The Second Amendment: Does Anybody But Me Understand It?

March 16, 2016

The Second Amendment: Does Anybody But Me Understand It?

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: I wrote this and first posted it in 2011. Since then, the Supreme Court issued the Heller decision. With the recent assassination of Justice Antonin Scalia, the 2A may be in play again. But even Nino Scalia, who wrote the opinion, didn’t get it right. I did…as shown below.)

The so-called conservatives say that there should be no restrictions to keep and bear arms for Americans. They say that it’s all about self-protection.

The so-called liberals beat the drum for outright bans on firearms, saying that disarming Americans will make our nation safer.

Both of them are wrong.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

“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.”

Let’s spend a few minutes using our powers of reason to just simply read and understand.

Take the first two phrases. Any way you rearrange the words, the message is that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The Founders were talking about the thirteen sovereign nations, each considered a State in the same manner as any other sovereign nation around the world. They had no intention that the united States were to be considered a new nation. They were equals to Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc…and every one of the European nations used militias. For more about the use of militias in history, visit Militia at Wikipedia.

So the Founders were stating the obvious…that a free State had to have a well-regulated militia to be considered secure. What is “Security?” The ability to defend itself against invasion or aggression by another political entity.

What does “well-regulated” mean? In the common usage of the 18th Century, it meant the property of something being in proper working order. The opposite of a well-regulated militia would be a chaotic assemblage of men with weapons without training.

So, you could restate the first two phrases as: “A militia in proper working order is necessary to the security of a free sovereign nation.” This is especially important when you consider that under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, the Federal Government was prohibited from having a standing army for more than two years, as well as providing for and training the Militia.

The underlying reason for the Second Amendment was not individual self-defense. The underlying reason for the Second Amendment was the security of the new thirteen sovereign nations. Yes…that meant security even from each other.

Now for the last two phrases…”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The phrases are starkly plain. You have to intend to misunderstand the words if you do misunderstand them or redefine their meaning. Let’s examine the penultimate phrase.

From whence does the purported right to keep and bear arms spring? Natural law. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are “among these,” not the only ones. (Read What Are Unalienable Rights?) The right of self-defense…to protect one’s self and/or others in your charge from harm…is so obvious it should almost not have to be pointed out. And “arms” are not only firearms. Nearly anything can be utilized as arms, or weapons.

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.

Actually, colonials had rifles more modern than the Redcoats. The rifles carried by the British were inferior to the long rifles of the colonials. A large number of the colonial rifles were the Pennsylvania rifles, made by German immigrant gunsmiths with spirally grooved barrels (rifling) that spun a ball leaving the barrel, increasing both its distance and accuracy. The British “Brown Bess” muskets were only marginally accurate to about 100 yards, while the long rifles of the Patriots could reach out easily past 300 yards. Colonials were also “armed” with hatchets, swords, daggers and bayonets. The Colonials also had modern cannon, as modern as anything the Redcoats used.

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 fairly bristled with cannons.

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.

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 write the Second Amendment, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Why? BECAUSE THE MILITIA WAS THE MILITARY!!! Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning military weapons? Why else would they write the Second Amendment in the words they chose?

Finally, the last phrase…”shall not be infringed.” 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. The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. 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. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or sports or being disarmed by any government. It’s not really even about personal self defense. The Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, and the necessity of a militia in keeping that state free.

So a proper understanding of the Second Amendment begs the BIGGEST question of all: If NONE of the states of the United States of America are sovereign any more, but are rather subservient to the Federal government in Washington DC, and the states have no need for militias, isn’t the Second Amendment entirely irrelevant?

I hope and pray that someday secessionists and state independence movements will fully embrace and openly discuss The Power Of The Sword.

Secession is the only hope for humanity. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


The FRONA Corporate Model Of Governance

February 11, 2016

The FRONA Corporate Model Of Governance
by Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: “FRONA” is an acronym for the Free Republic of North America, that mythical new nation borne of secession and created in the fertile gray matter of your Editor. This is an update of an article that ran at LewRockwell.com in October 2009.)

