield ourselves against tyranny committed by a current government administration, but to shield ourselves and our descendants against the possibility of tyranny committed by some future administration.

Thus, even if it could be argued that the Obama administration has no inclination to dictatorship or despotism, it cannot be argued that no future governmental administration will ever incline to tyranny. Therefore, I have a right to keep and bear arms today as part of my right and duty to throw off any possible future government that would become tyrannical.   So long as the possibility of future despotism exists (and it will until the Christ returns) I have both the right and the duty to “keep and bear arms” for the purpose of shooting any member of a future tyrannical government.

And who would deny that argument? Will the government stand up and declare that the American people should never have the right to shoot any governmental officer or employee—even if the government itself has become tyrannical?  I doubt that even Obama would dare to argue that the American people are obligated to by law to submit to tyranny.

5th paragraph of the “Declaration of Independence”:

“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

•  First, consider the use of the word “sufferance” in the phrase “patient sufferance of these Colonies.”

In the third paragraph of the Declaration, the Founders declared the premise that “all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government . . . .”

Here, in paragraph 5 of the Declaration, the Founders sought to implicate the premise seen in paragraph 3 by arguing: 1) they had “suffered” the evils of tyrannical government for a long time (“patient sufferance”); but, 2) those evils were no longer “sufferable”; and therefore, 3) it had become arguably and naturally “necessary” to “alter” (“throw off”) their “former Systems of Government” (King George and the monarchy) and replace it with a new government more conducive to the People’s safety and happiness.

•  Second, “To prove this [argument], let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”  The Declaration goes on to list 29 paragraphs, each of which contains at least one “Fact” that is evidence of the “establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”.

I haven’t yet read through these 29 paragraphs to see whatever “Facts” have been alleged.  But, insofar as any of those 29 paragraphs listed “Facts” that proved the existence of despotism/tyranny in A.D. 1776, those same “Facts”—if found to be committed by today’s government—would also constitute evidence that today’s government has also become despotic/tyrannical.

Conclusion

That’s as far as I’ll go today to explore the rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence”.

But I hope that each of you understands that the 9th Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) declares that such acknowledged “rights” (as found in the Declaration) are still accessible under our 9th Amendment.

Specifically, I want you to understand that many of the rights declared in the Declaration are, by way of the 9th Amendment, useful for understanding and supporting the 2nd Amendment.

More, a thorough reading of the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) and the Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787) may also uncover similar statements of “rights” which could be claimed today under the 9th Amendment.

Finally, it’s at least probable that another thorough reading of the Bible could uncover more “rights” that might be claimed by Christians or Hebrews under the 9th Amendment—especially if the 9th Amendment was backed up the freedom of religion “rights” found in the 1st Amendment.

Thus, rights under the 2nd Amendment need not stand in isolation.  They can be supported, reinforced, clarified and even amplified with the 9th Amendment and the “Declaration of Independence,” perhaps the Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, and perhaps even the 1st Amendment and Bible.

A sophisticated argument in favor of the “right to keep and bear arms” that was based not only on the 2nd Amendment but also on some or all of these additional authorities should be extremely difficult to defeat.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

56 responses to “Support 2nd Amendment Rights with the “Declaration of Independence,” Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and 9th Amendment

  1. Gary Russell

    March 4, 2013 at 3:38 PM

    Okay, Alfred, I am going to be the devil’s advocate for a moment. There is references to “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and “endowed by their Creator”, but I do not see any references to the “Bible”, so I am curious if presuming the “Bible” has anything to do with our founding documents might not actually negate what the documents ACTUALLY say, as a court today is going to be looking for a way out of this, any way, even based on semantics, not spirit of the law, and is no mention of the “Bible”. would mention of the Bible create a prejudice for or against any “non-Bible” religion?

    As always, your perspectives are always great! Thank you!

