Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts

Saturday, September 14, 2019

WATCH BETO O’ROURKE COMMIT OPEN TREASON ACCORDING TO the ORIGINAL INTENT of NATURAL RIGHTS PROTECTED by the 2nd Amendment



The misinformation I hear most from both sides of the right left false political paradigm both right and left, is discussion of what many call “our 2nd Amendment Rights”. I am here to inform you, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS! 

LISTEN TO THE LATEST EPISODE of RTR Truth Media’s Resurrect the Republic Radio Show on the Republic Broadcasting Network by clicking - 
RTR Radio w/ Tom Lacovara-Stewart, Chris Switzer and Rachel Tobias



The right to keep and bear arms, is an inherent right. This is a natural right, and one our founders declared was one that pre-existed the creation or the authority of any legitimate Republic or government that claims to exist to preserve individual liberty. Our Founders reversed  Monarchial sovereignty. Sovereignty was vested within the individual. Prior to the founding of our states, the King of England was considered the “sovereign”.  Each state, it’s own nation, retained authority granted to it by its people, and in a confederation all sovereign states agreed to enter into a union to provide for the common defense of America from any nation that would attempt to rise above any individual state within, or against all together. This was an arrangement that provided for mutual defense. It provided for the protection of our borders. But where the propagandists often try and indoctrinate new generations is that of the authority of government itself in relation to and even in the understanding of the 2nd Amendment. 

We will hear them call the right to keep and bear arms “2nd Amendment Rights” because of a long standing agenda to make people believe that the government created and thus granted to the public this right. If that were so, it would not have ever been called a right in 1789, but a privilege. This is something that most people do not know about “rights” 

NO LEGITIMATE FREE COUNTRY GRANTS NATURAL RIGHTS
NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST BY THE GRACE of GOD
or if you prefer, that which is retained via our very humanity. 


The people together as sovereigns had no more authority collectively to alter, abolish or change these inherent rights than the government. So again, while these politicians continue to try and raise numbers and use false statistics to claim that the “majority” of people want this or that, the real deception, often spoken directly is that the united States is a democracy, which would be essentially mob rule. It is not rightfully any such thing. It is a democratically elected Constitutional Republic with the base Supreme Law being the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. The difference is stark. No matter what the public can be duped into believing, no matter what they can be convinced should be demanded, any action MUST comport with the Constitution first and foremost. And if it does not it is a dead issue. We are constantly lied to about the American “democracy”. This has been and continues to be a primary goal of the world Communist movement. This is what many Socialists on both the right and left want you to believe we have, and let me assure you the ones on the right are even more dangerous than those on the left because they present themselves as being opposed to these socialistic / communistic policies. But if you look very closely and apply the same criteria you would to Communists, you will see that NeoConservatism especially is for corporate welfare, and foreign redistribution of wealth. This redistribution however funds foreign nations and globalism. It also funds the overthrow of foreign governments via terrorist and revolutionary fronts.  We have seen this in Iraq, Libya, and remember the Contras? 

The reason I bring this all up when discussing the subversion that has gone on in relation to redefining long understood Constitutional tenets, is because many can not see those within their own flavor of political ideology who have been engaged in this. Both parties have moved to increasing authoritarian measures, and they have done so with the help of the people who for the most part are oblivious. 

Here is an example of this hypocrisy at work.

One of the oldest and most traditional aspects of Constitutional Conservatism is private property rights, and as small a central government as possible which does not interfere with individuals right to enjoy said property. 

So now look at Palestine. Most conservatives have been programmed to stand with Israel. We are told that the founding of this corporate state that chose to name itself after the Biblical entire 12 tribes that are descendents of Abraham, the principal figure whose God is the one true God of the universe, the Creator of all is the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. But it is only that of those of a very certain religion, ignoring an entire New Testament. This has lead to conservatives not only condoning, but funding and supporting the theft of private property, and the violation of human rights that has even been made clear by breaking international law agreed to by the majority of civilized nations. This support that has stolen and also continues to steal private property from Palestinian Christians as well. How can Christians who purport to stand by the Supreme Law of their God, as well as the fundamentals of the preservation and protection of individual private property rights, depart from all of which their religion and their purported political ideological views stand upon? When one sees the subversion by placing it next to its own traditions, while assessing what it purports to stand for comparing it to what it has rejected how can anyone who claims to be a conservative accept this? 

