 |
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Supreme Court Ready to Rule on Second Amendment
- Text size
David Ranii
The News & Observer
June 23, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court is on the brink of issuing what could be its most important ruling ever on the controversial Second Amendment right to bear arms.
 |
|
|
|
|
Gun rights and gun control advocates alike are anxiously awaiting the high court’s ruling, the first time since 1939 that the nation’s top justices have tackled the Second Amendment. A decision could come this week.
“I feel the founding fathers gave us this right,” said Henry Williams, 54, a Raleigh resident who attended the Capital City Gun Show at the N.C. State Fairgrounds on Sunday. “I don’t see that anybody has the right to take it away from us.”
But Roxane Kolar, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, argues that gun rights advocates have misconstrued the Second Amendment. Moreover, she contends, “Most people believe in gun safety and sensible gun legislation.”
At issue in the Supreme Court case is Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns.
| WATCH ALEX JONES’ ENDGAME ONLINE NOW in its entirety. View more High quality trailers at www.endgamethemovie.com |
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
- Share on Twitter
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
This is never court rule gonna gives us more rights. The court can’t define your rights. God gives us the rights. Demand your rights be observed.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
It is most clear that the US Constitution actually makes provision that the all of the states shall have the right and the ability to own arms in perpetuity; in fact forever.
If anyone wishes to believe otherwise, including and not exempting the Supreme Court, they are grossly mistaken and are in contempt of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Each individual shall make up their own minds as to how they wish to use and exercise this right, but the right remains in perpetuity.
The only thing the Supreme Court can rule on and i make this explicit, is if the population of the United States are first class citizens. If they are not, then the US Constitution does NOT apply to them.
Remember, the crisis needs to be in full focus.
ref: Magna Carta and the language contained therein. US Declaration and Constittution expand greatly on fundamental independence that had been previously established.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
One more thing:
if the Supreme Court rules that the inhabitants of Wash. D.C. are living in a seperate country, then they might rule the US Constitution does not apply.
IF they choose to follow this logic, it sets the precedence that the other states being ignorant of the facts adopts DC codes as uniform law for the entire country.
Also, since the majoriy of the residents of DC are of african descent, they may rule that the 14th amendment applies.
I believe the full weight is fully known to the Supreme Court and that they will be in near fistacuffs about all of this.
Bankruptcy rules of 1933 and IRS revsions of 1987 come into play as well.
They dare not let the cat out of the bag. This will be interesting.
America: the truth has landed. Let’s look and watch shall we.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
They can change the laws all they want, but like a stubborn and eloquent man said so long ago: “They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands” I’ll never give them up, they will have to take them by force. I’m packing major heat, and if they start trying to take them away they will learn that americans are much more capable of improvising explosive devices than those camel humpers in Iraq. In fact I would be shocked if there wasn’t a huge march of men and women armed with assault rifles down the local mainstreet the day that the supreme court attempted to suggest that we can’t have guns. Flags will be waving and guns will be shot into the air. God bless america! Men and women of the armed forces, we the armed free people of the USA will not raise arms against you, our brothers and sisters. We are all children of liberty and we have no problems with you. Just remember your allegiance is to the USA and you must defend them against all enemies foreign and domestic. We are not the enemy.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Well said bill #5!!
“Let them come”
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
God gave us rights huh? Why did he give some people more rights than others.
God is a sick bastard. Ever watch Amadeus? Amadeus tormentor, Salieri made the statement to to the same effect. God has given me the desire to create to most beautiful music and then denied me the ability to do so.
Thank God I am an athiest.
Speculate all you want abou what the supreme court of kangaroos has to say. It won’t mean squat until the ruling has been made.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Alex Jones is a chickens--- bastard who censors posts.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Well said BILL
I second that statement.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
MORE Corporate fiction. As if we free people need the Supreme Court to acknowledge our God given rights? LOL! Funny stuff.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
YOU have the right to purchase gun. PERIOD! If this were EVER really a question at all, then there would have NEVER been a gun-store industry in this country. You can apply to deal in firearms through the mail. It’s NOT even an issue. The ones who are making it an issue are the ones who want to take away your right to protect yourself and your family or property. PERIOD. In Switzerland, everyone HAS to have guns in their house, up to and including fully automatic weapons of war. They don’t have gun-violence problems. Know why? They have a real democracy that provides for the welfare of the general public, maintains standards of a LIVING wage, and don’t get involved in things like wars on drugs and wars against their own population as a means of maintaining control over them.
