Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment to the United States Constitution’

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.

Advertisements

A History of Gun Control

January 14, 2013

Stick with it and you’ll come to the “Can’t happen here” part:

Innocents Betrayed – Genocide By Gun Control – True History of Gun Confiscation.
http://libertycrier.com/front-page/innocents-betrayed-genocide-by-gun-control-true-history-of-gun-confiscation/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=bc918dc2ad-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_1_12_2013&utm_medium=email

http://tinyurl.com/a5e4uaa

 

“BAD GUY” LISTS: AFTER CONFISCATION, TYRANNY

January 13, 2013
FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorist Task Force

FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorist Task Force (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is one breach in the resistance against disarmament, besides news media distraction with other stories, that they will use, and I don’t know if the publication of the list of registered gun owners by that newspaper in New York is a mistake by somebody or a trial balloon, or was a plot to distract from the central issue involving the Second Amendment. It changed the conversation from why it’s important to respect the right to self-defense, and that is where the debate should go.

It also crowded the air waves with the action of one newspaper that did the deed.

The one thing that is holding back tyranny in the United States is an armed populace. The prisons are full of people who would be glad to have a free hand at eliminating dissidents, as long as they think their rulers will take good care of them. Much of the military’s dirty work is now done by private contractors and firms, and some of them no doubt have little care about respecting the rights of their targets, especially if they are convinced that they are really bad guys.

Hollywood movie-makers have been conditioning their audience for decades to accept the idea of breaking the law and inflicting pain as long as the victim is a bona-fide bad guy.

Now remember what Obama said about a “civilian” security force just as organized and well-funded as the U.S. military? “To meet our security objectives”, he said. He did not say whose security objectives, expecting most people to just assume it was him including his audience. Many of us know better.

There hasn’t been any public activity to match that campaign promise to form a new “civilian” federal police force. Probably there are some big increases in the spending on the dozens of federal agencies that have tens or hundreds of thousands of armed agents, under DHS and Justice and State.

But I think something is telling me that there is more to it than that, as one NWO defector to Jesus Christ has exposed. It’s a great number of guys in prisons who don’t have qualms and might gladly join such a force. Louis Farrakhan has even predicted that the price America will pay for the historical slavery will have to do with them.

Let me quickly add that it is not just some of the black guys. There are a great many of them who have become aware plans to enslave the whole world. The ones who warn them about getting put back in chains are the very perpetrators of these plans, but there are some who know it. A librarian friend of mine tells me about them using their facilities to do research at times, a former “black militant”.

The ONE MAJOR THING that has plans for an overt declaration of dictatorship in the USA is the very big civilian military force that Obama, Biden, and the usual suspects have nothing to do with except for their desire to disarm it.

There are as many as one million Americans who are prepared to repel any foreign invasion, and who will not give up their means of self-defense so easily. They are educated, through no fault of the oligarchy, to the fact that after disarmament comes genocide throughout history. The Armenians in Turkey, the Jews in Germany, Christians and political opposition in the Soviet Union and in Mao’s China, in Cambodia, great numbers of people gave up their lives and their families when they gave up their self-defense.

That’s the ONE thing that defectors have said is holding back the plans of plutocrats.

They are especially after pistols, because when the plans for takeover at great scales take place, they don’t want anybody to be able to hide a small one. That’s one reason they also want a list of who has what….

MAKE NO MISTAKE: They are planning to confiscate all the weapons they can. They have already done this I think it was in New York, with a subset.

In meetings revealed later by some people present, it has been reported, that Bill Ayers, bomb-maker and “Weather Underground” leader, who complained they had not done enough mayhem, he said they would have to kill at least a million or more people to be successful at their revolution.

They also don’t like the idea of anybody being able to live “off the grid”, meaning without having to depend on the infrastructure and system they control. But their biggest fear right now is having a populace that can shoot back.

Note Ruby Ridge, Waco, a dozen terrorist plots formed by government agencies like the FBI for safe “we protect you” campaigns, and yet they said no way they could see the hit on the Towers coming.

Trutherator’s Weekly Watch

January 13, 2013

+———————————————————————–
GUN-BANNING JOURNALISTS REFUSE FREE YARD SIGNS THAT SAY “GUN-FREE ZONE
+———————————————————————–

James O’Keefe of Project Veritas is finding that journalists who advocate gun-free zones are refusing free signs that declare their homes “gun-free”.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/journalists-reject-personal-gun-free-zone-signs/

Many of the advocates of refusing to allow citizens to decide how to exercise their right to self-defense, and refusing to let them acquire the appropriate tools for the intent of the Second Amendment, which is to defend their families and our rights against tyranny, whether it come from foreign invasion or oppression from their own government.

Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party declares his line in the sand. As I’ve been sharing privately with others, at some point in the campaign to disarm Americans, a line will be crossed. There are great numbers of people declaring publicly and loudly telling them that they will not just give up their means of self-defense.

He reminds us that the spark for the American Revolution was the Brits’ attempts to confiscate their weapons.

Propaganda Media (my nickname for the semi-official media that act as government organs) has tried to pretend it’s about hunting and sport shooting, for the benefit of those who simply believe as they’re told and repeat what they’re told, but let us be very clear, it should be repeated in every discussion on the issue: There are reasons the natural right to the tools of self-defense should not be infringed that have to do with protection from assault, battery and robbery, but the number one reason for it, the number one reason the American revolutionaries put it into the Bill of Rights, was to make sure that the citizenry had the means to fight back against both foreign invasion and tyranny.

They did not even trust their own government, they especially did not trust any Army, and that’s why they put into law the principle of Posse Comitatus. They made a civilian and elected official the Commander-in-Chief, but they did not trust their own commanders-in-chief as a formal principle.

Even the very strong federalist James Madison, who favored a strong national government, proclaimed to the Constitutional Assembly that a “standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty”, because they have always been the instruments of tyranny.

The American military, in my opinion, except for the very highest levels at the Joint Chiefs probably, is a possible exception to this, but it remains to be seen if their loyalty to the Constitution is tested when confronted with action inside the borders.

But the federal government has a great number of armed federal agents at its disposal, and in a few instances they have proven to be aggressive in carrying out illegal (unconstitutional) directives, as in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the ATF hustling guns to the most violent Mexican drug cartels. Like Judge Andrew Napolitano says in the title of his book, “It’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”.

Pat Buchanan warned that there would be a revolution if the government tried to confiscate all arms, in response to a question as to whether it would be good to banish the Second Amendment.

+————————————————————–
TEACHER ORDERED TO REMOVE HER CHRISTIANITY FROM HER WORK AREA
+————————————————————–

A teacher is suing because she was ordered to get rid of all things from her area that had Christian connotation:
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130110/CITYANDREGION/130119944/1002

Turns out the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” protested her Christian articles. But declare this throughout the land: the First Amendment has no such thing. Both clauses of the part of the First Amendment that address religion, rather obviously are to recognition that there is a Freedom FOR religion, not “from” it.

Reminds me of someone who once said that his right not to listen trumps my right to free speech. I retorted very strongly that it does NOT because any such (non-existent) “right not to listen” would mean censorship.

Remember one high school was told to ban the opening prayer at football games, so at the next game, the kids in the stands spontaneously shouted the Lord’s Prayer.

So, now, after decades of speaking down at Americans, and losing its audience, Time Inc. will lay off about 700 staffers.

+—————————————————————————
UNION BOSSES QUALIFY FOR OBAMA’S RICH MAN TAXES
+—————————————————————————

Their big salaries and expense accounts give new meaning to the Beatles’ song title, “A working man’s hero is something to be”.

Except not all the world’s workers want to go along with the Marxist anti-capitalist program. The “workers of the world” in Venezuela united alright, against Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez, and did a general strike, and marched against them on the day that Chavez operatives shot dead at least a dozen people and then his government refused to prosecute anybody.

The workers in America have refused to become Communist, although it looks like a small percentage already unionized are getting radicalized

+———————————————————————————————————–
EVEN SOME STATE OFFICIALS TALKING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OVER OBAMACARE
+———————————————————————————————————–

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/cuccinelli-talks-civil-disobedience-over-obamacare/?cat_orig=politics

One state attorney general says he’ll understand it, and there is another state that may pass legislation (or already did) that orders the arrest with penalties of any federal agent attempting to enforce Obamacare.

+—————–
RUSSIA RISES AGAIN
+—————–

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/russia-confronting-obstacles-to-eurasian-union/

Apparently Vladimir Putin is not only reasserting central command-and-control government within the Russian borders, he is also moving to leverage Russia’s natural gas deliveries and the legacy of the Soviet-era transportation infrastructure to regain dominance over the former Soviet republics.

+———–
BE PREPARED
+———–

Remember that the biggest natural disasters and biggest political and social problems are exponentially magnified in urban areas, in the cities. Gerald Celente of Trends Research, who has made a lot of predictions that proved accurate, when pushed in interviews on the financial channels to recommend an investment, refuses to respond with anything other than farmland. That’s right, farmland.

But there is another more important preparation to make, and that is spiritual. The age-old question has been used as a cliché but it has its base in truth: “Are you prepared to meet your Maker?”

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.