The US Constitution is a dead document. It has been dead nearly from its inception. It is neither contract nor treaty, either of which would give it the force of law. It does not, and cannot bind any two persons to each other, nor can it bind any person to the rogue government called “The United States of America” that is the occupying force in Washington DC.

In this article, I will prove that the Constitution is without authority and that the subject of secession related to the Constitution is entirely irrelevant, and that any states need not concern themselves with the constitutionality of secession.

When you are able to wrap your mind around this truth, it may cause you some consternation. This means that all of the things that you learned about the US Constitution in elementary school, high school government class, college and any information you’ve learned since you became an adult…IS WRONG. If you went to law school and took Constitutional Law classes, they lied to you.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that all of the debates that are made about the details of the Constitution are in error. We can all spend our days arguing about the articles and clauses and their meanings. But if the US Constitution is dead, and cannot bind anyone to it, arguing about the merits of constitutionality of any government action is simply an exercise in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

A constitution, or any document organizing a government, must have authority and validity. But the US Constitution has no inherent authority or validity and has never had either. If we can learn what the US Constitution is and what it is not, we can understand the flaws in the old constitution and then craft a new constitution for any seceding state with authority and validity.

I believe that one of the major reasons that Washington is able to operate as it does, outside the strictures of the Constitution, is because those persons in power know that the Constitution is not legally enforceable. Absent a restraining legal document coupled with principals that have the power to enforce the terms of the document, the DC criminals do exactly what they wish and what they can get away with.

The US Constitution has the following words in its Preamble, showing the intent of the Framers:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.

The Founder’s sentiments seek to secure blessings to themselves and their posterity, meaning future generation of citizens. But a loose agreement cannot by law or reason bind any future person to its details. Contracts cannot obligate persons who will live in the future, either. They can only obligate persons who are living presently and who sign and receive the contract.

Even though the old constitution wishes to bestow blessings and liberty on their posterity, it has no power whatsoever to achieve this goal. Further, it never showed any intention toward future generations other than to offer useful recommendations to their posterity toward the blessings of liberty. If they were in some way able to bind future generations to the Constitution, they would not have bestowed liberty but slavery upon their posterity, since their children would be bound to it from birth, like it or not.

So what exactly is this Constitution?

I think it could only be called a “loose agreement” between certain people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a treaty ratified between sovereign states, which would have the weight of law. It cannot be considered a legal contract, since legal contracts have characteristics that the old constitution does not have.

It was ratified by votes in the several states. But ratification in any form didn’t turn it into a legal document with enforceability and authority.

The US Constitution is not a legal contract. The Constitution never bound any two or more parties in a legal way, nor did it ever purport to bind anyone. A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not valid until the contract is signed by all parties and delivered to the parties, or the representative of any signatory party. Any party may refuse to sign or deliver a written instrument and thus invalidate the contract. The US Constitution was not signed by anyone or anyone’s legal representative. It was not delivered to anyone or their representative. No one in the USA, either alive or dead, has ever signed the Constitution as a legal contract between parties. So how could it be a legal document with binding authority or validity?

Contracts are also voluntary. The parties come together for a purpose, but are free to dissolve the contract based upon the terms of the contract. Even if they leave contrary to the contract terms, there may be consequences, but they can still leave.

Abraham Lincoln’s position was that, once in the Union, no state can ever leave. And if the US Constitution was an enforceable contract between parties, his position would have been rejected instantly and laughed out of any court in the land. But in light of the unenforceable nature of the Constitution, Lincoln was free to do what he pleased as it related to the Confederate States of America and war. But the Confederate states were also right to secede from a Union that could not bind them. Constitutionality was irrelevant then, just as it is today.

The Constitution is not a perpetual corporation. The perpetuity of a corporation would require that new members voluntarily assent to its laws and by-laws as old members die off. New members must accept in writing because without their legal signatures, they would not be members and could not vote on corporate issues. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Framers intended the US Constitution to be a corporation’s organizational document…at least not a corporation in the strictest sense.