      Do you see? That is how subversion is accomplished. By indoctrination, and call to emotion, one small slip at a time we have been trained to violate everything that we were supposed to stand for. And the endgame rests upon the armed public. Make no mistake. The tyrant gun grabbers are here, they are bold, and they are unafraid as We The People have continuously failed to do all tbat was necessary to keep government in check. Now we have agencies of government calling the planning of doing so “domestic terrorism”. 

Our right to take up arms, even against the government if need be is such a well understood right and according to the Declaration of Independence it is even more than that. It is our duty. They are, and have been indoctrinating the public to believe that doing all of the things necessary to prevent a criminal government is in itself criminal. 

LISTEN to RTR Radio on the Republic Broadcasting Network 



You know, it’s rather funny but in a way not, that lately any seeming political baseless witch hunt is compared to Senator Joe McCarthy’s attempt to root out Communists in America to avoid much of what we are seeing now. Personally there are a few things I would personally have done differently. For one, I would have approached the situation with a public presentation that showed how many of those who have been indoctrinated by Marxism / Communism, etc, are in fact victims of what is known as “active measures” which is a style of psychological manipulation also referred to as “ideological subversion”.  I would have made it clear that the public must be made to understand that this is in every way a form of mind control which the Soviet Union focused on above all else. The collapse of the Soviet Union was not a victory for anyone or anything but world Communism itself. People are conditioned to view the world with the lens of nation states, black and white, win or lose. This is a seriously oversimplified way to see the world. The Soviet Union reformed because the mission it set out to do had been accomplished. Communism had successfully been rebranded and spread all over the West, and especially the United States, and it had seen the creation of a state dead center of the old Silk Road, and via an assumed identity that gave its agents more cover and protection than any other Marxist collective had ever achieved. The smear homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc was NOTHING compared to the label called “antisemitism”. The world Communist Movement through the Soviet Union has achieved the most brilliant accomplishment that anyone could have ever imagined. As 80% of those who identified as Jewish flooding into Palestine were in fact Bolshevik Communists. The CIA knew this. The Arabs were screaming for help and trying to tell people that they were being invaded by Communists and President Truman, being fully informed of these facts deliberately withheld this information from the public , less they might begin attacking all Jews everywhere. Part of the brilliance of this use of Jewish identity was the use of Holocaust sympathy combined with a global public relations campaign that would have anyone who criticized Jews, regardless of the validity or danger of the claim, and torpedoed the truth with this Marxist propaganda that destroys 1st Amendment protections. Along with comparing anyone engaged in said criticism with Hitler and the Gestapo. All the while a very real gestapo/STASI was being planned to be implemented in the US. It is known as the US Department of Homeland Security. Not only can it be compared to the STASI, but Bolshevik NeoCon Zionist Micheal Chertoff  employed Marcus Wolfe the former head of the Soviet East German STASI and others to consult in the creation of the DHS. This should at this point, solidly have your attention.    

Sharing the truth of this information directly places my life at risk. This is no exaggeration. Just today I revived a text message from someone within the state that I live. A number I do not know assigned to a cell phone of someone who had no clue about the message that not only informed me that they knew specific very personal information regarding my current routine, but that they “were coming for me”.


Now I know that the information I share with all of you is the truth, but apparently I have some folks seriously worried about it. I never personally attack or threaten anyone. I have no actual personal “enemies” in daily life. There is only one probable explanation for such a threat by someone who has specific detailed intimate knowledge of my life. And that is :
EXPOSING THE CRIMES, and the CRIMINALS behind them. 