     
    • Adask

      March 4, 2013 at 4:02 PM

      I agree that “presuming” the Bible had anything to do with our founding documents can be dangerous. But so what? Were you expecting a perfect presentation and a guaranteed “get out of jail free” card? What most of law is, is not “law” per se, but argument (a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion). I seek to create conclusions that the courts may accept. One of the premises I might use is that the Declaration’s references to “Creator” and “unalienable Rights” flows from the Bible. I’m not saying that flow is God’s truth. I’m saying it’s an argument. More, I’m saying that any argument that relies on God or the Bible scares the government. Government does not want to get caught in a position where they appear to be fighting against God or the Bible. Therefore, such arguments have a little extra “kick” and may not be fiercely resisted by the government.

      If you follow the strategy I suggest, does that guarantee that you’ll win? Absolutely not. But the strategy might increase the probability that you might win.

      Some arguments can win–even if they’re faulty, improbable or false–if they are so politically sensitive that your adversary is loath to resist them. I’m not suggesting that God and the Bible are false, but I am suggesting that they are so politically explosive that government does not want to face them.

       
      • pop de adam

        March 4, 2013 at 5:53 PM

        The reason things like God and the bible irritate government is that it would like to assume this role for itself. They want tithes, indulgences and blind faith in their very own faith. Perhaps we could call govenments what they really are: competing religions.

         
      • Yartap

        March 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM

        Gary and Alfred,

        Yes! It is the Holy Scriptures (BIBLE) that Jefferson is referring to when he uses the phrase “Law of Nature and Nature’s God” in the Declaration.

        Thomas Jefferson reflected Sir William Blackstone’s view and words when he used the phrase “law of nature and of nature’s God” in the Declaration. This phrase indicates that Jefferson understood the difference between Blackstone’s theory and that of Grotius and Cicero. The law of nature refers to the will of God observable in creation while the law of nature’s God refers to the Divine Law which is revealed through the SCRIPTURES (BIBLE).

        Now, re-think your thoughts with this information.

        Pop, I agree with you. Government does want to be a religion.

         
    • James Michael

      March 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM

      That Statue of Moses over the entrance to the Supreme Court holding the Ten Commandment might give a clue to the people who the people believed the Law giver is. I’m just saying if you want proof, open your eyes and look. :)

       
      • Sparky the dullard

        March 12, 2013 at 2:34 PM

        Shalom, James Michael,
        Apparently the S.Ct. Justices there today don’t “see” it or they see it altogether different than you & I do. Maybe one or two sees it the way you & I do but overall, I don’t think the rest of umm do. ):

         
  2. Anon4fun

    March 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM

    As usual, a thoughtful essay with many useful observations. I would add a few points which consider the matter in terms of the actual text, for those who go in for that sort of thing.

    1. The 2nd Amendment says WHO the founders intended to do the protecting against misconstruction or abuse by the federal government:

    “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.”

    2. The 2nd Amendment says HOW the founders intended the people to protect against misconstruction or abuse by the federal government:

    “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.”

    3. The 2nd Amendment says WHAT the founders intended the people, through their militias, to protect against misconstruction or abuse by the federal government:

    “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.”

    – – –

    The states, through their delegates, created the federal government and gave it its powers. Therefore, in an example of the founders’ famous grasp of logic, the designated undoers of the federal government, if such becomes necessary, are also the states.

    This is why the force of arms intended as a check against misconstruction or abuse by the federal government was put into the hands of the states, specifically the state militias, and no other entity. Especially not a self-appointed revolutionary mob. The founders established a republic under the rule of law, not a mob-rule democracy.

     
    • pop de adam

      March 4, 2013 at 6:42 PM

      Anon4fun-

      Do all living enitities strive to realize “self-preservation”? I acknowledge that for some it means maintaining the tools they find best to secure themselves, while others believe in a total abolition of any tool that might be used offensively.

      “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.”

      Notice it is written: “the right of the people”, I think this phrase communicates the idea that this “right” predates even the contemplation of the document in which it appears.

      Otherwise it might read:

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, henceforth, the people will have the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed.”

      -pop

       
    • Snapper

      March 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM

      A4f
      @ > 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.”

