Those who want to disarm Americans believe that the people never had a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. They also believe that the founders did not foresee the day when people had more than rifles to defend themselves and that the Second Amendment should be altered to restrict gun ownership by citizens to those that cannot be used for massive killing.
They base their
argument on the following notions:
1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was provided only under the authority of the state militias at the direction of the state governor;
It has been clearly shown under PROVE THE NEED that Alexander Hamilton and the writers of the Second Amendment did contemplate the advancement of military technology. The Second Amendment clearly says the right to keep and bear arms was intended to include the arms the Continental Army had at the time and that any other military might have in the future. Had these founders not contemplated the advancement of military technology they would have clearly limited their Second Amendment to the family rifle. They did not do so. They clearly said ?arms.? Arms includes weapons that exceed mere rifles and includes cannon and mortars that were around at the time. The founders, as Alexander Hamilton clearly shows, intended the people to possess, and be trained in their use, every type of fire arm the Federal military would have:
?The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.?[1]
Clearly, the founders contemplated tyranny on the part of the Federal Government that maintained an unlawful standing army just as we have today. And they also contemplated the use of this standing Federal army to trample the liberties of the people. The use of the militia or armed people was first in defense of the states against the tyranny of the Federal government. Secondly, the use of the militia was to defend the rights of fellow citizens against any government, state, federal or foreign.
2. The founders did not contemplate the advancement of military weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment;
This is a ridiculous assertion! There have always been advances in military technology. It may have been slow for many years but no one would have limited themselves to present technology knowing full well that rifles are more accurate than bows and arrows and cannons more effective than catapults. After all, the purpose of the Second Amendment was clearly aimed at stopping a full federal, state or foreign invading army, why would they have held their own defense to sling shots or garden tools as Piers Morgan, CNN and TIME WARNER would have us to believe?
The reason we are having shootings on the order of
3. The right to keep and bear arms comes from the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Most people believe the right to keep and bear arms and to form
militias come from the Second Amendment. Therefore, to regulate and ban arms
and militias in America all anyone would need to do is call Congress together
or have the President issue an executive order outlawing all guns or any kind
of guns they want removed from the population and have the Supreme Court back
them up. But in reality the Second Amendment is merely a declaration of the
right given all people that came from God. No Congress or President or Supreme
Court can remove the Second Amendment right to keep and bear all forms of arms
for defense against tyranny in order to protect a
?The first I conceive is clear, 1st, Because all living creatures have radically in them a power of self-preservation, to defend themselves from violence, ? as we see lions have paws, some beasts have horns, some claws, ? men being reasonable creatures, united in society, must have power in a more reasonable and honourable way to put this power of warding off violence in the hands of one or more rulers, to defend themselves by magistrates. 2nd, If all men be born, as concerning civil power, alike, ? for no man cometh out of the womb with a diadem on his head or a sceptre in his hand, and yet men united in a society may give crown and sceptre to this man and not to that man, ? then this power was in this united society, but it was not in them formally, for they should then all have been one king, and so both above and superior, and below and inferior to themselves, which we cannot say; therefore this power must have been virtually in them, because neither man nor community of men can give that which they neither have formally nor virtually in them. 3rd, Royalists cannot deny but cities have power to create a higher ruler, for royal power is but the united and superlative power of inferior judges in one greater judge whom they call a king.
Conclus. The power of creating a man a king is from the people.?[2]
It is clear that God intended all animals to have the right of
self defense including people and
?When he hath proved that God is the immediate author of sovereignty, what then? Shall it follow that the sovereign in concreto may not be resisted, and that he is above all law, and that there is no armour against his violence but prayers and tears? Because God is the immediate author of the pastor and of the apostle's office, does it therefore follow that it is unlawful to resist a pastor though he turn robber? If so, then the pastor is above all the king's laws. This is the Jesuit and all made, and there is no armour against the robbing prelate but prayer and tears.?[3]
Obviously, a pastor turned robber may be resisted even though he holds the office of minister of God and watchman of a flock. And if a minister of God may be resisted when turned robber so can government, created by man.
Piers Morgan, CNN and TIME WARNER want us to believe that we have
no right to keep and bear ?assault weapons? or military style weapons. They
also indicate that we have no right to resist anything that comes from
John Locke also agreed with Rutherford and took it much further proving that the sole purpose of government is the protection of the individual people and all their property of every kind, and that when governments alter their form without permission they may be resisted with force if necessary:
?Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
?Sec. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.?[4]
Locke has shown above why men form government or agree to join already formed governments. They form and join government for the sole purpose of protecting their life, liberty and possessions. And they do not give up their right to protect themselves when they create or join society with a government. Locke further shows that these governments can be dissolved from within and begin to be unlawful and tyrannical:
?Sec. 199. AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.?[5]
We have shown under PROVE NEED that the government has actually changed the form of government we the people agreed to and have done so without our permission by the means that we provided within the United States Constitution.
?Sec. 221. There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.?
We have shown conclusively under PROVE NEED and herein under PROVE RIGHT that all three branches of the US government has altered the form of our United States Constitution without our permission and have done so to invade our properties therefore dissolving the government and the authority they have in the seats of that dissolved government.
Sec. 222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society.?[6]
The present attempt by the
?Sec. 225. Secondly, I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty, will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected; and without which, ancient names, and specious forms, are so far from being better, that they are much worse, than the state of nature, or pure anarchy; the inconveniencies being all as great and as near, but the remedy farther off and more difficult.?