“The United States of America” is the name given in the US Constitution to the organization that the states created. Compare the work of the Founders to a group of thirteen property owners that need a management company to manage their properties. So, they created a management company and gave it specific tasks and responsibilities. The property owners retained to themselves all other powers not specifically delegated to the management company. They also did not transfer ownership of their properties to the manager. The owners remained the sovereign principals, controlling the manager. But there is NOT ONE WORD in the US Constitution that purports to create a new nation. Look for yourself.

So we can see that the Constitution is not a contract. It binds no one, and never did bind any persons. We see that all those who pretend to operate under its perceived authority act without any legal and legitimate authority.

But we voted and elected these Representatives and Senators. They are our duly elected officials, aren’t they?

Are our elected representatives our personal agents with legal authority to bind each of us individually and collectively? No they are not. In order for you to have a legal representative, you must sign your name to a document that gives the representative the power to act in your behalf. This document is commonly known as a “power of attorney.” You must also deliver the document to the agent.

People regularly sign a “power of attorney” for health care decisions and other legal matters. But what would you do if a stranger went to your doctor and usurped your wishes for your medical treatment, stating that he had your power of attorney? Any reasonable person would require the stranger to produce a written document bearing your signature prior to any changes of treatment. How much more should there be a written power of attorney for the DC stranger who plunders your income and steals your liberty?

Did you ever sign a power of attorney so that any elected officeholder could make binding decisions on your behalf? Did you authorize any person to obligate you to laws, regulations or the payment of taxes to any governmental body? I know that I have not done so. Neither have you.

And the secret ballot makes the concept of any elected representative acting as your agent even more ridiculous. How could secret voters hire an agent? How could secret voters enter into a power of attorney agreement?

So we see that those persons acting as our elected representatives are acting unlawfully, and that we have both the right and duty to treat them as usurpers and frauds.

Then upon what authority does the Federal Government operate? Who gave them the authority to enact laws, tax, confiscate men’s property and kill other men who resist their machinations?

You could say that voters select their representatives by secret ballot, and so bestow authority upon them. But in matter of law and reason, this is not true. It would not be upheld in a court of common law. If you and three of your friends voted in favor of a proposal in which a fourth friend would take it upon himself to deprive me of my property or my life, he would be a robber and/or a murderer. If he presented himself at my door to do his work, he would be unable to produce any legal authority to complete his task. Absent legal authority, I should treat him as a robber and murderer and resist his efforts even unto deadly force.

In a courtroom, a judge would ask to see your representative’s written authority to act in your behalf. You would be unable to produce such written authority.

So voting is neither a contract nor a power of attorney. And secret ballots should never be considered legally binding, since no signed contract between parties ever existed. Further, if voters authorize another person to act as their agent, they should do so in an open manner so to accept responsibility for the agent’s acts. That’s called “liability,” and that’s what happens out here in “the real world.” But the US Constitution, in Article I, Sec. 6, says that “for any speech or debate (or vote) in either house, they (Senators or Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.” So your agent cannot be held responsible for any laws they make…and neither can you. So, if no one is responsible, who is responsible?

NO ONE.

And let’s return to the subject of legal authority. The Constitution has no legal authority to bind any two or more persons. If it did, you would possess a copy upon which you would find your own signature and at least one other person’s signature. But that document does not exist in any form and has not existed in over 235 years. So, absent that authority, voting is only theater. It is an exercise that makes the citizen feel that he is participating in a legitimate government.

The Federal Government in Washington has been illegitimate from its origin. There is no enforceable law or principal possessing superior force to restrain it from any act. It was only the morality and ethics of the earliest founders that restrained them from tyranny. Unfortunately for Americans, that morality and ethical restraint are a quaint memory.

OK. Convinced that the old Constitution is a cruel joke? Then, how can the new constitution be crafted to guarantee legitimacy and legality? If the framers of the new constitution write one like the old one, it will suffer the same illegitimacy issues as the old one.

