Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

There is a BIG difference between “right to vote” and the “right to bear arms”

September 15, 2013
Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthe...

Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthews c. 1891 after an original by Thomas Sully (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The “right to vote” is only a corollary of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. In fact, voter requirements are necessary to protect that right, and that includes taking reasonable measures to prevent a person from voting twice, making sure the person is eligible according to age, citizenship, and so on. If you cannot trust that these reasonable measures are taken, then you cannot trust that your vote counts as such.

The “Blessings of Liberty” were mentioned in the Preamble to the US Constitution as one of the purposes of said Constitution, but Patrick Henry and some of the other more astute among them did not regard them as enough, which is why they demanded the Bill of Rights, which explicitly declare a list of what they thought of as the most sacred natural individual rights.

The “right to vote” is is not a “right” in the sense of an individual’s liberty. You can respect all the natural rights of an individual –the right to the free exercise of one’s religion, the right to free speech, the right to free press, the right to peaceably assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arms, to BE secure (not “feel” secure) in their persons, papers, and property, and so on.

Those are an individual’s rights. The individual’s rights are a law higher than any particular government or tribe or nation, or any laws. The “rule of law” is the idea that any government, or the people entrusted with governing, should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

The right of speech is absolute. If the SCOTUS had respected the right to bear arms with the same attitude they brought to the right of free speech, they would never approve “reasonable” restrictions on it.

What would be a “reasonable” restriction on the right of free speech? There is none.

But even there, we see the addiction of people in government (an institution that has a monopoly on the legal application of force). The laws that criminalize thought, also known as “hate speech” laws, are a case in point. Tax laws that make special rules and set up special privileges and restrictions and provide concessions of speech, these are another example. Why should a charity have a censorship muzzle, why should any group of private citizens (unions, corporations, hobby and professional associations) have any restrictions at all on their individual rights?

Jesus Christ’s lesson to his disciples, then and now, were in what he said about the tax collectors of the day. His apostles conceded that the tax collectors’ own children did not pay taxes, so he said, “Then are the children free”. He told his disciples to pay the tax, not because of some Romans 13 principle (–ARE YOU LISTENING, PREACHERS?–), but “lest we offend them” (Matthew 17).

Taxpayers pay for elections. They are not free.

People who do not help pay for their vote do not have the same stake in protecting individual rights as to those who have something to lose. They also do not have the same stake in the rule of law.

In the long run, historically, it is better materially to be beholden to a private business in a free market economy, than to be beholden to a government. Over the long run, if it did not buy loyalty, government would not protect the poor from poverty at all, or from anything else.

For example, when caring for the poor came in conflict with caring for the party hierarchies, it is not hard to guess who gets the care priorities, with all the rationalizations and justifications. Instead of going to the one who pays for it, it goes to the one that I told you to give it to. Which way is more “just”?

Again, a good guideline is always the Golden Rule, in dealings both with individuals, and it also works among nations.

Advertisement

Frasier Institute “freedom index”, the USA and New Zealand, and the Second Amendment

February 3, 2013

I stumbled into a discussion on a metabunk.org web page. It seems like the owners of this web site are only interested in debunking any idea that goes against the official government narratives, or the official government fashion of the day.

For example, they instead of debunking the crazy idea that a command to the people to disarm would make criminals disarm themselves, or stop murders and violence, they debunk the logic of self-defense. They say your right to defend yourself is stronger if you disarm yourself.

[QUOTE=plane852;25139]I will add that despite a lack of right to “bear arms,” New Zealand was ranked the freest country in the world – 5 ranks above the United States.

From the Frasier Institute, the report that annoyed a good chunk of the American public:
[url]http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/towards-a-worldwide-index-of-human-freedom.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]

Glancing at the Frazier Institute link, they apparently do have a good philosophical basis for their measure, although quantification of freedom seems to me a difficult thing to define. They have the starting point right, in that their “Overview” on how they measure it says it’s a “negative” definition of freedom, meaning, how much are you free of restraints on what you want to do.

That said, it is important to realize that the importance of the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution is not measurable. It is often said, including by both signers of the Declaration of Independence and by members of the Constitutional Convention and “founders” in general, in one way or another, that the Second Amendment is the guarantor of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The source of our rights, the razor d’être, the reason we have them, is not because a Constitution or amendment or law grants them, because they do not have the legitimate power to do so. There is no moral justification for allowing a government to be the final decision-maker on what rights you have or do not have. If you say the government by law or by representation or monarchy or “democratic” referendum is the final say on how much freedom of speech to allow you, or how much freedom to defend yourself from tyranny you are allowed, then all of your freedoms are exposed to violation.

An absolute monarch that lets his subjects rampant in your criticism of him as a matter of policy means that yes, you have that freedom, but by allowing that monarch to be an absolute monarch, you are exposing yourself to arbitrary loss of ALL such policies in the future.