Some teachers don’t want to bear arms, but let’s welcome the help from those who do

December 23, 2012

I came across a blog on the subject of those who are having trouble with the confusing propaganda that says decent Americans should give up their guns to protect themselves from people with guns. It doesn’t make sense, but the “profusion” of guns is being blamed for manic acts like the one in Newtown instead of blaming the one who did it and the outrageous way that mental health patients’ families have been left without recourse to help their sons, like in that case…

http://dougpete.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/why-you-wouldnt-want-to-arm-me/

Okay so you’re not comfortable around firearms, and NOT ONE person who is advocating the freedom for teachers and staff to have the means to stop the bad guys, NOT ONE is saying teachers should be “forced” to have them or get distracted. But there are LOTS of teachers who are well-trained and responsible with them. If you are more afraid of such decent teachers having handy access to their arms in the case of a threat, than you are of mad dog killers like in Newtown, then you don’t haven’t had a chance to think through this thing logically.

but from the response we see that there are principals and teachers that are very much comfortable with them, trained in their use, not klutzes, would never shoot a sparrow, BUT would be fierce in the act of protecting the young children in their care. The principal charged at the shooter in Newtown and sacrificed herself to try to buy time for everybody else, but it could have been MUCH better an outcome if she had just shot him instead.

Or since this shooter apparently was intent on ending it with his own suicide, just letting the shooter get a glimpse of it (like Alfred Thompson’s firefighter father) might have led him to end himself quick, like the hero in the Clackamus Mall who aimed at the bad guy –who shot himself after seeing the weapon.

By the way, the media encourages these massacres when they publicize the names of the bad guys. I heard one American anti-violence activist report in an interview during the time of school shootings in the 1990s, that Japanese journalists were appalled that American media published all the names of the perps.

That’s right, Japan, with brutal gun-control laws, has mass school killings and attacks. Before guns, people, throughout recorded history there were these things called “wars” that were fought with not one firearm, before there were such things.

China certainly makes it illegal and nigh impossible for its serfs to get firearms, but that didn’t stop a deranged man from getting at 22 children with his knife before somebody was able to stop him.

Who can deny that the best way to stop a bad guy that has a gun is with a good guy that has a gun.

Once upon a time my wife stopped the kidnapping of her own son cold by taking out her own concealed weapon. Don’t tell her she should not have one!

Now here we go, I do agree that nobody should be forced to carry a firearm, and here we have Doug who has the common sense to avoid them for himself. But there are teachers who are good at their use and would love to be able to have them handy, like the teacher in one of those school shootings in the 1990s who had to rush to his car –outside the “gun-free” zone, of course— to fetch his own which he then used to stop stop the shooter!

But guess what? Your national media that barks so loudly about the “public’s right to know” when they want to know something, they had a toothless bite for this one, only saying that a teacher “was able to subdue” the shooter.

If somebody walks into your son’s school with such intentions, would you rather have somebody on the spot that can shoot back at the killer before he got to his own grandson? Or would he prefer not to bother teachers?

And there’s one more thing.

The number one reason lovers of freedom like Patrick Henry and Gouverneur Morris forced the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Constitution with the rest of the Bill of Rights was not to protect the sport of hunting or local and national target competitions. As they stated specifically, the main thing was the importance of protecting the right of INDIVIDUALS to bear arms WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT, was to protect those individual rights as the birthright of all people.

Tyrants always crack down on guns first

December 15, 2012
Gouverneur Morris, Constitution Center

Gouverneur Morris, Constitution Center (Photo credit: geekygirlnyc)

 

Before tyrants “become” tyrants, they are simply politicians. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. One of the biggest reasons for respecting the right of individuals to the means to defend themselves is for protection against attacks by their government. One of the reasons founders like Patrick Henry and Gouverneur Morris forced the Second Amendment (with the other liberties explicitly respected) as a condition for ratification, was because the British had come attacking.

 

They attacked to protect the enforcement of the stamp act (and the self-written warrants to enforce them) and the tyranny of colonial rule.

 

The first step in the tyranny recipe is almost always gun control, adding ever more until finally it becomes gun confiscation. The propagandists do their job, many even believe in it, telling people they’re not interested in confiscation, just control and licensing.

 

There is never enough, because the more difficult it is for the people who obey the laws to get them, the more vulnerable they are, like in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

With the accumulation of records, then, what has happened after licensing they only have to look up the records and they know where to go to get them from freedom-loving citizens who might object to being arrested for speaking to their neighbors, or anything else they deem a “threat to national security”.

 

Germany’s Interior Minister bragged after Germany’s gun confiscation about how safe the streets were now. After licensing and registration controls, Turkey’s government knew which Armenians had weapons to confiscate, a couple of years before the massacre.

 

 

Since when should we have to tell the rulers a “good reason” for using our constitutional rights?!

March 10, 2012

Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional « CBS Baltimore:
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/md-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/

Score one for the good guys. But do not doubt that they will keep coming at us. Now, more than ever, as we approach the grand climax of history, the pivotal point, the forming of the world dictatorship.

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