There was no way for anyone who is not a part of my daily life to know that not only did I retrieve my Harley Davidson, (something many people know) but that I have not had it out for a ride in the 2 months it has been with me here. No one could have known that detail but someone who has been close enough to be engaged in surveillance of my home. I take this threat far more serious because of my wife and the good friends who live in a separate house on the property here. Response time for the Sheriff’s Dept would be beneficial to take a report and collect the bodies. And since the Federal Government sees me as some kind of right wing domestic terror threat (who has stopped 3 robberies, saved lives as a firefighter for years and who has never harmed anyone - ever) and they have seen fit to issue a cruel and unusual punishment for life. A life sentence of being a second class citizen, whose life is of lesser value than those the state has not deemed equivalent to others. While the government continues to pass laws granting collectivist groups special rights and privileges, my natural God given rights have been curtailed. As I sit in the desert on my porch, watching the glow of the moon, I ask myself... “self”, (as I am now talking to no one but me) self, does any corporation, body politic, collective, presumed alleged authority, or any political parasites have the authority to make a law that nullifies one’s ability to perform a duty one owes to the Republic? When one is directly engaged in a mission to accomplish what the Declaration of Independence provides for as remedy to a corrupt entity we call our government? 
And furthermore, as a member of the press, and needing one’s life to be able to accomplish the task of publishing information, does not the 1st Amendment directly apply? 
Think about it. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So let us for a moment consider what free exercise means, beginning with the definition of “freedom” itself.

freedom

 noun
free·​dom |  \ ˈfrē-dəm   \

Definition of freedom

1: the quality or state of being free: such as
athe absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
bliberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another INDEPENDENCE
cthe quality or state of being exemptor released usually from something onerous freedom from care
dunrestricted use gave him the freedom of their home
eEASEFACILITYspoke the language with freedom
fthe quality of being frank, open, or outspoken answered with freedom
gimproper familiarity
hboldness of conception or execution
2aa political right



So, if someone is threatening the life, safety or well being of  a member of the press, and as a result that of his family, I would consider that coercion to force silence, as well as retribution for producing, publishing and expressing news, analysis, truth and facts. And according to the 1st Amendment Congress is not permitted to write or enforce a law that would abridge it. 

The moment this individual threatened my life, he altered the  nature of my work. Without the ability to adequately defend myself, I would need to cease my work, and relocate to an undisclosed location. The relocation would be no guarantee as I am obviously being surveilled. Without any idea of whom is doing so, with the amount of property and with a camper trailer in tow, it is highly unlikely that I would be able to relocate while also eluding someone attempting to tail me.

Furthermore, as we all know the Supreme Court of the united States has repeatedly ruled that corporate law enforcement (the police) have absolutely NO DUTY and NO OBLIGATION to protect any of us non governmental personnel unless we are in their legal custody. Their duty according to SCOTUS is to protect the corporation and the assets and representatives of the corporation A.K.A. The US, and any and all subsidiaries and to enforce “the law”. Amazing that out of all the so called “Acts of Congress” not one of them ever introduced the “Duty to Protect Act”. We have seen the result of this in Parkland Florida. And while the government claims that the police need “more tools” to accomplish protecting the public which is not their job, the one law that could likely vastly improve this problem, the fact is that if government foot soldiers have no duty to protect us, then that responsibility falls upon us. 

So while under normal circumstances I would be able to protect myself, circumstances have changed. There is a direct threat upon my life now as a member of the press. 
I can not afford armed security.
    And no law shall be made or to be held valid to abridge the freedom of the press. Therefore any law, rule, policy, or mandate that prevents me from protecting my ability to do my job, one being the ability to breathe, another the ability to accomplish my tasks without the fear and intimidation or coercion, is null and void, not applicable under the current circumstances. 

So I have a question for the individual or group who chose to level that threat against me. 

How do you think I interpret the Constitution regarding my right to keep and bare arms to protect the free exercise of “the press”?    Nothing will stop me from performing my duties as a representative of the free press. 

In my life, I have never harmed another individual, nor do I intend to start now. I disagree with a lot of people. That does not mean that I believe I have any right to forcefully prevent them from expressing themselves or in any way violate their unalienable rights. Of course this does not include actions that directly threaten the rights or lives of others. 