I’ve said it again and again…
the ONLY way to beat these jerkoffs who continue unmolested in their effort to LEGALLY turn this country into a totaliatarion state is to start organizing MASSIVE CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS against all individual congressmen, senators, justice officials, and elected officials of any sort who further this anti-constitutional agenda upon us. We must furthermore organize CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS against any and all publicly/privately funded institutions, think-tanks, lobbying organizations and the like who are corrupting these elected officials along the way. And when I say class action lawsuits against say a Senator for example… ONE won’t do. I’m talking class action lawsuits from EVERY ANGLE. If a Senator already has ONE class action lawsuit against him to dry him of all his personal holdings and assets as well as push for criminal indictments, but he should be hit with three or four more at the same time. Then hit another, and another…. Make EVERY anti-American lobbying organization so innundated with lawsuits, injunctions, motions, restraining orders, and forced to spend so much in legal fees that they begin to LOSE MONEY and LOSE THEIR ABILITY TO PAY AND BRIBE OUR LEGISLATORS. It CAN be dont. There’s NO NEED for any bulls--- talk about Revolution, or violence. Just hit them where they attack you… using the LAW.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
First thing Adolf Hitler did after taking power in Germany was to take away the right to bare arms from the people. Hitler knew that you can’t control an armed people. Our founding father knew this as well first hand after dealing with the British occupation. LISTEN UP PEOPLE! It’s about freedom not guns! Guns do not kill people. The person using a gun kills is the issue here. It amazes me how people don’t understand this issue. We have lots of laws on the books dealing with gun control. Enforce the laws that are in place and give law abiding people the ability to carry guns. Believe me, a criminal will think twice if he knows he could be on the receiving end of a bullett.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
It’s hilarious to see people post their own opinions, then call people names – i.e. post # 7: Cpl. Cadaver’s comments, and then claim that Alex censors posts.
Uhh, if he censors posts, I’m pretty sure yours would be censored. I don’t want my posts degenerating into demeaning negative comments, but I have to ask Cpl. Cadaver: Did you drink your government supplied fluoride ration today? Because it shows!!
Come on. Again, if he censors, then posts such as your would never show up. It just takes a while sometimes for the servers to process different posts. Especially if there are a ton of people posting comments. Use your brain!
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Nonya:
Understand that the Government controls the courts where you propose to hold your
Class Action Lawsuits !
How far do you think the lawsuit/s will get ?
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
ok, let me see now. The typical method of operation for the standard politician these days is to say whatever takes to get into the office he or she is running for and once in does whatever they want to do and could care less about the will of the people. Now, the powers that be wish to usurp the checks and balance system that has allways kept the “would be tyranical” regimes in check. question is, will the masses give up thier 2nd amendment rights so easily? We’ll have to wait and see. Anyone wish to make a bet?
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Illuminiti they are coming,you better keep your guns
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
if this post makes it up before the one i used a controlled word on this site,it is proof of censorship,and that alex jones is really under their control
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
see no censorship here
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
It’s possible that the Government believes very strongly that they need to take our guns away before the expected Civil Unrest so many are predicting and that may have been the subject of the Secret Congressional Meeting held in March 2008.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The Federal district and the meritime Territories are not subject to the Constitution. D,C, has a copy of the Constitution embeded in it’s civil code, imcluding a copy of the Second Amendment, but it also has a provision requiring the common storage of the Militia’s arms!
Do your own research! look up
s 49-214. Armories to be provided.
http://government.westlaw.com/.....P=DCC-1000
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
>>§ 49-214. Armories to be provided.
The Quartermaster General of the militia shall provide, by rental or otherwise, such armories for the National Guard as may be allowed and directed by the Commanding General. He shall also provide each organization with such lockers, closets, gun racks, and cases or desks as may be necessary for the care, preservation, and safekeeping of the arms, equipments, uniforms, records, and other militia property in their possession. He shall also provide suitable rooms for the offices of the Commanding General and staff, for the keeping of books, the transaction of business, and the instruction of officers, and also suitable places for the storage and safekeeping of public property.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
nice point, chuck
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I hope that everyone understands that if the Supreme Court wanted your guns, they could take them based on the 1939 ruling they handed down. I wonder why they haven’t?
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Check out http://www.documentarywire.com to watch 100’s of documentaries for free!
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
The ruleing was made more than 200 years ago. The finding was that “…the right to keep and bear arms shal not be infringed.”
There is no discussion.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I says, you have said it all! doesn’t make none what some sell out illiterate, sold out judge says, we can read all by our selves!