      We understand this completely different. It does not make sense that the People have a right to keep & bear arms “against” & for the protection FROM a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

       
    • Snapper

      March 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM

      A4f
      This is why the force of arms intended as a check against misconstruction or abuse by the federal government.

      YES, But this is not why the right to bear arms is intended as a check against a well regulated militia.

       
    • Yartap

      March 4, 2013 at 11:01 PM

      What Militia? It is called “Nation Guard.” What part of “National” (Federal) don’t you understand?

      That Congressionally “well regulated militia” and disciplined militia will learn its master controls the purse strings. Guess Who controlls the money?

       
      • Anon4fun

        March 4, 2013 at 11:49 PM

        Yartap: “What Militia?”

        Evidently you failed to read or comprehend the example of scholarly excellence to which these comments are appended. Here is the relevant excerpt, in reply to your question:

        >>The original “militias” that were referenced by the 2nd Amendment were “armies” of each of the States of the Union. Those State militias had rifles, grenades, cannons, tanks, etc. In the 20th century some of those State militias even had their own “air force”. Thus, for over a century after the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it was recognized that the People of the States of the Union had a right to keep and bear arms that were far more potent than todays alleged “assault rifles”.<<

        As I mentioned elsewhere, the Constitution allows the states to use their own militias without federal permission when they are invaded or in imminent danger.

        The federal government threatening the "the security of a free state" could easily qualify as invasion or imminent danger. Such overreaches of power are the whole point of the Bill of Rights, which was put there to keep the federal government in check.

        A requirement for the states to get approval by Congress in order to keep the federal government in check would be ridiculous.

         
      • Yartap

        March 5, 2013 at 12:32 AM

        Anon4fun,

        I respectfully disagree. Placing my federal or state government back in its place is not ANARCHY on my part. When my state or federal government commits tyranny or treasons – that is anarchy against ME, my family, my Constitution and my government.

        Please look up Section 10 of the Constitution again. It tells you that only Congress can give the militia approval for “WAR.” Read in the Constitution about how Congress can only give TWO years of funding for military ventures. But why only two year? The Founders did not want standing armies or ground troops, thus the militia which Congress controlled for the safety of the republic and states.

        Next please look up the true story of the “Battle of Athens,” one of the best stories about the 2nd Amendment close to our time. Alfred featured the story, which had locals fight against its county and state authorities (not Federal).

         
      • Yartap

        March 5, 2013 at 1:13 AM

        Anon4fun,

        Please read the differences between the National Guard which can be Federalized and what is call “State Defence Force” which cannot be Federalized. This will help you realize that our militias is federalized. Many of these State Defence Forces are un-armed forces. Please go to:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

         
      • Anon4fun

        March 5, 2013 at 3:03 AM

        Yartap:

        The state defense force is a late development. To understand the intent of the founders, we must look at state militias in the context of those times.

        From “The History of the Militia in the United States”:

        (begin quote)

        These concerns over control of the militia were tied to the militia’s perceived purposes; both factions understood the term “militia” to mean more than just a military force for national defense. Rather, the [Constitution’s] drafters believed the militia served three purposes. First, the militia served in place of a standing army to resist foreign aggression. Second, the militia served as an internal police force for the states. Third, following the establishment of the federal government, the militia served to resist or deter the use of a federal standing army against the states. The eighteenth-century militia was well structured and equipped to fulfill each of these three purposes.

        […]

        The possibility of a federal standing army overthrowing the state governments further concerned the Constitution’s drafters. No one at the Constitutional Convention felt that this threat was illusory; rather, the various factions debated only which militia system would best protect the integrity of the state governments. The Federalists argued that the militia clauses enabled the states to adequately protect themselves from the federal government. James Madison believed that the armed citizenry, officered by men from their own states, could resist any federal army. The Anti-Federalists, however, opposed any federal control over the state militias. George Mason and Patrick Henry feared that the federal government’s right to arm the militia implied a right to disarm it. Madison maintained that the states had a concurrent right to arm the militia and, therefore, could prevent disarmament.