To the extent New Zealand is exposed by restricting self-defense, its citizens are exposed to the changing winds of political weather. To the extent they depend on Australia’s benevolent friendship with them, they are exposed to the political winds of fortune outside their country.

My wife once stopped a kidnapper in his tracks who had started walking off with her son by pulling out her “concealed carry”, before we met. It might be a more respectful culture in New Zealand right now, but were individuals of the Maori people always respected? Their descendants would have very good reason to suspect any such false sense of security.

But the biggest danger is one that has inflicted Americans already. It is that content and gullible mentality that lets a people’s guard down, that “It can’t happen here” danger. Wherever “here” is.

The Jews of Germany –and Gypsies, and the handicapped, and genuine liberty-minded Christians– had plenty of reason to arm themselves against their own tyrannical government, but the government gave no overt signals of what was in the future. “It can’t happen here”, they said.

The Armenians had plenty of reason to defend themselves against the Turkish government.

The Ukrainians and all Russian subjects have every reason to suspect their government.

In the United States, lots of political and especially economic freedom is violated already, but the main reason that a Nazi-type regime or a Stalin-type regime is not a reasonable prospect right now is the fact that there are at least tens of millions of citizens that are decently well-armed and who are not in lock-step at any given time with their government.

All of the freedoms that a New Zealand-er has is worthless if he is attacked at a time he cannot defend himself. My wife had her means of self-defense. Te right to defend yourself against attack is the same as the right to defend your family, and that is the also the right to the tools necessary to defend your family.

My wife had every good reason to carry it. The more dangerous your town, your province, your country, your WORLD, the more need there is for people to have access to the products that are useful for doing so, against anything that might come at them.

New Zealand, for all its geographical advantages, is not immune. The Irish survived the Vandals ravaging the continent while St. Patrick’s followers saved many of the Roman and Greek classics, but a Papal army subjugated them again centuries later. China is not all that much across the water, and WW2 shows us that a country of that size is not incapable of invading an island nation even halfway around the world.

And by the way, many of us Americans are finding out –not just criminals– that any given individual in the police force or prosecutor’s office is not always such a great protector, either. The increasing disrespect for all rights in courts, law, foreign policy, search and seizure, Hollywood movies, these have had their parts in affecting the minds of many in law enforcement.

Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of big purge, Yahoo “does not authorize this site”, Google picks its “experts” by “secret formula”

December 30, 2012

Why does it seem like sanity is slipping out of our hands on the Internet? And these guys complain about Joe McCarthy? Hello? Knock knock! Any gray matter somewhere in there?

I used to use GoodSearch a lot to help the Institute for Creation Research and other worthy causes but they use Yahoo. I quit when I got a message that “Yahoo does not authorize this site” after clicking on a link to an article that interested me. BUT I had already read that web page so I clicked on their button that said “I understand the risks. Continue”. If I had not already been there, or understood how these companies like Yahoo and Google and Facebook may posture as enlightened bastions of Internet freedom, but in policies like these they prove they are not.

I have seen the evidence of the Google tilt.  too. I take very sharp exception to Pamela Gellar’s most important action points too, but I take more exception to the way Google took action that drastically cut down on the web hits she got through their near-monopoly search engine because of the contents on one of her web pages at Atlasshrugs.com. Especially since they make so much to-do about their fraudulent marketing of “Do no harm” and their PR face of feigning neutrality in search results. (Memo to Bing: After a long history of dirty tricks, I have also learned NOT to trust Microsoft propaganda either!)

The banned quote on Facebook, that actually got the whole user banned, by Mohandas Gandhi, is “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest”.

Maybe Gandhi learned from American history and maybe he knew why defenders of liberty Patrick Henry and Gouverneur Morris made the Bill of Rights, and the inclusion of the Second Amendment therein, a condition for letting the Constitution take effect. This in opposition to the strong federalists who already were demanding a strong central government, like Alexander Hamilton who showed his fascistic/socialist leanings with his obsessive push for a central bank owned by private bankers –precursor to the now infamous Federal Reserve.

Who’s going to fight for your civil rights” when guns are “legally” confiscated and the only legal arms are cap pistols and BB guns? The ACLU, founded by Communist Roger Baldwin, defender of the Russia of mass murderer Stalin? The organization that brags about defending citizens against violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment by the governments of the USA, but says the Second Amendment says those same governments are the only ones who are allowed to defend themselves against abuses of person and property, and most importantly, tyranny?

http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html

InfoWars.com is also now reporting that Facebook is running an across-the-board PURGE of pro-gun accounts. A huge number of accounts are all being systematically disabled or suspended, with all content being wiped clean.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html#ixzz2GYhmxzVa

Facebook declares war on human history

What’s especially alarming about all this is that Gandhi himself was of course a champion of resistance against tyranny. To banish quotes from Gandhi is much like banning quotes of freedom from Martin Luther King (who also openly supported concealed firearms, by the way, and who personally owned an entire “arsenal” of firearms).