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
There are more people with guns than there are lawmen. Here in Canada, the government has been trying incremental gun confiscation for decades. It’s not working. They had to repeal the long-gun registration law.
Whenever somebody in Toronto gets shot by a gangbanger, the mayor blames it on the United States. He wants American visitors to stay home because they might bring guns with them to Toronto.
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Any goverment that is afraid to arm it’s people ,is a goverment the people should be afraid of.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Download the actual youtube video in .flv format then convert it to a list of other types of video formats then store the videos somewhere other than YOUTUBE so they wont keep removing what INFOWARS links to.
Do that all with this FREE program, its excellent program.
http://www.any-video-converter.....ideo_free/
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Idiot #7, that was a freaking play turned into a movie!!!!!! You are a retard and a moron, you are people that give real Americans a bad name. YOU FREAK!!!!!
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
23 let them try let them vote to c who gets to come try and pick them up
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Well if the 2nd amendment is abolished, then there will still be guns out there. The criminals, the ones doing the killing and, of course. the cops.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I’m sorry but what part of shall not be infringed do you not under stand. The government did not give us God given rights. God did.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
They already pretty much abolished the 4th Amendment. Is there any question on what it next?
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
our second amendment right to bare arms has only one purpose……………so that citizens may have the power to overthrow a tyranical govt. thats it………thats all……………there is no more.
so to say that it is to be only govt. approved militias is stupid and false.
hey george bush we want to start a millitia to over throw your tyranical regime……..may we have permission to get guns that we can kill you with………….i think not
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Roxane Kolar, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence needs to get informed.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I’ve been waiting a long time for this. This is one liberal democrat who believes in the right of
citizens to own guns, and there’s lot of us liberals who do. It’s just those moron phony democrats
who pretend to represent liberals that make me sick. Now, we’ll see who the friend of the
people is. I’ll be watching to see how every one of those justices votes.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:53 am
More buLLLs--- discussion…”Shall NOT BE INFRINGED!!!” f--- the Fed and follow Oklahoma!!!
June 24th, 2008 at 3:52 am
first its the fourth with FISA now the 2nd!
June 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
From the “Citizens Rule Book: In 1789 Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if giver too much power might ruin our REPUBLIC, and destroy our RIGHTS!” page 20.
Has Thomas Jefferson foreseen the destruction of this REPUBLIC by the elite with the use of the judiciary i.e. the Supreme Court!
June 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The thing that ticks me off about gun controller and their allies are the misrepresentations of what our founding fathers said and meant by 2nd amendment. First, anything used to hurt someone else could be labeled an assault weapon – even your hand! Also, in a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Verdrigo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1056, 1060-61 (1990) the Court referred to the 2nd Amendment and specifically addressed the meaning of the phrase “the people” as used in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments to the Constitution . While the specific case involved only the protections afforded to individuals under the 4th Amendment, the Court did clearly state that the words “the people” in the 2nd Amendment have the same meaning as they do in the 1st and 4th Amendments, i.e., individual rights. Now, look at the quotes from our founders below and you will begin to realize how the gun controllers have manipulated the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment to fit their agenda. Now, read these founding father quotes below and see that the gun controllers are liars for yourself:
“… arms… discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.” -Thomas Paine.
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778) .
“To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them…” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.: -Patrick Henry.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” -Patrick Henry
“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788) .
“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
“…the people have a right to keep and bear arms.” -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms.” -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. (see http://www4 . law. cornel 1 . edu/uscode/)
“The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,..”- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .
“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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States… Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America.” -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)
“If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” – Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detriot
“They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” -Thomas Jefferson.
“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual
discretion… in private self defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the
Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)
“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”– Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put and end to personal liberty–so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator–and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.
There are probably 35 or more cases in which a SCOTUS justice mentions the RKBA by quoting the Amendment, and in the vast majority of them they only quote the second, actionable clause. Still, I have never ignored the militia preamble. I believe that when we try to understand it we should accept this advice: “On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.” Thomas Jefferson, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322 (1957) [Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823]. “My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ….[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.” Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or rights of Conscience: or to prevent the people of the united States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…” Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788)
“It has been asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well-regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen.” John DeWitt, The Anti-Federalist Papers, p. 75 (M. Borden ed. 1965)
“Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order in the state. . .the end of the social compact is defeated. . . .No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for defense of the state. . . .Such a well regulated militia, composed of freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen” M. T. Cicero (a pseudonym), Charleston State Gazette, September 8, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. . . .the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia. . .and include. . .all men capable of bearing arms. . . . But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia. . . .[of the select militia] These Corps, not much unlike regular troops, well ever produce an inattention to the general militia. . .whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. . . .The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, p. 169-170 (1788)
The SCOUTS has weighed in on the definition of “the militia” in these cases:
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the Colonies and the States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time” U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939).