        (end quote)

        http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/8military/milita01.htm

         
      • Snapper

        March 5, 2013 at 6:32 AM

        @Guess Who controlls the money?

        Gosh,as for me, I don’t know Yartap. I do know the Constitution of 1787 & the 2nd so called “amendment” SAYS militia, not National Guard. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Do you know what amend means? If so, what did the 2nd “amendment” amend?

        You,Yartap, ask,> What part of “National” (Federal) don’t you understand?”

        I don’t even understand the question. I’ll ask you the question as you asked it. Yartap, what part of “National” don’t you understand? Yartap, what part of Federal don’t you understand?

         
    • James Michael

      March 10, 2013 at 5:19 AM

      The militia is every able bodied male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45. The national guard is not the militia. The Republic is bound by every constitutional dictate. Do you believe they are in any way abiding in their sworn of affirmed oaths, because I have 50 gigs of facts and evidence that says otherwise. The people each and individually are the state and have this obvious unalienable right to throw off tyranny. You’re correct, so bring back the rule of law and when they abide by that the problem will be solved, once the people are educated properly and not a bunch of dumbed down ignorant retards with regards to the so called country they live in.

       
  3. palani

    March 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM

    The ‘right to bear arms’ is a fancy bit of subterfuge. It is the right to heraldic symbols: flags, seals, titles of nobility, coat of arms. Nothing about weapons at all. The common law is the law of the feudal system. Esquire is a title of nobility and the constitution was written by these esquires. I bet they are still laughing over the bit of chicanery they pulled in full view of the whole world.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=CcQrAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=right+to+bear+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xEE1UZ3LH-mQ2gX0m4HQCQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=right%20to%20bear%20arms&f=false

     
    • Snapper

      March 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM

      palani
      @ >March 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM

      Big Al says he cannot possibly read every comment & this is understandable.Still, I hope he somehow will read yours,palani. I just about know what HE will say. So, IF he does I hope you are sitting down & try not to fall out or off of your chair.

       
      • palani

        March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

        Did you BOTHER to read the book? I gave the URL for a reason.

         
    • Snapper

      March 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

      palani
      March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM
      Did you BOTHER to read the book? I gave the URL for a reason.

      Dear palani, you misunderstood my comment at least from what I intended. BUT, I’ll say that’s my fault, not yours.Frst, I am not Alfred Adask,a.k.a. Big Al. Second, I don’t think the Book you provided access to consisting of 231 pages supercedes the 2nd Article in Addition to the 1787 Constitution. 3rd, I do believe the unlawfully ratified “appropriate legislation” so called amendments beginning with the 14th DOES ALTER the original meaning & intent of the 1787 Constitution & the 10 Articles in addition thereto. I apologize if I offended you. I did not nor ever want to offend you OR anyone for that matter.

       
      • palani

        March 5, 2013 at 8:53 AM

        Snapper
        No offense taken. The 14th amendment does indeed alter ALL of the bill of rights as none can be made to apply to federal citizens.

        Bouvier defines arms in two ways:

        ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another.

        ARMS, heraldry. Signs of arms, or drawings painted on shields, banners, and the like. The arms of the United States are described in the Resolution of Congress, of June 20, 1782. Vide Seal of the United States.

        In the first sense Arms are as necessary as air for breathing. There is no need to declare such a right to defend oneself because you have always had that right. In the same manner as man has a right to travel that was not specifically declared.

        In the second sense Arms as heraldry would seem to be a nicety of society that is not protected by any other declaration of law or doesn’t even seem necessary at first glance. Yet note that the SEAL OF THE UNITED STATES is included in this right. So when an action presents itself the 2nd amendment in this sense provides that you may act as the prosecutor of your action REPRESENTING the United States in any court action. This to me seems like a pretty neat power. Just cite your 2nd amendment right to represent the U.S. and start filing actions.