What’s next? Will Facebook ban quotes by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Any and all patriots, founding fathers and liberty lovers throughout history might soon be stricken from the Facebook servers, and any who dare to post historical quotes supporting liberty, the Bill of Rights, or the Second Amendment risk having their accounts terminated and all content deleted.

Collectivist propaganda has now reached a point where you can’t even discuss liberty or anything out of history that supported the right to keep and bear arms. You are required to stay focused solely on celebrity gossip, sports stars, fashion distractions and tabloid garbage. Anyone who wishes to discuss actual American history must now go underground and speak softly in dimly-lit rooms, behind secret walls and drawn curtains.

The era of total oppression and collectivist mind control has fully arrived in America. This is not hyperbole… IT IS HERE NOW.

Memorize this quote, because it too shall soon be purged from the internet:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html#ixzz2GYi0dj36

That quote from Thomas Jefferson, by the way, is a favorite one of Hollywood to put in the mouths of really bad guys wanting to overthrow the government, and of course, always for the wrong reasons. That’s part of a psy-war strategy meant to Pavlov the audience by association training.

See? Liberals hate the constitution, especially the unlimited Bill of Rights parts

June 3, 2012
Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthe...

Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthews c. 1891 after an original by Thomas Sully (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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

English: The Bill of Rights (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There actually exists a professor who says the US Constitution is “imbecilic” and for proof he talks about how so many people have not followed it. So he wants to change it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyle-denniston/constitution-check-has-am_b_1559121.html

So says this “constitutional professor” who pretends to know more about such things than the giant scholars who participated in the writing of our Constitution, and the Christians who extorted the Bill of Rights out of reluctant federalists, including Mr. Central Bank Alexander Hamilton.

Here comes this guy going way beyond Hamilton’s wildest hopes for dissolving local and state jurisdiction over anything in even his book title. Better the approach by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

This seems like a “trend” now, with this guy, and then one of the Supreme Court telling the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to forget about the American Constitution that set up a balance of powers between three branches of government, and between the states and the federal government, and of course, the B-word she really didn’t want to talk about, the Bill of Rights which is really part of the original Constitution because without that agreement there would have been no such Constitution.

They have the same problem with the Constitution that they have with the Bible. It’s not that either of them contradicts itself, it contradicts them.

From Founding Fathers’ Own Mouths, What is a Well-Regulated Militia?

February 6, 2012
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the ...

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s a collection of quotes from the revolutionaries who were there at that moment in history when the United States Constitution got ratified, together with the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

First of all, note that the clause that uses the term “well-regulated militia” is only the justification, the basis, that provides the necessity for the second clause. Secondly, see in the great number of comments made by the signers and authors of the Constitution, that explain what they meant by a “well-regulated militia”: common civilian citizens like farmers that had weapons and knew how to use them well, well-trained in their use.

Just the simplest form of logic would make it clear. Why in the world would anybody include, in a list of the rights of the people, a right for the government to bear arms??!! Hello?? This is la-la land. It is an Orwellian Doublespeak when people do not even think about this and instead get lost because we’ve come so far that too many people don’t understand they were talking about a citizenry that was so well-armed they could take on its own government’s armies?

Well, thank God that at least in the USA of 2012, most of the soldiers in the American military have not been subsumed into mindless robotic obeisance, but still have some understanding of the people’s rights. But there are other armed domestic government forces, and the Second Amendment was meant to recognize the people’s individual right.

They were especially interested in having individual citizenry well-armed enough to be able to take on whatever government might be in power.

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.


But first, a warning from Solzhenitsyn, a WWII veteran in Stalin’s Army and also a veteran of Stalin’s gulags:

“How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) Russian Novelist and Historian


And now a word for the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, that “shall not be infringed”:

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.”
Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789 Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin

“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 invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823

“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Jacob J. Brown (1808)

“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

“The constitutions 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; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.”
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright in 1824

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson (attributed without source)

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
Samuel Adams

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

“The said Constitution [shall] 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 of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.

“The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46 January 29, 1788

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

“[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”
James Madison, In his autobiography

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President

“The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…”
George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington

“Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia is put in the hands of Congress?”
Patrick Henry (1736-1799), 3 Elliot Debates 48.

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry

“Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our 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 168-169.