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government. . .the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. . .[B]ut, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [prohibiting mass marches by armed men without obtaining a permit] do not have this effect.” Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 267 (1886).
Regarding the Second Amendment, does the spirit of the debates indicates whether the RKBA was intended to be an individual or a collective state’s right?
“Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments. . . .It contains a bill of rights [including] . . . .the right to keep and bear arms.” Fisher Ames, 1 Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 52-53 (1854) [Letter to Thomas Dwight, June 11, 1789].
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” Fisher Ames, 1 Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 53-54 (1854) [Letter to F. I. Minoe, June 12, 1789].
Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respected personal liberty. . . William Grayson, 3 Patrick Henry, p. 391 (1951) [letter from Grayson to Henry, June 12, 1789].[remember, it was Henry who complained of the Constitution without a RKBA in this fashion: “My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights; or, of waging war against tyrants”]
How was the RKBA sold to the public? Consider Madison’s good friend, Tench Coxe, who wrote a widely distributed pamphlet explaining the liberties in the Bill of Rights to aid Madison’s push for endorsement of them:
“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 article in their right to keep and bear private arms.” Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution. Published under the pseudonym, “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1.
Therefore, here is how I (not me, the poster, but another’s comment) read the Second Amendment: (I left it in because of the quotes.)
1. Whereas maintaining a standing army is dangerous to liberty, a well regulated militia, composed of all citizens capable of bearing their private arms, is the best method to provide for the security of a FREE state (ie. A state in which the people need not fear the ambitions of their own government); AND
2. That every citizen has the right to keep and bear private arms; for this right provides the citizen with the ability to defend his life, his liberty, and his property from the “tyranny of irritated ministers” as well as providing him with the means to “discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe.” (citing The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms and Thomas Paine, respectively)
The militia clause is not a limitation, but a preamble which states the universally held principle that “standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty.” (from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia)
Statements from tapes that Martin Borman made of some of the pleasant dinner conversations he had been privy to:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.
“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution” (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. . .” Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).
Here are some more statements from the Enemies of Liberty:
“Governments begin at the end of the gun barrel.” -Chairmen Mao
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.” – V.I.Lenin
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall do it ourselves.” – Joseph Stalin
We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.” – Jose Carada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Time
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…”
-Bill Clinton (USA Today, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
Now, who is telling the truth about guns? The gun controllers are the gun lovers?
June 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I can’t believe that pro gun guy said he didn’t think criminals had the right to own guns. Do you really think a criminal intent on having a gun cares about whether or not he/she has the right to carry that gun? Will more legislation stop him/her from getting the gun and using it anyway? NO all he/she cares about is whether or not you have a gun and if you don’t he/she’s got the advantage whether they got it legally or not and regardless of the fact the unarmed person did or didn’t have the right to carry a gun also.
If everyone was armed everyone would think a lot harder about whether or not to pull it out for any reason legal or illegal
June 24th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Very well written fft!!!!!!! Beautifully researched and irrefutable proof of what the whole purpose of the second amendment is. Bravo!! No one with half a brain and an ounce of honesty can read this material and question whether or not the 2nd protects an individual’s right to KABA. I suggest you copy and paste this to any and all anti-gun forums you can find. I love it when someone gets it right!!!!
June 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Sadly, the wording is probably ambiguous on purpose. The founding fathers held in their ranks some Freemasons and secret societies. There was a public plan for our country, and there was a hidden plan concurrently, since then.
The ambiguity can still be used to uphold the face-value rights guaranteed to The People, the way we understood it from the beginning as regular citizens.
But the more rights lost, the more rights further lost. They can step in and do what they want no matter even outright contradicting the Constitution, and they have been doing that. The judgement of laws rests on the judgement of other laws. It works this way in court when a judge rests his decision citing a previously tried case of similar content.