Who can deny that we have come way past the tolerance level of the Federal government?s fumbling, bumbling, affairs, stupidity and the like? We in fact see a design that shows a destiny that is undeniable. They have confiscated our gold and silver and given us worthless paper money and flooded the world with it. They have confiscated our property and used it for collateral without compensation to back the paper currency. They built FEMA camps all over the nation. They have purchased hundreds of thousands of plastic coffins. They have purchased great amounts of ammunition for domestic agencies and they fully expect an economic collapse unequalled in American history and now they want our semi-automatic guns as if their unlawful standing army is not enough.
?Sec. 226. Thirdly, I answer, that this doctrine of a power in the people of providing for their safety a-new, by a new legislative, when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust, by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probablest means to hinder it: for rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is founded only in the constitutions and laws of the government; those, whoever they be, who by force break through, and by force justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels: for when men, by entering into society and civil-government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, do rebellare, that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properly rebels: which they who are in power, (by the pretence they have to authority, the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of those about them) being likeliest to do; the properest way to prevent the evil, is to shew them the danger and injustice of it, who are under the greatest temptation to run into it.?[7]
Those who have used legislation to go around the law of the land
rather than pass an amendment that would approve their changes in form to the
government have overthrown it and they now want to take our guns in defiance of
the Second Amendment and the God given right to defend our property and that of
our neighbors. Who then is the rebel among us? Is it the people who have a
right to protect their property or is it those who want to disarm the people of
?Sec. 232. Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.?[8]
To disarm the people without law or right puts themselves into a
state of war with the people. And that is what we are in the midst of in
No one should give much attention to the talk of state secession as it is not required when the federation is dissolved! All states are now independent republics and they should be organizing their own militias.
Let us remember Purim. You may remember the story of Mordecai, Esther and Haman. This is a record of how a slaughter of the unarmed Jews was averted by Esther and Mordecai. King Ahasuerus in 509 BC ordered all the Jews be killed and their property taken because he had been told by Haman that these people were very different and did not obey the laws of the land. Haman also offered the king ten thousand talents of silver to do so. The king agreed and made a decree that this thing should be done by all the people and sealed it with his ring. The king later finds out that his new wife and queen, Esther, is a Jew and that he had been set up by Haman and told lies concerning the Jews. Esther asked the king to reverse his decree but he could not as this was not lawful for kings to reverse their decisions and decrees. But the king gave Esther and Mordecai his ring and said write something that will help you and your people. They wrote that the Jews could arm themselves and join together in defense of their lives and property and remove their enemies that had conspired against them or that hated them.
?And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.
And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for
they had shewed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy
all the Jews that were throughout the whole
?If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king's treasuries.
And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy. Esther 3:9-10
?And the letters were sent by posts into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.? Esther 3:13
?Then Esther the queen answered and said, If I have found favour in thy sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request:
For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my tongue, although the enemy could not countervail the king's damage.
Then the king Ahasuerus answered and said unto Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so?
And Esther said, The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman. Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen.? Esther 7:3-6
?So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.? Esther 7:10
?Write ye also for the Jews, as it liketh you, in the king's name, and seal it with the king's ring: for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse.? Esther 8:8
?Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey,
Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar.? Esther 8:11-12
?Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them.
And in Shushan the palace the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men.? Esther 9:5-6
?But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey,
On the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same rested they, and made it a day of feasting and gladness.? Esther 9:16-17
Also you might remember the commandment and promise of God related to being careless in the coming of danger:
?Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.? Ezekiel 33:4-6
Can we not glean some wisdom from these scriptures? Is it wise to disarm ourselves while an unlawful standing army is continually supported in violation of the US Constitution or law of the land? Do you not hear the trumpet? Are you a watchman? Yes, we are all watchmen and we should hear the trumpet and read the handwriting on the wall and read the color of the sky and read the signs of the times. If you can?t hear it, then hear me for I hear it loud and clear. Prepare now and deliver your own soul and I will deliver mine and not have the blood of my countrymen on my hands nor will it be required of me.
Now concerning this tragedy that occurred in
?Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;
To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!? Isaiah 10:1-2
What is the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary working on with all this gun restriction and regulation, banning and confiscation? Is that not writing grievousness which they have prescribed? Yes! We have had a tragedy occur that was caused by something completely different and the government and mass media can only come up with grievousness. The remedy and cure is worse and completely inapplicable to the disease. The government and mass media will set the stage for an American holocaust all based upon mentally ill children that killed other children.
How could we divert an attack upon us during a horrible economic collapse if we are unarmed? What?s the chance of another Esther and Mordecai and a king who could fix it all with his ring? OK you say; ?this is the Old Testament how about the New Testament? Where is the right to keep and bear arms in there?
?And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
And I will give him the morning star.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.? Revelation 2:26-29
What does one do with the rod of iron and with power over
nations? They use it to bring nations, including one?s own nation, back under
the law of God to protect the property of the people consisting of their lives,
liberties and possessions. But this government in
[1] Alexander Hamilton Federalist Letter #29 on the Militia? http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
[2] Rev. Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex (Crown Rights Book Company, P.O. Box 386 Dahlonega, Georgia 30533, 2004) Question 4, p.6.
[3] Rev. Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex (Crown Rights Book Company, P.O. Box 386 Dahlonega, Georgia 30533, 2004) Question 5, p.10.
[4] John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought Cambridge University Press 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA) 350 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr09.htm
[5] John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought Cambridge University Press 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA) 398 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr18.htm
[6] John
Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ed. Peter
Laslett (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought Cambridge University
Press 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA) 412
[7] Locke, 415 dissolution
[8] Locke, 419 dissolution