         
    • Sparky

      March 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM

      >So when an action presents itself the 2nd amendment in this sense provides that you may act as the prosecutor of your action REPRESENTING the United States in any court action.

      palani,you’re right. I have a court case that says so.too I got it from the C.R.T.F. group. If I find it, do you want me to post it,i.e. the part that says what you did?

       
      • palani

        March 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM

        “If I find it, do you want me to post it,i.e. the part that says what you did?”

        Sure. Why not? Although I generally find dicta that accompanies court decisions to be so overloaded with subterfuge to make them practically worthless occasionally these black robed cross dressers come up with something worthwhile.

         
  4. Snapper

    March 4, 2013 at 9:19 PM

    The following is a cut & past from a news article about Casey Anthony.It was just posted,3/4/13

    “When she left the courthouse, about 10 U.S. Homeland Security officers stood on the steps with guns.”

    Why can’t we do this without being arrested.Something ain’t adding up here.

     
    • Anthony Clifton

      March 6, 2013 at 5:48 AM

      you’re not a bolshevik…{how did BOLSHEVIKS get here?}

      To summarize, Eustace Mullins has written that the USSR from start to finish was actually funded by U.S. taxpayers, whose money was siphoned off by Jewish bankers in total control of the USA and sent directly to the Soviet Union, and not only cash but armaments and other materiel. Their objective was and is to facilitate permanent war and the ever-escalating sale of murder weapons to whomever could and can buy them.

      http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/04/291802/the-holocaust-bomb-a-rerevisionist-myth/

      This demonic formula has continued right up to the present, most vividly in the U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, and we all know what happened to him when he was of no further use to the Jewish war machine.

      England is the major culprit in all this mayhem. The “British” are the worst people on Earth. They plundered India, China and Africa, then started both World Wars. Since Cromwell engineered the return of the Jews, the English have plundered Europe with constant invasions and revolutions. And it’s all because the Jews have nested in London, the true heart of world terror. – John Kaminski

      the question is what is one defending…actually ?

       
      • Sparky

        March 7, 2013 at 4:56 AM

        Hello again,Anthony,
        @> U.S. taxpayers
        @> “This demonic formula …….”

        I.R.S. is short for,> I Represent Satan.< Eustace & I are related,blood wise, too. He is a 2nd cousin.

         
  5. Snapper

    March 4, 2013 at 10:14 PM

    Yartap
    March 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM

    Yes,my friend & there are MANY S.C.O.T.U.S. that clearly show, that AT LEAST THEN it was understood. It just ain’t understood that way no more.Early State Constitutions SHOW the same thing. When ANYTHING is understood by ALL to mean the same thing I suppose the thought doesn’t occur that it will mean the exact opposite somewhere down the line.That is not the fault of the founding fathers. Some of our great great grandparents FAILED MISERABLY in teaching the original purpose & intent. Guess they just took it for granted everyone would always know. Well it didn’t happen, did it !!!

     
    • Yartap

      March 5, 2013 at 8:31 PM

      Your right – I agree.

       
      • Randy jay, beasley

        March 5, 2013 at 9:27 PM

        If im using the federal constitution in court, then im giving the feds jurisdiction. Which its a foreign corparation, wtf would anybody do that ??? F the 14th amendment

         
  6. Randy jay, beasley

    March 5, 2013 at 6:40 AM

    I love this email you put out. Very eductional. Except the huge flaw you have or missed. That thing called the Bill of Rights!!!, it only applies in a federal area. My state Constitution gives me my right to keep and bear arms. Come on guys , give me a break !!!!!!!