That is how small changes to the Constitution that went unnoticed have snowballed into bigger changes over which we have no or little control.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Well, the attacks against Freemasonry certainly have changed. When Pope Leo XIII wrote his famous attack against Freemasonry it was due to our support of those principle rights found in the Bill of Rights. He thought our opposition to state churches, and privileged classes was satanic. He thought our promotion of free speech, free press, right of the masses to bear arms, and so forth was satanic. He thought our desire to free mens minds by promoting the Seven Liberal Arts was satanic. (Oh, you guys don’t know what the Seven Liberal Arts are. It’s the education a free man should have, which you don’t have because of the dumbing down of schools. Geometry, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Music, Dialectic, Rhetoric and Grammar. Remember those, the elite don’t want you to know them because they’re the means by which things are analyzed. And they definitely don’t want you to be able to analyze things. Anyway, you’ll be surprised to find out that Freemasonry has emphatically promoted their study for centuries.) Pope Leo XIII also thought our promotion of constitutional republics was satanic. (Look at the history of every Constitutional Republic created between 1770 and 1870 and you’ll find a group of Freemasons doing the creating.) He preferred the traditional Church and monarchy/Pope and King model of government. (I can’t imagine why.) Now people are writing that we’ve turned against our own principles and are part of those forces destroying the Constitution of the United States to create some kind of one world government. Those people have been misled. We wrote the Constitution, and we’ll be the last standing to defend it. People are writing that we are now promoting a one world government. Those people obviously haven’t read our brother Jesse Helms address to the U.N., or Albert Pike’s (dare I mention the name?) diatribe against such Utopian style governments. They say, our membership roles are secret, so we must be bad. We originated in a time when we would have been burned at the stake simply for our promotion of the liberal arts, not to even mention free press and separation of church and state. (And it’s a good thing we’ve remained secret, because the way things are going we may be the last left to fight for the republic we created.) People write that our origins are Pagan, and our philosophy is based in Paganism. Guilty as charged. We are in fact deeply rooted in the the philosophy of Socrates, Plato and Pythagoras, and the politics of the days when Rome was a Republic. So, for all of you whining about the loss of our Republic, no matter how much people disparage us, we’ll still be your last hope.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Guns are not the problem. The people who use them for burglaries, murder, etc. are the problem.
The Constitution was created to uphold our rights, not take them away. Let’s stop the fear mongering, nobody is buying it anymore.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM. HAND IN YOUR GUNS OR DIE! LOSERS! KATRINA PEOPLE HANDED THEM IN, YOU’RE GONNA HAND THEM IN….WATCHA GONNA DO LOSERS! YOU GONNA SAY NO? RIIIIIGHT! YEAH, SURE….SHUT UP AND HAND THEM IN.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
#45, James, i have a few questions for you.
1.What degree have you reached in freemasonry?
2.What God do you worship (exact description)?
3.Can you guarantee that the rule of the state will be given up by those you look up to, if or when it’s realized that the rule has gone corrupt?
4.Can you guarantee that your rule would be incorruptible?
The last one i didn’t mean to ask, but here goes- are you able to answer honestly?
June 25th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The reason is so that we won’t be able to resist or fight back.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
the_R
Thanks for the questions. Masonry, as an institution, generally maintains a policy of not answering its critics. This policy is largely based on the notion that no single Mason can or should attempt to speak for a fundamentally democratic institution that is tolerant of any well reasoned viewpoint. What I am doing, of course, will be seen by some as unwisely going against that policy. I, however, am so disturbed by the ironic fact that people who truly believe in the Republic, see us, Masons, who are currently fighting an apparently losing battle to preserve our Republic that our brothers sacrificed so much to create, as their enemy. So, I’m happy to take any questions in the hope of helping patriots understand what we’ve been up to.
Also, your questions reflect that you’ve been fed assumptions about how Masonry fundamentally operates that were intended to deceive you so that people like Ed Decker can continue to make money from Masonic silence. The answer to the first question is, 32. Your question of course assumes that the higher the person’s degree the more of an insider, or even the more authority they may have in Masonry. The truth is that the degree of a person is only a reflection of a certain amount of philosophical education pertaining to Masonry that the person has been given. It doesn’t even necessarily mean to suggest that the person understood what they were told. Of course your question is aimed at determining my credibility as a source of information. My credibility is based on the fact that my family has been involved with the fraternity for centuries, and we were even involved in some of its prototypical forms . My credibility could also be base on the fact that I’ve been studying the fraternity, in depth, for the last 20 years. That doesn’t mean that I’ll always be right about everything, but I believe you’ll have a very difficult time finding a better insider source.