Here are suggestions on how to write a new Constitution for a seceding State that wants to become a new sovereign nation.

The New FRONA Corporate Model of Governance

Form the new nation in the style of a corporation. Let’s call it The Free Republic of North America, or for short, “FRONA.” The Constitution, or Charter, can be its laws and by-laws. Each person will be given the option to subscribe to FRONA and become a citizen. That person would have to be presented with a copy of the Charter. Each person would have the choice to accept the Charter in writing. Once accepted, each citizen would be, in essence, a shareholder in the corporation, since a person could not be a citizen/shareholder without signed consent. Each citizen would pay one once of .999 purity silver and would be issued one share of common stock with one vote. No citizen could buy or own more than one share of common stock. That would also mean that those rejecting the Charter could not be citizens of FRONA. Minors could not be citizens until they were of legal age to enter into a contract, usually eighteen years of age. So, in FRONA, there would be two groups of people: citizens and residents. Residents would obviously not have the same legal rights as citizens.

FRONA might also issue preferred stock. The shareholder/citizens could actually invest their own money in preferred stock. This would provide the new nation with additional capital. Shareholders holding preferred stock might receive dividends if FRONA makes a profit.

FRONA would also be able to issue debentures and corporate bonds to raise capital.

As the corporate structure would be a closely-held private corporation, the charter could specify that the stock could not be resold to non-citizens. Only FRONA would be eligible to buy back the stock to be reissued to new citizen/investors.

The founders of FRONA would have the right to present the offer of citizenship to anyone anywhere on the planet. They could cherry pick the world for the best and brightest talent! It would be a powerful component of immigration policy.

Voting could be done by proxies (power of attorney), and the citizen could designate an elected representative as his proxy in writing. Or he could vote himself on any issue. This creates a hybrid between direct democracy and representative democracy.

Think this is unworkable? The largest corporations on the planet have been running this way for hundreds of years. GM (pre-nationization), Exxon, Standard Oil, all of the Dow Jones top 30…they all work this way just fine. Many have millions of shareholders, just like FRONA would have. In fact, Sweden’s Stora Kopparberg was incorporated by King Magnus Eriksson in 1347 and still operates today.

FRONA Monetary Policy

The new Charter must have an article about monetary policy. This article will authorize the private minting of gold and silver coins, and will mandate that coins only show their purity and weight, not any monetary value.

Banking, Entity Structure and Privacy

The new Charter must contain an article about banking. Specifically, Fractional Reserve Banking must be prohibited. In addition, strict protections of privacy must be enacted, shielding citizens from the tax laws of other nations.

The new Charter must contain laws that prevent tax treaties with other nations, thereby protecting FRONA citizens from predatory taxation by other jurisdictions. Statutes must also protect the privacy of business entities such as corporations.

Taxation

The sole method of taxation that is at once most restrictive to government yet least confiscatory to individuals is the sales tax. FRONA should establish the sales tax as the sole source of government revenue.

The Militia

FRONA must organize, train and equip a citizen militia, comprised of able-bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 55. This will be an entirely voluntary militia, since requiring conscription is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and does not protect individual liberty. As the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the natural right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Following the Swiss model of militia organization would be a good idea.

If the new FRONA Charter only had those articles about monetary policy, banking, taxation and militia, that would be sufficient to form a core government and bring FRONA to life. Because the power of the purse and the power of the sword make all else possible. There are many details that must be worked out that are not listed in this article. But this article was not written to form a new government. It was written to get you thinking about constitutions and how they directly affect YOU.

Thomas Jefferson’s shining jewel, the Declaration of Independence, states that when a government shows a long train of abuses meant to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is the people’s right and duty to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security. The Free Republic of North America could be that new guard that secures the future of a new nation.

FRONA. A new model for governance on the American continent. An idea whose time is come.

Secession is the Hope For Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

For a wider analysis of this constitutional issue, read “No Treason,” by Lysander Spooner.


