Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia Update

December 4, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s note: I wrote this back in May 2009. I’m updating it today. Apparently, sportscaster Bob Costas and other mindless state-worshippers still cannot wrap their brains around the concepts of Natural Law. Of course, they would have had to actually learn the concept in order to forget or ignore it.)

Gun control is today’s subject. The issue has regrettably popped up onto the national radar screen after Jovan Belcher, a nobody NFL player, shot and killed his girlfriend and then did the criminal courts system a favor by killing himself. (In the USA, there are about 221 homicides EACH WEEK in which a gun is used.* But the rest of those people weren’t major or minor celebrities, so they must not count.) Those who would outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another celebrity shooting, school shooting or mass murder will eventually occur in the United States, and that the event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

For today, we will suspend the debate about whether the Constitution has any validity. Let’s just all stipulate that for this argument, it does.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“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”.

Any State with a well-regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny or foreign invasion. Over the past two hundred years, the individual States have forgotten that their security as a free State relies upon a well regulated Militia. The first two phrases in the Amendment shed light on today’s power structure in the United States. The Federal government now has standing armies, navies and an air force that far outnumbers any state militia. So, state sovereignty has been destroyed. Now states are more like counties…no sovereignty, only slave territories of a cancer-ridden, predatory Federal system. So the very opposite of the Second Amendment has become true, stated thus: “A Well-Regulated Militia, being unnecessary to the security of a Serf State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall indeed be infringed.”

Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.

The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but any weapon that could be used to defend one’s life or property. Why then do the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their desire to disarm Americans? Why not archery equipment, swords, knives, or sharpened sticks?

Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1) “to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans by natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon by the Federal government. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

Read What Are Unalienable Rights? to grasp the concept of Natural Law and Unalienable Rights.

Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes.

Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes!

Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence bristled with cannons.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to consider the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Ladies and Gentlemen, the militias of the Colonies WERE the military!! Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning the latest, most advanced weapons? If the Continentals had the same technology in armaments as the British military, how is it that today’s politician has concluded that (a) semi-auto firearms are not necessary for a citizen to own, (b) full-auto firearms have mostly been outlawed, and that (c) firearms should be OK as long as they are used for hunting or sporting purposes? Where in HELL did this hunting and sporting idea come from?

One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations this simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly-formed government would have the same potential as governments throughout history to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism.

Finally, you might want to take a look at Ammo: Isn’t It Obvious? which is likely the next logical step for Washington to take to disarm America.

Liberty lovers, tyranny is usually not completed in one grand sweep. There is no single foreign enemy that is going to invade America and enslave its people. It is much more effective when the tyrants enslave people a tiny bit at a time. Tyrants are patient, and the people are usually too busy living their lives to care. It’s death by a thousand little cuts. And you still end up dead.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is yet another great reason that secession is the ONLY solution for individual liberty and property rights in North America.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

*CDC stats 2009

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Keep Moving Folks. Nothing To See Here.

November 14, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Unhappy with your present cell phone provider? Monthly bills out of control? Discover Unlimited Voice, Unlimited Text and Unlimited Data on a Nationwide 4G Network. No Contract! Only $49 a month! Go to: Solavei.com to sign up TODAY!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By Russell D. Longcore

The title is what cops say to gapers and rubberneckers at accident scenes. And I’m telling you that this story about secession petitions is a non-story. But I could be wrong. Happened before…

I was on the air Monday on WJCN 1360 am in Philadelphia from 3:00 to 4:00, being interviewed about secession. Loved it…caught some drive time listeners. The host, Susan Payne, was all excited about the story she had seen about secession petitions that have been sent to the White House. She mentioned a Washington Post article about the petitions. She asked me to comment.

I read the Washington Post article which quotes excerpts from the Alabama secession petition. Then I went to the WhiteHouse.gov website and actually read all the petitions. And nearly all of them are written incorrectly, beginning thus: “We petition the Obama Administration to Peacefully grant the State of _______ to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government.”