Thursday, September 5, 2019

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - When Did Simple English Become So Complicated?



When exactly did the English language become so complicated?  Our founding fathers knew full well that the way to control and oppress began with disarming the people. This is why the 2nd Amendment was written. This was not a suggestion and this “right” was absolutely not granted via the 2nd, which is simply a reminder to government as to where they were not only restricted from tampering with, but for the very purpose that empowered the people to stand in opposition to the government if need be. 

If you have noticed, for a long time now we have heard the term “anti-government used as to imply that anyone who opposes government corruption and is willing to take a hard stand is a “domestic terrorist”.  This is in complete denial of what we were taught is the duty and obligation of any American.   I keep hearing is compared to other nations as to gun violence, weapons owned etc.    I have news for you. All of that is irrelevant noise. I don’t care how many non Americans .

The United States is so different than most countries. The size and scope, the differing terrain, the mountains, deserts, the border with a county that has banned guns placing the possession of arms squarely in the hands of government or of criminal cartels with citizens being caught in the crossfire and the murder rate, well let’s just say my position on immigration is not based on race, it really is based on crime and culture. Those who demand gun control while living in their gated communities don’t live on the Arizona border in the desert like I do. Yet these people think they have the right to deny others the ability to protect themselves. The same people who think that a few hundred deaths a year equals an “epidemic” yet drive their cars oblivious to the fact that 37,000 deaths a year is caused by the “assault car”. You don’t hear them screaming for car confiscation. You don’t hear them discussing “high capacity horse power”. You don’t hear them telling other car owners that every death caused by assault car crashes and the blood generated by them is on the hands of every car owner.

These people are indoctrinated fools. Every death that comes from  especially violent means, is certainly tragic. And we should absolutely try to do all we can to try and deal with it
But the way to deal with it is opposite to what’s being done now. First is to stop giving more and more powerful authoritarian laws that violate more than just the 2nd Amendment. As well my readers know, I have made a number of suggestions. One of my favorites is the Educator Liberator - Classroom Gun Safe and a variety of potential non-lethal as well as lethal tools to defend what the gun free zones have created.. which is a huge targets of opportunity for those hell bent to destroy. 

Instead of cowering in fear, a teacher can go to the safe, Arm up and put their back to the wall next to the door to the classroom. If bad guy enters - one right to the head. 

PROBLEM SOLVED - NO MORE FEAR



Tuesday, July 30, 2019

CA RED FLAG LAWS - EXPANDING THEIR SCOPE - TEACHERS, EMPLOYEES, ANYONE WHO HAS SUBSTANTIAL CONTACT CAN BE A BOLSHEVIK STATE SNITCH

At least ten bills are working their way through the California state legislature that would expand the state’s “red flag” law, according to the Los Angeles Times. The bills would, among other things, expand the list of people who could request gun confiscation orders and extend the duration of the orders from one to five years. We have truly entered dangerous waters. American states are one by one becoming little Communitarian / Bolshevik strongholds.


California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ready and willing to sign whatever gun confiscation schemes the legislature cooks up.

The governor signaled his support at a press conference touting the new ammunition background check law set to take effect July 1. He said he hoped a number of legislative efforts “to expand the scope of the red flag laws” would get to his desk. “I expect they will be supported overwhelmingly upstairs,” he added, referring to the legislature.


Of the ten bills that would expand and/or modify the state’s red flag law, two have the most serious potential to affect California gun owners. AB-61, introduced by Assembly Members Philip Ting, Al Muratsuchi, and Eloise Gómez Reyez, would expand the list of people authorized to ask a judge for a gun confiscation order.

Under current state law, an immediate family member or a law enforcement officer can request a judge to confiscate a person’s firearms if there is a “substantial likelihood” that the person poses an immediate danger to self or others. AB-61 would further allow an employer or a coworker who has “substantial and regular interactions with the person and approval of their employer” to request the order. It would also permit an employee or teacher of a secondary or postsecondary school, with approval of the school administration staff, to request a student’s firearms be removed, provided the student has been attending the school for at least six months. This is reminiscent of the Soviet Union. In Bolshevik Russia the citizens were used as weapons of the state in a similar campaign as if you “see something say something” style. Citizens in Bolshevik Russia would also use the state as a weapon against people who they had issues with or did not like. They would use this process to get even. And the government did not mind this as it kept everyone divided, controlled and in fear of government. In other words misuse of the process still served government interests. 