Noah Webster American Patriot (1758-1843) (Author of America’s first dictionary)

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
Noah Webster (1758-1843) American patriot and scholar, author of the 1806 edition of the dictionary that bears his name, the first dictionary of American English usage.
Defined the militia similarly as “the effective part of the people at large.”
Source: An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Tench Coxe (1755-1824)
“The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. 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? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as “the Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, February 20, 1788

Daniel Webster (1782-1852) (Secretary of State under three U.S. Presidents)

“God grants Liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.”
Daniel Webster (1782-1852) in a speech on 3 June, 1834

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

“…[A]rms 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 of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

“…if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to ‘bind me in all cases whatsoever’ to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?”
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789; spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750

“Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
“M.T. Cicero” 1788

“The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people.”
Saint George Tucker (1752-1827) Lawyer, Judge and Professor On Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D \

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Joseph Story (1779-1845) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845. His Dad was one of the Sons of Liberty who took part in the Boston Tea Party and fought at Lexington & Concord in 1775. The above quote was from 1833

“[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.”
Joel Barlow (1754-1812) Politician and Poet, Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe: Resulting From the Necessity and Propriety of a General Revolution in the Principle of Government (London, 1792, 1795 and reprint 1956).

“If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms never, never, never! You cannot conquer America.”
William Pitt, Speech, November 18, 1777

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
Richard Henry Lee (1732-1894), State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

“It’s the misfortune of all Countries, that they sometimes lie under a unhappy necessity to defend themselves by Arms against the ambition of their Governors, and to fight for what’s their own. If those in government are heedless of reason, the people must patiently submit to Bondage, or stand upon their own Defence; which if they are enabled to do, they shall never be put upon it, but their Swords may grow rusty in their hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it.”
John Trenchard (1662-1723)
Source: and Walter Moyle (1672-1721), “An Argument, shewing; that a standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free Government and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy,” (London, 1697)

“Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people… entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.”
A Framer Anonymous ‘framer’ of the US Constitution Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson Source: June 25, 1788, Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.646 (Philadelphia, 1836)

“For we may not think ever to keep that people in subjection which hath always lived in liberty, if they be not disarmed.”
Jean Bodin (1530-1596) French Jurist and Political Philosopher, in Six Books of a Commonweale, 1606 AD (R. Knolles translation, pg. 615, 1606)

“Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”
Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author commenting on the lack of protest with which Japanese tolerated governmental corruption, Los Angeles Times, 10/15/92

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945) Adolph Hitler’s head of the SS in Nazi Germany

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4

“…By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
President John F. Kennedy

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler’s
Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all the elimination of the so-called subversive elements…. They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
Italy’s Fascist ruler, Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, Italian Senate Speech, June 8, 1923

Who Is C. Wilfred Jenks? | Jlue’s Weblog

November 2, 2011

From this link:

Who Is C. Wilfred Jenks? | Jlue’s Weblog:
https://jlue.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/who-is-c-wilfred-jenks/

jlue says:

The US is a nation whose rights are derived by the consent of the governed from the Constitution, which is the law of the land.

She seems well-intentioned, and as a matter of fact there is some truth to it, as a written Constitution is the only way to provide a standard for a nation to govern itself. Besides which, a return to actually obeying the Constitution and applying it as the true “Supreme Law of the Land” as it says it is, would be a great gigantic leap forward in favor of the natural human rights mentioned therein. But…

Actually the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were rightly regarded by the Framers as rights held by men “endowed by their Creator”, some of which were articulated specifically therein. This is seen in not only the “endowed” phrasing in the Declaration, but also in the language of the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting “the free exercise of religion”, or “abridging…”, the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”, etcetera. The list refers to natural rights held by virtue of natural law, the laws of nature and of nature’s God, that exist independent of any Constitution or law anywhere in the world at anytime.

Common law is different. It grew “organically”, and what was known as common law during the times of the American Revolution was a body of understandings that had grown over centuries of jurisprudence in Britain, and that were generally based in Christian understandings of such concepts, such as fair and equal treatment.

In other words, the attempt to take  the “common law” concept we have inherited from our forefathers and from the Framers, and trying to hide it behind confusion with the idea of homogeneity with the way laws were applied elsewhere is ludicrous, and it should have been laughed to scorn by colleagues when some international socialist (just like national socialist) in the Justice Department proposed it.

“Common law” elsewhere did not embody such concepts of individual rights as in the West, and the move to bend our minds into thinking collectively (“graduated” income tax, central bank, fiat money, nationalization of the boom-bust cycle, taxes on groups) is a trick to subjugate our minds to orders from collective “leaders”– self-appointed of course.

But such is now the sign of the times, when the country’s leadership want to make the Bill of Rights and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness into a distant memory of the past. Well it won’t be because “We can do nothing against the truth but for the truth”, and nobody can stop the rain of the refreshing waters of liberty, for “Whom the Son of Man sets free, is free indeed”.