Cowards And Criminals In State Government

January 26, 2016

Cowards and Criminals in State Government

by Russell Longcore

(Editor’s note: This article first ran in 2009.)

The United States was organized with a Federal structure. Under that structure the national government was supposed to have two overriding dicta: to safeguard the States from foreign invasion and domestic violence, and provide a Republican form of government to the States. (Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution)

It should have been pretty easy to protect the States. A wide ocean on the east and west, and peaceable borders on the north and south do the government’s job for them without spending a penny. So, they should have been focusing all their attention on providing the states with a Republican form of government. Instead, what we have now is a fascist police state.

I don’t think that qualifies as a Republic.

A republic is a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy. The key word is “representative.” The states were supposed to be the pre-eminent players. In the beginning, the Senate chose who would be President of the USA, and the Senators were there in Washington to represent the interests of their states.

Over the past 200 years, Washington has turned the government we were promised into the government we were trying to prevent. Could any absolute monarchy or dictatorship be any worse than what we have now? King George didn’t lay on a combined tax burden nearing 50% and trillions in debt.

The states of the Union have become little more than big duchies, with a reigning Duke called a Governor, subservient geographic entities owned by Washington. For reasons too numerous to list here, the states allowed Washington to usurp nearly all of their power. The fecklessness of every state’s political leaders mocks the Constitiution’s Federal system, and has destroyed the most important checks and balances against Federal tyranny.

Make no mistake. No one truly expects the Federal Government to check and balance itself…where would be its motivation to do that? No, the final arbiters are supposed to be the states. The principals always direct the acts of an agent, and that is the proper role. States are principals and DC is the agent. But it has been turned upside down.

The states had many arrows in their quivers to control the Federal Government. One of the most effective should have been nullification. Simply put, if Washington enacts laws that the states interpret as unlawful, the states could ignore the new laws like they never happened. Today’s states are unwilling and afraid to use nullification against Washington.

Another strong arrow used to be withholding funds from Washington. But with the enactment of the income tax, that arrow was broken, and Washington takes much of the tax money directly from the people.

I say all of that about the states of the United States in general, but specifically as it relates to monetary policy in America. The US states have allowed…even empowered…Washington to destroy the monetary system of the USA through the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking.

The Federal Reserve, a consortium of PRIVATE banks, prints counterfeit currency for the Federal Government. Fractional reserve banking laws allow all the rest of the other banks to counterfeit by creating credit (money) out of thin air.

State political leaders are so clueless and visionless that they have laid down and allowed Washington to endanger the very economic security of each American state through the institutional counterfeiting of the Federal Reserve and all other American banks.

These are some of the reasons that I am not encouraged and excited to know that 39 states have passed some type of 10th Amendment resolution, thereby taking a position that they might just do something in the future, by God. The steely resolve is inspiring, isn’t it?

But where is the state legislature and Governor that will notify Washington that there is a new “nullification sheriff” in town? When will some state begin nullifying the laws coming out of Washington, and refusing to allow them to be obeyed in that state? When will a state refuse to enforce Federal legislation? When will a state slap the cuffs on a Federal law enforcement officer who is trying to enforce Federal law in a state that has nullified Federal law?

Where is that state that will be true to its origins, and allow nothing but gold and silver coin (specie) as tender in payment of debts (Article I, Section 10)?

As a beginning step, how about if a state stops tax withholding and makes the payment of state income and property taxes mandatory in gold or silver coin or electronic gold? That would begin inculcating the citizens in a small way to once again consider gold and silver coin as money. I realize this idea doesn’t work in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, since none of them have a state income tax. But it would work for their property taxes, and both will work everywhere else in America.

Any state could facilitate the exchange of Federal Reserve Notes for specie by making such transactions exempt from sales tax. The exchange of FRN currency for specie, which are both legal money, are in essence a “currency exchange,” no difference substantively from changing dollars to Euros, Yen or Pesos.