The second bill, AB-12, would expand the maximum length of a gun confiscation order from one year to five years. In determining the duration of the order, the court would consider how long a person is “likely to continue” to be a danger to self or others. The bill allows the person under the order to request every year that the order be lifted, but they must prove that there is “no longer clear and convincing evidence” that they present a danger.

Other bills affecting red flag laws would require police departments to standardize their gun confiscation procedures and allow gun owners to voluntarily surrender their firearms to a court.

News of the expanded red flag laws comes the same week that California gun owners will be required to pass a background check for ammunition purchases. 

America - we have been trying to warn you. What we were told about what they would never do 15 years ago by gun control advocates they are not only doing, but going way beyond. 





Saturday, March 30, 2019

Trump Just Betrayed the 2nd Amendment - How Does this MAGA?



In what is a position that will likely cause the direct confrontation of cognitive dissonance, and certainly some anger, as a Conservative I have to call for a serious condemnation of President Trump’s actions and suggestion that long standing law should simply be “reinterpreted” so as to effect the action of criminalizing private property. Regardless of how people “feel” about bump stocks, it is never acceptable to continue to allow more encroachments upon freedom by use of powers we never granted. 

Live free or die - it used to mean something. 

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Police Murder Hero Who Just Stopped a Mass Shooting

RTR TRUTH MEDIA - Manny's Blue Room Security guard Jemel Roberson who just stopped a mass shooting and apprehended one of the suspects was gunned down. He was wearing security attire, a security hat and was not firing upon the man he had in custody when police opened fire murdering him in cold blood. Now some people will say "they did not know" and that they were "just doing their jobs", but the fact of the matter is that the man was engaged in lawful activity and he saved a bunch of lives and managed NOT taking another life with his actions. When American law enforcement believe that their lives are more important, and that they are the only ones allowed to act in these situations it only enforces the false belief that they exist to protect us. When individuals show such respect to an organization comprised of cowards who will kill in alleged fear, rather than the old principle of not firing upon someone unless fired upon, it is long passed time to purge the ranks of these departments for individuals who are not cowards who are trained to shoot to kill if they become merely afraid of danger. Get another job. This will only endanger the public by causing a "chilling effect" on those who would and could act to save lives. Have the police become the social change agents to make us all think of guns in a "radically different way" via brainwashing as Eric Holder stated? Community Oriented Policing? The Sovietization of American Law Enforcement? Communitarianism at it's finest.




Report by the Chicago Tribune:

A security guard at a tavern in south suburban Robbins was fatally injured when shot by a police officer early Sunday, officials said.
Jemel Roberson, 26, was at Manny’s Blue Room, 2911 S. Claire Blvd., when gunfire erupted, officials said.
Police officers from several south suburban police departments responded to the call of shots fired at about 4 a.m., and a Midlothian police officer shot a security guard who subsequently was pronounced dead at a local hospital, according to Sophia Ansari, a sheriff’s office spokeswoman. The medical examiner’s office identified Roberson, of Chicago, as the man who died at the tavern.

Four other men at the tavern were wounded in the exchange of gunfire. The victims were transported to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn and Metro South Medical Center in Blue Island. None of their injuries were considered to be life-threatening, Ansari said.


Robbins Police Chief Roy Wells said the incident began as a verbal confrontation involving several men, although neither Wells nor Ansari were able to be specific about what provoked the dispute. The incident escalated when one of the men ran outside briefly, only to return with a pistol and began firing shots.

Gunfire was returned by a security person working in the bar at the time, officials said.

Sheriff’s police officers remained at the scene through Sunday, where an area of about one block surrounding the bar was cordoned off.

Cook County sheriff’s office personnel are handling investigation of the barroom incident, while Ansari said the Illinois State Police is handling the investigation of the Midlothian police officer’s actions.

