No announcement yet.

Authority to fight Tyranny.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Authority to fight Tyranny.

    In our Country we have 4 branches of Government,
    The Legislative, Congress
    The Executive, President
    The Judicial, Supreme Court.

    At the time the Constitution was being written only 9 states were willing to ratify it
    without a Bill of Rights.

    The common fear was that government would become like those of Europe, setting up a
    King, Monarch or Dictator.

    Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist Papers No. 29, he wrote,

    "Since the fear of the people was that the federal army would usurp the people’s liberty, it
    makes sense that the intent is for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms at all

    The people had insisted on their rights and freedoms being spelled out in the Constitution.

    James Madison wrote the bill of rights and in the Federalist paper 46 he explained the
    intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

    Here's a short exert:
    "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal
    to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the
    federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments,
    with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

    The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be
    carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls;
    or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

    This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five
    or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a
    million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among
    themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by
    governments possessing their affections and confidence.

    It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by
    such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last
    successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to
    deny the possibility of it.

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of
    almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people
    are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
    enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any
    form can admit of".

    The second Amendment is not so much about personal defense as it is the "Backbone" of
    a "National Strategy" within the Constitution for armed citizens to be the ultimate
    "National Defense" of their country, Constitution, Government and freedoms.

    Personal weapons capable of fighting a war are a necessary part of that defense.

    Alexander Hamilton also wrote,

    "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."

    Obviously, the authority to fight even against this nation's army, would also included any
    other agency Government might employ against Citizen,

    the FBI being the most obvious.

    James Madison noted that the power of government had granted the liberties in the
    Magna Carta, however,America had set the example of liberty granting the power of

    The liberty of the people had granted their own freedoms, and the power of government
    to govern, with Government restricted to those areas "Enumerated" and without any
    authority to legislate within the areas of the “Bill of Rights” citizens had give themselves.

    Only the People has the power to make any changes to the Constitution and then only by
    "Amendments to the Constitution".

    Any effort by any Government, Local, State or Federal, to legislate in the area of the "Bill
    Of Rights" violates the Constitution.

    And when Local, State or Federal Government fails or refuses to enforce the Constitution
    it become the "DUTY" of each Citizens to use their weapons against such "Criminal
    actions", and without penalties for exercising their Constitutional duty.

    "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
    under the name of local practice". [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]”

    “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
    legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
    Constitutional rights [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946]”

    Thomas Jefferson stated this idea very clearly in the document that started our nation, the
    Declaration of Independence:

    "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
    evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,
    to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    Abraham Lincoln said, “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both
    Congresses and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who
    pervert the Constitution”.

    The "enterprise of ambition" as we've seen in the "Deep State" would quickly result in
    Tyranny and the destruction of the Constitution and our form of Government along with
    all the liberties therein.

    And any attempts to violate it should have every citizen "Up in arms".

    As James Madison noted: "Government never gave our rights to us", and we never gave
    govenment Jurisdiction to legislate them away from us.

    These "Red Flags" laws are an attempt by both States and Federal governments to take
    Jurisdiction and legislate in an area not given to them,

    While at the same time violating Amendment 14 in denying Rights before due process of
    law, seizing gun on "Suspicion" of future crimes.

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
    of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
    property,.....without due process of law;....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
    the equal protection of the laws."

    Judges who sign these weapons confiscation orders are complicit in these violations.

    It's been said that to interpret the Constitution correctly, one must interpret it in the same
    frame of mind that wrote it, Jefferson said the same thing.

    "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the
    time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
    and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented
    against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

    We need to get back to interpreting the Constitution in the same frame of mind and within
    the context of "Intent and Purpose" that the "Supreme Law of the Land" was written.

    This really isn't about Guns rights but about Local, State and Federal Governments
    attempting to take Jurisdiction in an area the Constitution does not grant to them.

    And refusing to abide by the Constitution is an act of "Tyranny".

    And regardless of your Politics, that should concern Everyone.

    When no branch of government will defend citizens rights, then it become the "DUTY"
    of each citizen to use the Second Amendment to protect their "Constitution".

    "WHEN" are gun owners going to start "organizing" to take on this government that has already taken the first steps toward "Tyranny"??

    We can't count on these Gun clubs to led the way, money seems to be their main objective.

    Tennessee has introduced a "Red Flag" law to be voted on shortly,

    And I'm in the "initial stage" of issuing a "CALL TO ARMS" to fight against it.

    It would be a great help if other people around the nation would do the same in their states.

    Obviously, the more who responses to the call will lessen the fight.

    It's time "Keyboard Warriors" became "Patriots".

  • #2
    One heck of a first post there Committed...Introduce yourself in the new members area and stick around a while!
    Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

    James Madison,,
    Federalist Paper No 10


    • #3
      In addition:

      The Supreme Court in
      Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

      The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

      Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

      In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

      More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

      Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

      The Ohio Legislature enacted ORC §9.68, which became effective in 2007. ORC §9.68 clearly provides that a person’s possession or transportation of a firearm, including the open carrying of a firearm, is a right secured by the U.S. Constitution, and Ohio Constitution, because it predated those Constitutions.

      On January 12, 2018, in the case of Virginia Duncan, Et Al. v. Xavier Becerra, in the State of California, eighteen States filed an Amici Curiae Brief, in Support of Virginia Duncan, in which they made clear that:

      ‘“The Second Amendment guarantees “the individual right … to carry weapons in case of confrontation”’ — that is, to “‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584, 592 (2008).”’

      Those eighteen states included the Attorney General of Ohio, Mike DeWine, now Governor, agreed that the Feds and the States have no authority to regulate the bearing of arms, period.


      • #4
        Great thread!
        Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

        James Madison,,
        Federalist Paper No 10