One of the reasons that a gold/silver monetary standard would work so well for Texas is its petroleum exports. A New Texas with a gold standard would demand gold or silver specie as the only settlement of petro and natural gas transactions from any other country.

But you see, taking a position like that would directly challenge the power of Washington and the Federal Reserve. The paper money they issue says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” If a state refused to accept Federal Reserve Notes for payment of state income or property taxes, they might have a fight on their hands.

A principled stand like this over money might also help repudiate the scurrilous IRS case of Robert Kahre in Nevada. Mr. Kahre is now serving a Federal prison term for paying his employees’ wages by using legal tender gold coins. Kahre was acquitted on all 161 counts of tax law violations back in 2007. But the IRS tried him again (double jeopardy, anyone?) and a jury convicted him in 2009. Keep in mind that gold and silver coins are legal tender in the United States, just like Federal Reserve notes. But no one embarrasses the IRS, and Kahre has now paid the price. His life as a free man is over.

State political leaders have no stomach and no backbone for a fight with Washington. Those American citizens in favor of state secession might look to these issues as a barometer of how their state political leaders would react to a political or economic meltdown. If a state won’t protect itself now, why should anyone believe that it will take principled stands later?

And of late, many are beating the drum for a so-called “Article Five” Constitutional Convention, wherein the US Constitution could be amended. I am diametrically opposed to a Constitutional Convention. I trust no one at either the State or Federal level to amend the Constitution.

There is craven cowardice in the halls of state government in every state in the United States of America. Legislators and state executives go along to get along. Many look at state office as a springboard to Federal office. Few serve their constituents…most serve Washington, the Federal Reserve and banking interests.

State secession would end the tyranny of DC and return the states to the status of sovereign nations.

“So that’s how liberty dies…to thunderous applause.” Princess Padme, watching the Senate in Revenge of the Sith

Copyright © 2016, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


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 II

November 13, 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

Here’s how to secede.
 The US is not a sovereign nation; if it were, then unilateral secession would be impossible, since there is no such thing as an “escape clause” from a sovereign nation.

Rather, each state is sovereign unto itself, via its People; that’s why the Constitution was ratified by popular vote in each state, not an act of the legislature. In essence, each state is a sovereign nation, and its People the ruling sovereigns.

The problem in 1861, was that the states defended themselves as an act of revolution rather than plain national defense; and by failing to assert the legal fact of their sovereignty as strongly as they could, they tacitly allowed the northern state’s claims of collective sovereignty to stand unopposed; this gave them the necessary domestic and foreign support needed to mount a successful military invasion and victory, while likewise prompting the Confederacy’ Napoleonic attempt at counter-invasion which met its Waterloo at Gettysburg.

This in turn resulted in a sustained occupation and censorship, which existed to date, with the truth only recently surfacing due to freed communication via the internet.

In order to secede, a state simply needs to assert the fact of its status as a sovereign nation by international law, via the recognition of two or more existing sovereign states– as with the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Texas, or the later recognition by the other American states formed out of its territories.

This likewise involves the historical declaration of each state being popularly sovereign, with its government deriving its powers by consent of its citizens, with the ensuing right to alter or abolish their government at will, along with its treaties and other foreign policy; for this was the manner in which they ratified the current Constitution to create a new federal republic among them.

Nor was this a national constitution in which any state relinquished its sovereignty as a separate nation in order to become a single collective sovereign state; but rather the sovereign People of each state expressly re-delegated powers differently from the prior federal republic formed by the Articles of Confederation– while the new, current federal republic likewise remained a strictly VOLUNTARY international association of sovereign nations.

Therefore, asserting these facts, the People of a state merely need convene as a sovereign People, and manifestly declare their intention to formally and officially withdraw from this international federal compact.

The federal government then has two possible responses:
 the first is that it can accept the declaration, and that is the end of it.