Ansari would not identify the officer, while Midlothian police on Sunday declined to comment on the incident.

Gregory Tejeda is a freelance reporter for the Daily Southtown.

Sunday, October 14, 2018

COP TAKES TWO SHOTS at INNOCENT MAN and GETS SHOT - NO CHARGES for GRANDPA



RTR Truth Media:

Kentucky State Police say an Owensboro police officer was shot by a homeowner who may have mistaken the officer for a prowler.
We have learned that the real story is that the officer fired first unannounced.

Authorities said Officer Zachary Morris, 23, was responding to the area around 5:30 a.m. Wednesday on a report of a suspicious person possibly breaking into cars.

Investigators said Morris saw a person matching the suspect's description and pursued him on foot when the suspect fled. It is not reported what this description was or if it remotely was similar to this grandfather in his own back yard.

Morris reportedly lost sight of the suspect behind houses in the 500 block of Hathaway Street when he came upon a homeowner and fired upon him without identifying himself. The homeowner returned fire and shot Morris who was behind a fenced in area.

Officials said Morris was wearing a ballistic vest, but the bullet hit the edge of the vest and fragments struck his lower abdomen.

Morris was taken to Owensboro Health to undergo surgery and is reportedly in good condition.

The KSP Critical Incident Response Team is investigating.

The homeowner has not been charged and thank God was not killed by responding officers.

Morris is a two-year veteran with the Owensboro Police Department. Who trains these people?

No Charges For Grampa - Guns In The News
http://gunsinthenews.com/no-charges-for-grandpa-who-shot-an-officer-on-his-property-to-protect-his-grandkids/

Bitchute:



RTR TRUTH MEDIA Resurrect the Republic Truth Radio Broadcast
http://RTRTruthMedia.blogspot.com
http://ResurrectTheRepublic.com
You can check us out on the following links
Donate - https://PayPal.me/RTRTruthMedia

Dead Backup Channel after Primary TERMINATION for TRUTH
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAxy9vKN0Uh3N8kbQa5gG1A
Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/7JV9ghYHumD3/
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/RTRTruthMedia1776
twitter - https://twitter.com/tomlacovara
https://www.minds.com/RTRTruthMedia


Sunday, August 5, 2018

RYAN BUNDY on RESURRECT THE REPUBLIC - CONSTITUTION and the REPUBLIC FORM of GOVERNMENT


The Earth was given to man for the beneficial use of man. We are supposed to use the land and natural resources upon it. We abuse it when we don't use it. True environmentalists are those men and women who live and work upon the land utilizing the goodness of the Earth to benefit mankind, while being good stewards of it. Wacko environmentalist believe that man is a disease and a detriment to the Earth. They believe that man should be removed from it to allow the Earth to return to a natural state without mans presence or influence. This, of course is contrary to the true order of the world as set in place by its Creator.
All of the fires we are experiencing are a result of the abuse of none or reduced use upon it.               
                                                        - Ryan Bundy








Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Our Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms and its Implications to Society


by Thomas Mick
This article is not meant to provide statistical analysis or attempt to convince people to lobby Congress to remove restrictions on firearms; Congress was prohibited by the Bill of Rights, Article IV to infringe on that right and there is a volume of material already available to provide favorable statistical information. The focus here is to paint a picture of what a free society exercising their right to keep and bear arms will look like and the benefits to society of being armed, as well as the economic benefit to arms manufacturers in a free economy. I will be exploring a very brief observation of the historic reason for weapons, the utility of firearms over other inferior weapons, as well as their contribution to American life in history without passing ethical judgment on the men who wielded them; my focus in this article is on firearms and our inherent, God-given right of self-defense, which by necessity when you consider what we’re defending against, requires firearms.
This article will deal with what I consider to be the most important right we possess, which if we’re denied the ability to exercise it will make exercising the rest problematic to say the least; the natural right of self-defense, specifically our right to keep and bear arms.
Our Creator endowed us with intellect and reason; substantially setting us apart from the other beasts we share this world with. It is through that ability that we’ve learned to make fire and fashion weapons to hunt food and protect us from others that attack either our life or property. The natural right to keep and bear arms of any type is mankind’s resource to protect his other rights from other men, as well as the beasts of the earth, such as lions, bears, poisonous snakes, etc. Without our ability to successfully defend the most basic of rights, life, we would soon find ourselves extinct as a species or subjects of the most despicable of tyrants.