That is not the method whereby a state secedes. This is tantamount to an employer asking his employee for permission to fire the employee. Although the petitioners and signatories are sincere in their desires, they exhibit a breathtaking ignorance of history, law and the Constitution. I am also a product of government schools, but I did not stop reading books when I received my high school diploma. So while I would like to blame Federal schools for the mind-numbed populace, the numbing was self-inflicted by “Them The People.”

Reminds me of the Pink Floyd song, “Comfortably Numb”… “Just a little pin prick…..”

There are certain states that do not need to ask permission to secede from the Union because the Federal Government in Washington DC is not a party to the agreement between the states. DC has no standing, as they say in court proceedings. Any state properly secedes when it prepares an Ordinance of Secession and presents it to the other states.

An Ordinance of Secession is not a petition. It is a declaration of independence that revokes and dissolves the union between that state and the other states.

I can assure you that these petitions are not being taken seriously in Washington. Fact is, they welcome the diversion from the CIA Petraeus story.

A crucial point sprang into my bourbon-sotted mind as I wrote this article. The US Constitution was written and ratified (allegedly) by the thirteen sovereign nations that were the original thirteen colonies that fought and won the First North America Secession of 1776. Get it? Thirteen nations…not 50. Later, West Virginia was carved out of the State of Virginia by Lincoln and his cronies. Texas was a sovereign nation when it was granted statehood. And Hawaii was a sovereign nation that was overthrown by DC and stolen. ALL THE REST of the states that now exist WERE NOT NATIONS prior to their statehood. Some states were formed when sovereign nations actually DONATED land to the Federal Government. Most of the states were TERRITORIES, and not sovereign nations. And the territories were owned by Washington DC.¹

A reasonable argument could be made that any current state that was not a sovereign nation at the time it was granted statehood might have a difficult time seceding from the United States of America and getting shed of Washington. Understand that I am not an attorney, and I’m only offering my opinion on this date. I have not read the State Constitutions of any of the US States. More information may come to me that will cause me to change this opinion.

Looks to me like Texas is the front runner in the race to be a new nation!

Dump DC: Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2012: Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

¹ Wikipedia – List of US States by Date of Statehood


State Sovereignty and Secession Part I

November 12, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Unhappy with your present cell phone provider? Monthly bills out of control? Discover Unlimited Voice, Unlimited Text and Unlimited Data on a Nationwide 4G Network. No Contract! Only $49 a month! Go to: Solavei.com to sign up TODAY!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

by Sarah Goodwich

(Editor’s note: This is just brilliant. Just read the text and watch the video.)

It’s not simply secession, but sovereignty. A state doesn’t need to secede, but merely the ability to do so, in order to keep the feds in line; it’s like any defense, i.e. you have it so you don’t need to use it.

Otherwise, the federal government becomes an uncontestable ruling oligarchy which wields absolute power over every state, and there’s nothing they can do about it; as Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Kentucky Resolutions:
“Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes…. the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

This was made clear by James Madison as he wrote in January of 1800 for the Virginia Assembly, in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions:
“It is indeed true that the term ‘states’ is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term ‘states,’ in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the “states;” in that sense the states ratified it; and in that sense of the term ‘states,’ they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.”

In other words, Madison holds, each state ratified the Constitution as a sovereign nation unto itself, and thus they are parties to the Constitution as sovereign nations.
Hence, he here held that the Constitution formed an international VOLUNTARY federal republic among sovereign nations.

Madison then goes on to illustrate the fallacy– and disaster– of construing the Constitution as a national compact among subordinate states:
“On any other hypothesis, the delegation of.. power would annul the authority delegating it; and… subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”

And that’s PRECISELY what transpired under that construction, when presidents Jackson and Lincoln claimed a national compact among the states, with ensuing national authority to maintain sovereign integrity among the states via military coercion– as well as the dictatorial will to do so, and ensuing obsessive demagoguery and dogma to the resulting pseudo-state.

And thus we currently find ourselves in thralldom to a falsely established empire, which pretends itself a token democracy to exercise absolute power in the name of service to the people over whom it reigns– truly, as Madison stated, “the delegation of power annulling the power delegating it.”

Sarah Goodwich sent this to us as a comment last Friday. She can be reached at: sarahwitch@comcast.net.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,446 other followers