The second, is that it will refuse the declaration, fabricating a false history in order to justify it; and this can then be refuted and exposed, proving the federal government to be in hostile invasion and occupation of the state, while subjecting it to military duress. This will then require separate dealing, as with any hostile enemy occupying a sovereign nation in violation of international law and recognition.

That’s really all there is to it. Only one state needs to thus declare its sovereignty in order for to establish this precedent, which follows that likewise established in 1787 when each state unilaterally seceded from the 1781 Confederation.
 Some falsely claim that this was an existing union which simply changed its tenets, however plain history refutes this myth.

Therefore to recap, the People of a state must convene and assert their state’s national sovereignty, refuting the current regime’s claim of sovereign national authority over them; and the rest will be up to the regime in order to accept or refuse it, and the manner thereof; and the resulting course of action by the state in response.

In no case could there ever be a “civil war,” nor was there ever; for a civil war by definition is a domestic incident within a sovereign nation, never between separate ones as in 1861, as established by original intent of the states themselves. Post-invasive suppression and propagandizing of the facts are not history; they are merely censorship, and clearly cannot change prior original intent, or its retention of sovereignty.

As such, those who claim that a “civil war settled the law” are merely mistaken, since neither invasion nor hostile occupation and censorship can change a nation’s sovereignty by merely suppressing the fact thereof.

Convention, and declaration, thus remain the path to secession, accompanied by assertion of supporting fact and dissolution of contrary propaganda.

Sarah Goodwich can be reached at: sarahwitch@comcast.net.


Flash Editorials April 21, 2012

April 21, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

The Nation I: Twelve Secret Service agents and ten military personnel went to Colombia on an advance security detail before the President attended a meeting in Cartagena last week. They stuck to the old adage…”wheels up, rings off.” When they got there, they rounded up at least 20 hookers and did what men do with hookers. The next morning, one of the agents tried to stiff (yes, I know) his paramour and she called the cops. I don’t know what the big furor is. Men of too much power and too little morals regularly step out of line. And military personnel? Please! Ever been to the area just outside a military base? More titty bars, porn shops and massage parlors per square mile than anywhere else. I’m just thinking that they were good consumers trying to get a volume discount. It’s laughable that anyone in America cares about this while this President is taking American into the gulag as fast as he can. Perspective, folks…perspective.

The Nation II: This week, the Virginia Legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill that nullifies the National Defense Authorization Act. The governor has promised to sign the bill. You remember where Virginia is? Sharing a common border with Washington DC? This is a small glimmer of hope that the states haven’t completely caved in to DC’s plans for America. But signing a bill don’t mean shit. Let’s see what Virginia law enforcement does when some Federal goon tries to enforce the NDAA on a Virginia citizen. I hope the Virginia law allows for clapping a Fed in irons and throwing him in jail…if he didn’t get shot first.

The Nation III: George Zimmerman had a good week. One judge recused herself from his case, and in Friday’s hearing, another judge granted him bail at $150,000…of which he only has to post 10% to be free from the Greybar Hotel. In a newsclip, I saw Zim’s lawyer questioning one of the detectives in the case. He asked him if the police had any evidence who started the fight that ended in Martin’s death. “No,” the cop replied. The attorney was trying to make the case that a charge of Second Degree Murder was a politically motivated charge, not based in facts. Zim’s lawyer won. Naturally, the family of Martin was not happy.

International I: India successfully launched a missile on Thursday that can carry a nuclear warhead up to 5,000 kilometers. Why isn’t Washington having a hissy fit? Iran doesn’t have anywhere close to this technology. And India is buying oil from Iran with gold and rupees. Answer: because India has a billion people and isn’t cowed by DC. Answer 2: India also has lots of gold and is one of the BRIC nations. India doesn’t need America, except to pay for Tech Support and Customer Service.

International II: In Bahrain, the government and protesters are having constant violent clashes, and much blood is being spilled on both sides. The Formula One Grand Prix event is supposed to be held there Sunday, but race officials are talking about canceling the event. That’ll show em. Nothing worse than a spinout when a tire runs through a puddle of blood.