Our ancestors in America survived primarily through the use of firearms. Yes they used other implements of war, as well as snares, traps, and other means; but firearms, since their invention, has always been the premier weapon of choice to anyone who could obtain one, since a lead projectile fired at high velocity was more effective than any of the others for removing a threat or putting meat on the table. While primarily thought of as an implement of war, firearms were primarily used to put meat on the table and repel threats in defense of their rights, more than to impose their will on others; since most people possessed arms in early America it was much more difficult to attack them. Many, if not most people today, owe their existence to the use of firearms by one or more of their ancestors in the defense of life; had they been unsuccessful by using an inferior weapon they would have died and their line, which includes you would have never existed.
Today most governments Americans live under wish to remove our arms and are openly attacking our natural right of self-defense in contravention of their oath to support the Constitution, by seeking to regulate away our ability to exercise that right. This assault against our arms has been ongoing since shortly after the Civil War, when organizations, such as the KKK, and political parties such as the Democrat Party, sought to keep arms out of the hands of freed slaves; specifically blacks. The problem with denying one group of people the peaceable enjoyment of their natural rights is that the effort ends up denying all of us in the end. What is done out of fear and ignorance more often than not comes back to harm everyone but is always a benefit to government, especially when it regards our ability to repel their attacks against our rights as individuals.
This is what all government officers are sworn to support and defend with relationship to the right to keep and bear arms:
“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.” – Bill of Rights, Article IV
The rights of the people to arm, organize, and defend their natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property, requires the availability of the arms necessary for that purpose. All governments, both state and Federal, have sworn an oath to abide by the terms of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a vital part. By that one sentence in the Bill of Rights, it is clear that government is prohibited from infringing in any manner on our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms of any type or configuration we require whatsoever; the first Congress slammed the door on any debate on the matter.

An armed society is a polite society

Now let us explore what a free armed society of people might look like. For some of you, that is not a problem since not all states have made gun ownership as difficult as the Federal Government would like. Criminals flee armed communities because their victims can and will fight back, resulting in a particularly unsafe work environment for their chosen professions. Clerks can shoot armed robbers, women can shoot rapists, everyone can shoot muggers, as well as anyone else that attacks us; peace officers, after it is established that a murder has not been committed, can merely call the coroner to clean up the mess, fill out some paperwork, and rest easy knowing that the people removed another pest from society by defending themselves. If there is any question regarding motive an inquest can be called to determine the facts.
Since Congress is prohibited from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, it exempts the arms industry from many Federal regulatory powers internal as well as external, since those regulations would infringe on the American people’s right. We should have access to any arms required for Militia use to repel any threat, including threats from arbitrary and criminal government. As government becomes more sophisticated in their arms the Militia must have the freedom to keep pace, in fact, Congress is required under Article I, Section 8, and clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Arms are an integral part of a free society; free men are armed, slaves are not. In an armed society, most people will never have to fire a weapon except to practice and remain proficient. Most ammunition would be expended into targets or wild game, not the body of another human being. Government wouldn’t dare attack the natural rights of the people since every council meeting or courtroom would be attended by armed spectators jealous of their rights. Members of Congress wouldn’t be passing or even supporting unconstitutional legislation against our natural rights if they had to face armed people at their next town hall meeting. In short, the freedom to exercise our rights, all of them, would be much more secure.
Today we live under a dictatorship in Washington, D.C. The Office of President has been usurped, with the aid and comfort of all three branches of the Federal Government and with the tacit approval of the states who continue to comply with the Federal government and impose its usurpation and taxation on the people of America. Barack Obama is attempting to use any device he can conceive to deny us the power to exercise our natural right to defend ourselves from the Islamic and international forces he is bringing into our communities in order to subjugate us and destroy the republic. I can see no question as to his intent or doubt of the complicity of so many today in government to his criminal and treasonous activity. There is one thing distressing Obama and his loyal subjects though; armed Americans who have refused to comply with his demands and have been building their inventories of arms and ammunition in preparation of the conflict to come. Our natural right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Bill of Rights, is the only thing holding off a much greater tyranny than we already have.
When Americans once again exercise their right to not only own but bear arms throughout their day, government will be much less inclined to reach the state we see today… arm up America.
©2015 by Thomas Mick, All Rights Reserved.Permission to distribute for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted, in whole or part, provided attribution and a link to this article is included. Commercial distribution without the written permission of the author is prohibited.