     
    • Sparky

      March 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

      Randy jay,beasley,
      Technically,& I believe LAWFULLY you are correct & IF VENUE was the way it WAS before “the federal area” became/creeped ALL OVER the Country. This entire Country is NOW a Federal Area. ALL State Constitutions ARE NOW subject to the “Federal Constitution” in nEVERY aspect. ain’t right but the way it WAS ain’t the WAY it IS. ALL so called “State Government employees” are in reality quasi FEDERAL employees. It ain’t right but that’s the way it IS TOO. I don’t like it and I have tried to do things to change it but everything failed & fell like a lead balloon & I was a LOON for trying. STILL, I will not bow to the REPROBATES !!! I roll with the flow. I think the SSN is the main culprit. I have said & filed affidavits stating that I have NEVER been issued a valid binding SSN. I believe ONE is created for us whether we know it or not. They STEAL your “God” given ID(Fingerprints) & who knows what all they do with that !!! REPROBATES !!! They are agents of the DEVIL whether they know it or not !! I believe SOME know it & like it. Those are the ones that like to beat you to the point of you being within a milimeter of dying.

       
      • palani

        March 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM

        “This entire Country is NOW a Federal Area.”
        Speaking for myself this is no handicap. Rather it is a new reality that requires addressing. To aid me in addressing this issue I bring with me the Common Law that worked so well for my ancestors. Seems the holy grail of this Common Law is private property while the people who seem to be in opposition to this Common Law actively support the 10 planks. Winning against such people is quite easy since they have no concept of private property.

         
      • Randy jay, beasley

        March 5, 2013 at 9:30 PM

        Google ” the buck act “

         
    • Sparky

      March 7, 2013 at 5:41 AM

      Randy jay, beasley
      March 5, 2013 at 9:27 PM

      @ > F the 14th amendment.
      I do not mean to sound like your adversary but the truth is, no court in this country will honor your thought(s) about the 14th amendment,aka the fart-teanth. It is odorous ain’t it, via the appropriate legislation attached to it. It is overwhelming to read the laws of today that are traced back to the so called authority of the “War Amendments.” Here is a “clue” for the unaware.

      “Vice-President Joe Biden marched with black civil rights leaders in Selma, Alabama yesterday…. (< 3 days ago.) And, Biden is the first-ever sitting vice president to participate in the yearly “Bridge Crossing Jubilee” re-enactment,….

      Notice it says "Black Civil Rights leaders?" Believe it or not, there are no "White Civil Rights." So, anyone who files a "violation of ANY kind of right" lawsuit is asking for "Black Civil Rights protection for "people of color." Now what is this saying "some of us" are claimiing? Is this not a corruption of blood & degrading our forefathers? Well, NO, If you are a black "person." OR a person of color as IS defined in their own law. See Title 42,U.S. Code Sec.1983. No need to say,I will never file that kind of case,etc. No matter what your paperwork says, see what the clerk does with it, per the instruction of the Magistrate/Judge. Still, I AGREE with you Randy, F IT !!!

       
    • Jerry Sparks

      March 26, 2013 at 10:34 PM

      @ >My state Constitution gives me my right to keep and bear arms. Come on guys , give me a break !!!!!!!
      You are RIGHT !!

       
  7. Sparky

    March 5, 2013 at 8:27 AM

    A4f
    The state defense force is a late development. To understand the intent of the founders, we must look at state militias in the context of those times.

    EXACTLY !!!

     
  8. Anon4fun

    March 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM

    Yartap: “Placing my federal or state government back in its place is not ANARCHY on my part.”

    Without due process, anarchy is exactly what it is.

    Whether or not there are circumstances in which anarchy is justified is another question, but a moot point, since putting a government back in place by shooting at it is nothing more than a chapter in the anarchist storybook.

    If you ever try to shoot your way back to lawful government, the situation will simply escalate until either the government is out of bullets or you’re dead. Guess which outcome is more likely.

    I don’t want to see this happen, so I strongly recommend that you stop drinking the treasonous NWO’s anarchy Kool-Aid and start looking at politically effective moves in the real world.

     
    • Sparky

      March 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

      A4f,
      Huey likes plainer N hell statements like you just made Anon4fun. I DO TOO !!! Have you ever considered starting your own blog?