Business: I saw a video Friday by Gerald Celente, founder of the Trends Research Institute. He was talking about how the rich and powerful can steal billions in fraudulent scams and go scot free, yet if you or I steal a pack of gum from the 7-11 we will be face down on the pavement with a cop’s knee on our neck. And he’s right. When banks and investment houses can play fast and loose with your money, you don’t really own it. Here is Celente’s money quote: “If you don’t have your money, it’s not yours.” The only money you can count on is the money that you physically hold and can touch. Celente has liquidated all his paper investments and is 100% in gold and silver. In fact, Celente had made a purchase of gold on a future delivery contract through MF Global, and when that company went bankrupt, there went his gold purchase. He said he’s recovered about 60% of his money, but the rest is gone. And this video by Celente only backs up what I have been telling you now for months…How much of your savings and investments should you keep in stocks, bonds and mutual funds? Only that amount you are willing to completely lose. Liquidate ALL paper assets right now and get into precious metals that you can hold and touch.

That brings me to tonight’s commercial message. Quick Question: Do you know how much invested money it takes for you to earn $1,000 month in income without touching the principal? The math is easy. $1,000 a month is $12,000 a year, right? But what kind of return on investment can you expect these days? Could you get a 3% return? Maybe. But let’s use that number. You would have to have $400,000 in some investment that earned 3% a year to get yourself $1,000 a month. Next question: How many of you could live on $1,000 a month? Don’t you need $3,000…$4,000…$8,000 or more to live? And we haven’t factored in the inflation rate, which is about 3% and is going higher. Do you have $1.2 million, or $1.6 million…or $3.2 million in investments? No young families I know have that kind of money. Only a few six-figure income earners that I know have it either. And in an economic depression…which we are in NOW…putting that kind of money away is next to impossible. But there’s a business in America right now that throws off monthly income just like an annuity. It’s my energy business. Think about your utility bills. You pay your energy bills every month, and every month, your energy provider earns a little profit on your payment. Now multiply that times thousands. Folks, there is a huge amount of money in the energy business, and you could get paid just like the big monopolies. Imagine owning a business that throws off income every month on a life-essential service that every adult that lives indoors pays every month. To learn more about this unique business, and see if this business is right for you, go to: MasterpieceEnergy.com. Look to the left and click on “The Ignite Business Plan” to learn about a truly recession-proof business.

Economy I: The number of actual new unemployment claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 367,550 in the week ending April 14, a decrease of 22,916 from the previous week. Yet, the Labor Department reported 386,000 new jobless claims last week. I know that many of you just skip over this because this heading is always the same, showing how breathtakingly stupid the Labor Department is. But think a little deeper, friends. Labor is only one Federal department or bureaucracy. You’ve seen how the GSA acts when no one’s looking. And the Secret Service imbroglio is merely the tip of the iceberg. ALL OF THE bureaucracies are wildly wasteful, and they know that Americans won’t do ANYTHING about it.

Sports: OOPS! At a team event, the parent of one of the University of Alabama’s football players was holding the $30,000 Waterford crystal football-shaped trophy when he caught his shoe on a rug. He dropped the trophy which shattered on the floor. Team officials are looking for a way to replace the trophy. Excuse me? This is easy. The parent likely has homeowner’s insurance, which provides liability insurance. File a claim with his insurer, and call Waterford. They still remember how to make the trophy…they make one each year. Done.

Entertainment: So sorry to hear of the passing of two enormous talents in music. Levon Helm, the founder of The Band, died Thursday after a long battle with cancer. A gentle man, superb musician and a gentleman, he was still performing until recently. And Dick Clark died this week from a heart attack. Clark founded “American Bandstand,” the teen music show that started all other rock music shows. I remember in the early 60s that “Bandstand” came on ABC at noon on Saturdays. Everybody I knew tried to be home for the show on Saturdays. You might not know that Clark also created and produced the American Music Awards show that has been fantastically successful for decades. Both men made enormous contributions to American music.

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.