At this time, I survive primarily on the free will contributions of my audience; please consider supporting my efforts to restore the freedom under Natural Law, by sending contributions via the Donate button at http://lessonsofthepast.com, becoming a patron through Patreon, https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=475645, for a dollar or more a month, or send cash or a postal money order to:

Thomas Mick
c/o General Delivery
Libby, Montana 59923

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Right to Keep and Bear in Public Upheld - Liberal Fed Court of Appeals Landmark Decision



Young v. Hawaii, a Ninth Circuit panel holds by a 2-to-1 vote (Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judge Sandra Ikuta, with Judge Robert Clifton dissenting) that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns openly in public places. Though the Ninth Circuit had earlier resolved in Peruta v. County of San Diego (en banc) that the Second Amendment doesn't secure a right to concealed carry -- as D.C. v. Heller had earlier suggested, in reliance on 19th-century cases that had generally rejected a right to concealed carry -- the panel concludes (also citing Heller and 19th-century sources) that there is a right to open carry, so as to be able to defend oneself in public places as well.
The Supreme Court has stated that carrying can be banned in some "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," so any right to carry would not be unlimited; but it would apply to carrying a gun in one's car, on most streets, and the like. The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both and thus makes guns available to most citizens for self-defense in public places.
It is of course quite possible that the case will be reheard en banc, which is what happened with Peruta (where the panel decision came out in favor of protecting a right to carry). But if the case isn't reheard en banc, or the panel decision is affirmed on en banc rehearing, then the case may well go up to the Supreme Court, since this decision reinforces a split among the circuits on the subject.
Excerpt from Reason
RTR TRUTH MEDIA -

As we see in the video above, the main stream media has little to no Constitutional understanding. They report on the recent case that upholds the restriction upon the government not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but misreports the essence of the 2nd Amendment. The court can not determine that the 2nd Amendment gives us anything but the restriction upon government as to where they may not tread on a free people. There is no such thing as 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment only secures this right the Founders said was inherent, which means these rights existed prior to the Constitution's ratification. To say otherwise is disinformation. That being said this decision appears to "respect" the 2nd Amendment.

FOX NEWS -

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.

The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges -- who were both appointed by Republican presidents -- ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.
"We are disappointed in the decision that would undermine Hawaii’s strong gun control law and our commitment to protect the public,” Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki said in a statement. “But we note that Judge Clifton filed a well-reasoned dissent supporting the constitutionality of this law. We intend to consult with Hawai‘i County and work with them on further action."
It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
This is how Fox News publishes the 2nd Amendment incorrectly: The Second Amendment states: “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.”

James Madison, was not such a person as to abuse grammar rules and, like his predecessors in Jefferson and Franklin, he was rather specific and exercised practiced intent in how he phrased his statements — especially for documents of such import.

The actual text that was was read and approved and signed into law by the House of Representatives and the Senate, only included a single comma:
This is the correct version of the 2nd Amendment: 
“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.”
The commas mean something.... and accuracy is essential. So why does Fox News and nearly all other main stream media corporations get it consistently wrong? You be the judge. 
- RTR Truth Media 

Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.
Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”
Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.
Fox News' Bill Mears, Adam Shaw, Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.
Disclaimer: We share articles on a piece by piece basis and stand behind the reports of what we share. This in no way means that we support all content by writers or pundits for any main stream source but that of which we share.