The answer to your second question is, of course, impossible. You cannot give an exact description of an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Wholly Good God, in any kind of finite language. Those words, Omnipotent and so forth, only serve to convey the ineffability of God. Omni, or All, is a concept so absolute and unlimited that a finite mind can only begin to comprehend it. So, it essentially says that God has power we cannot comprehend, and all of it. So, my best answer is that I worship Almighty God, not partly mighty, or more mighty than any other God, but ALL mighty. To answer your third question. Those Masons and their friends who wrote the Constitution put this country in motion knowing that there would be power mongering forces immediately bent on destroying it from within and without. It was never meant to be controlled by them then or now. It was hoped that the promise of liberty and an educated public would be enough to combat those forces, but hope was all we had then and now. If people refuse to educate themselves in the seven liberal arts, especially dialectic, and if they refuse to read the Constitution and come to understand it’s meaning and the liberty it promises, we knew then as well as now that it would be destroyed by tyrants. So, would we return the state to the people if it becomes corrupt? We’re way past that my friend. We never intended to control it, but instead hoped then and now that the people would love it enough to make it survive. The document is not corrupt, nor is it likely to become corrupt unless it is re-written. Powerful oligarchs, however, are being allowed to ignore it and abuse it, and that’s our problem, isn’t it? As for your last question; only God’s rule is incorruptible. Our brothers, by the grace of God, wrote a document, the Constitution, that we feel is a free people’s best bet for Justice in government. It isn’t perfect, because we are not perfect, but it’s the best chance frail humanity has. It’s a formula, however, that needs moral, virtuous, analytical and skeptical people in order to function. The fact that you come to websites like this means that you aren’t ready to believe everything you’re told, so I recommend that you stay your course, and include the study of dialectic in your studies so that you can continue to avoid being manipulated by those who want to take your liberty.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:30 am
They made their ruling today. Of course the controlled media called it a “victory” for gun owners and hunters. But I’ll tune in today for what the ruling really says.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am
it’s scary that the vote was only 5 to 4. I would be much more comfortable with 9 to 0.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Thank you James for the quite informative and concise answers. The way you described your system of belief and governance has some positivity to it that can be felt through the reply, although i did think of ”many have promised, yet few have fulfilled” when i was finished reading it. A constitutional republic is one of the best forms of state law, but the dialectic which you mention seems, in my oppinion, incompatible with the set rules that a republic is represented by. Ruled by the people for the people by uninvasive laws that are strictly defined and freedoms/liberty guaranteed, that is what i would like to see. A small government that exists strictly to serve, not to supervise and regulate to the point of criminal control. The main focus must be on that, and from what i can tell by sifting through sites like these, it’s about time people started to care about what’s happening around them. There’s a chance yet.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:45 am
One thing that was left to add is that secrecy should be abolished from all important areas that have to do with the republic and it’s people. Privacy is every citizen’s fundamental right, but when it’s about deciding the fate of the nation, it mustn’t be done in secret. That is the basis for trust. It also makes corruption and abuse of power impossible. The people have the right to know.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Why is anyone making any ruleings on the 2nd Ammendment? Ammendment means that you may have forgotten to include some detail and you add it after the fact and give it a little number and it is to be treated as part of the overall text. THAT IS IT. You do not continue to ponder its relevance every so often; especially, when in an altered state like fear or agenda promoting. If the Government “of the people”(actually of and for only certian people, maybe) can have tanks, rockets, GPS weapons, taser guns, gas canister grenades, body armor, shields, clubs, various missels, nukes, bilogical weapons, and a “H.A.A.R.P.” that uses some 1,000,000 watts and suspends large chunks of the ionosphere into space where it gets fried a bit. The weapons they possess is FAR, FAR beyond my knowlege. Did you know we had an ionosphere? Did you know someone is F-ing with it right now? If any government entity is affraid of little old people with little guns is surely in a sad state indeed. FOR IF YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF THE AVERAGE JOE AND HIS VERY LITTLE GUN, AFTER HAVING PERFECTED THE ART OF WAR WHILE HE SITS WATCHING THE TUBE, THAN YOU HAVE LOST. Are they afraid that ordinary people possess some cockroach-rubbermaid like quality. Do they think that if we do wake up and get mad that we could somehow survive the chemtrails, G-M food, the funky water, forign and domestic military + police, big nukes, little nukes, or if the whole planet just flips-a-b*tch on the access. If you kill us – we will die. Just like everything the F else. Why drag it out – do they want a laugh. Look they are so dumb, we chipped them, they are like our pets or, do you like this, our food. What the hell do they want us for? To the Elite – if you don not like us being here just murder us. You don’t need us to agree with that. Be honest with yourself – if you see a world of only 500,000,000 max – make it happen. Stop waiting for the average idiot to give you the go ahead.