       
    • Yartap

      March 5, 2013 at 8:57 PM

      Anon4fun,

      Sense we are talking about during the Founder’s time, the federal government was to know that We the People had the guns. Thus, the government was to fear the People – right? So, I agree with you that things have changed. The militia has morphed into the National Guard and state defense forces; the Defense Authorization Act of 1933 federalized all state militias. But in theory, where the government feared the People – we have Liberty. Now, the People fear the government – we have tyranny.

      The Powers that Be’s mouth piece, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, mouths off that there exist 390 militia “Hate” groups and over a 1000 political anarchist groups hell bent on overthrowing the government. This is what our “militia” has become – a hate group.
      Are the Bill of Rights being subverted? Damn right the Constitution is being subverted! Anon4fun, I understand your words and warnings. But resigning to what We the People have been doing for the past 100 years is not working politically towards Freedom and Liberty.

       
      • Sparky

        March 7, 2013 at 5:54 AM

        Yartap,My Christian Brother,
        @ > But resigning to what We the People have been doing for the past 100 years is not working politically towards Freedom and Liberty.

        TRUE !!!

         
      • Jerry S

        April 23, 2013 at 12:59 AM

        What has worked in the last almost 6,000 years?

         
  9. Mvg-Avg

    March 5, 2013 at 4:56 PM

    The Constitution for The Free and Independent State of Florida (A.D. 1838) Section 21. That the free white men of this State shall have the right to keep and to bear arms, for their common defense.

     
  10. Sparky

    March 5, 2013 at 5:51 PM

    Mvg-Avg
    Please go to the thread on the Blog & showing below & read it. Then see IF you still think that what you posted about The State of Florida Constitution has any power or authority that will be honored.

    The Tyranny-Liberty Cycle of Government < Thread
    Taylor Johnson < Poster
    February 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM < date & time posted

     
  11. Sparky

    March 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM

    palani,
    @ > ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands

    And if the right bare arm don’t get you then the left one will.I bear & wear no clothing(long sleeve shirts) to conceal my 2 bare arms. I have the right to show & use my 2 bare arms. People barely seem to understand. Please bear with me because I know it’s difficult & I do not mean to be overbearing, & that’s barely scratching the surface to say that.

     
  12. palani

    March 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM

    Maime
    Grievous
    Fine

    If any person have maimed another of any member, whereby he is the lesse able to fight, as by putting out his eie, striking off his hand, finger, or foot, beating out his foreteeth, or breaking his Scull: and of their Accessaries.

     
    • Sparky

      March 7, 2013 at 5:59 AM

      palani
      > March 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM

      Lay it on me baby !!! Sounds “fine.” & I don’t mean the “fina” kind of fine.

       
  13. dana alfreds

    March 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM

    3-7-2013
    I BELIEVE WE NEED STRICTER BACKGROUND CHECKS ON INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO OWN GUNS. AND MENTAL HEALTH IS NOT THE PROBLEM EXCEPT FOR THE PROFESSIONALS WHO AREN’T ADEQUATELY TRAINED.
    DANA ALFREDS

     
    • Adask

      March 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM

      I believe we need stricter background checks and mental health checks for anyone who wants to work for government or run for public office. I believe any government employee who carries a gun should be required to undergo a mental health screening at least once every two years. Anyone who’s elected to Congress should undergo mental health screeneing every year. Anyone elected to the White House ought to be subject to mental health screening every 90 days.

      And then there’s the need for stricter background checks on everyone who posts comments on blogs. They should be screened at least once a year.

      Blog “owners” (like me) should probably be screened every 90 days.

      And, of course, we could pay for all this “screening” with ObamaNoCare.

       
      • Sparky

        March 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

        @>I believe we need stricter background checks and mental health checks for anyone who wants to work for government or run for public office

        HEE-HAW-and AMEN !!!

         
      • James Michael

        March 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

        Yup, weed out the psycho and sociopaths from OUR offices.

         
    • Sparky

      March 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM

      dana,
      @ >PROFESSIONALS WHO AREN’T ADEQUATELY TRAINED.

      This is close enough for government work. Actually, it is highly qualified for “Government work”,& part of why Government,as is, doesn’t work

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s