Does the 2nd Amendment Protect Personal Firearms?

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. Of importance to this article, the Amendment in question is:

Amendment II: “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.

On its face value, the people may keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. Period. There is no obscurity or vagueness in this clause. However, it is clear that the “purpose” of keeping and bearing arms was to operate as a well regulated militia and this is where it gets a little sticky. How does that impact personal uses such as hunting or home protection? What about any other situation where people are not organized and operating under trained regulations?

Frankly, the second amendment does not address those “other” issues. Ergo, while the right to keep and bear arms is preserved, without restriction or covenant, the use of said weapons for any other purpose or the designation of “arms” outside of stopping an out of control government agent (foreign or domestic) remains in obscurity – that is, if you rely solely upon the Constitution.

However: the Constitution was not the forming document of our Country, our freedom, or our peoples’ hearts and intents. The Constitution was the blueprint of our government’s architecture to protect those principles and its design was directed and governed by the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Without needing a 400 page dissertation on every diary written by every founding father or every legal argument regarding the Constitution and its being absolute (unlike the idiot in charge of this country in 2022, Joe Biden, keeps saying), the clear and concise purpose of the “government” is to “SECURE THESE RIGHTS” (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), only through powers given by the “CONSENT” of the people (so neither Uncle sniffer Joe, Congress, NOR the Supreme Court get to act of their own will, as consent is not an umbrella given upon vote, but a privilege that must be earned on a daily basis) . The Constitution is also supposed to outline what happens when a government becomes “destructive of these ends“. Unfortunately, that is where the Constitution falls a little short and only covers passive actions such as “voting”. The founding fathers feared the abuse of a government with privatized armies (which today, includes law enforcement). That abuse is not only the physical and mental suffering caused under tyranny, but a failure of the government to protect and defend the people and we know this to be a FACT because the organization of the government’s “POWERS” is necessary to protect and preserve: “SAFETY AND HAPPINESS” (as per foundation laid out in the Declaration of Independence). The Constitution does not address the failures of a rising tyranny, it only restricts the behaviors of the government in the hopes to avoid such a tyranny (and thus far, writing laws to keep politicians and public officials from breaking them has been as wholly ineffective and sadly futile as the assumption that “gun laws” will keep criminals from abusing guns).

What are the rights, then, that the Constitution was supposed to protect?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Let’s list those out: Equality, preservation of life (health), liberty (freedom of all kinds), and the pursuit of happiness (the ability to live successfully as per one’s own definition, ie family, money, etc.).

So, to be clear: The “GOVERNMENTwas designed to protect and preservecertain unalienable rights” (not infinite, endless rights and NOT limited to those listed), and the “CONSTITUTION” was designed to lay the framework of that government’s operation AND added to the additional protections that were already supposed to be in place as outlined in the Declaration of Independence regarding the existence of the government. If that sounds confusing at all, to make it easier, this is ALL reflected IN THE PREAMBLE of the Constitution:

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.

So, combining these documents, we have the following RIGHTS as Americans: (from the Declaration of Independence) Equality, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and safety; and, as part of providing those (and other) INALIENABLE RIGHTS, from the Constitution we have justice, domestic peace among the states, public safety servants (aka law enforcement / common defense), general welfare (good economic policies domestic and foreign), protection of the freedoms granted (religion, speech, equality, keep and bear arms, etc.), and preservation of America’s principles for future generations (this last part being EXTREMELY important in 2022 as it proves beyond all doubt that Biden’s comments about the Constitution not being “absolute” is an outright LIE – and that the Constitution was to preserve these ideals for ALL time.).

But, what does any of this have to do with the second amendment?

Although the Constitution outlined the actions to be taken through voting, 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) were added to further clarify concerns over abuse by the addition of a new form of standing army: law enforcement and domestic branches of the military. Roughly interpreted (by me):

  1. Protection of speech
  2. The right to keep and bear arms to defend against a destructive government
  3. The right to privacy from intrusive law enforcement and militia
  4. The right to not be falsely accused or investigated for crimes not committed
  5. The due process of law if suspected of a crime
  6. Protection against bias and abuse in a court of law once having been accused of a crime
  7. Preservation of jury trials in certain cases
  8. The right against excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishments if found guilty of a crime (to protect against the known factor that sometimes, the innocent will be wrongly accused)
  9. Constitutional rights shall not infringe upon other rights not listed in the Constitution
  10. Individual states may have rights outside of the Constitution

Everything in the Bill of Rights is specifically tied to abuses that could be caused by the government against its people (and are reflective of many of the tyrannies listed in the Declaration of Independence). The Declaration of Independence was the outline for these Bill of Rights: “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends…”.

In order to combat the two conflicting sides (the North and the South) that would share in this new government (and were already at near war-level odds), the Declaration of Independence says: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”. In other words, all of the changes you see happening in America from 2008 – 2022, that are dramatic (examples from my perspective include removing “in God we Trust”, fake impeachments, eradication of economics and energy independence, forcing (via fascist/socialist means) mass taxpayer monies for “clean energy”, etc) – are NOT supposed to happen. However, much like the Bill of Rights are barely maintained these days (with contested issues like 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, freedom from search and seizure, etc.), the two-party system in America has also run as rampantly out-of-control as the founders feared. Sadly, the founders knew this “could” happen, based upon the way early settlers behaved, letting the English rule with tyranny and not rising up to stop it even while it was getting worse:

“… accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

The founders feared that people would become reliant upon a government that superficially appeared to protect and preserve its promises, but under that surface, was rotting and becoming darker every moment. The people would continue to ignore it (of course, the founders had no idea of just how far brainwashing could go to keep the people “calm”, although they understood and feared bribery and extortion). In order to mitigate not only the dissent of the government against the people and loss of Constitutional protections but also the failure of the people to act in a timely manner (such as educated voting and selecting candidates based upon good premises, not news media drama or money, nor taking forceful action before corruption got too far)… the founders knew that a time would come when people would have to rise up in a rebellion and it would be a bloody, unpleasant outcome. However, even if the latter were to happen, the founders wanted their future generations to not lose out vs. tyranny.

Enter the second amendment: “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.” This is the specific line that ties to the Constitution’s second amendment’s “well regulated militia.”

To put it another way: when the government becomes so corrupt, violates the principles of the Constitution, and enacts abuses as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, having waited too long to stop this when they could, the people will need to rise up and abolish that government and an armed, well-regulated militia shall be necessary for a full revolution because the people have reason to fear their own authority figures and the standing armies that would side with the corrupt politicians over the people they were sworn to protect (read more about what I have to say on this here).

But, what about personal firearms for personal use such as hunting, self protection, sport, and other purposes not related to combating our own government?

So, we understand that the Constitution includes the second amendment in order to enforce the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence for overcoming our own, corrupt government: this literally means that we would have to own and maintain arms equivalent to or greater than our own government’s “forces” in order to protect ourselves. In truth, given the advancements of technology and the rise of spying and other unlawful activities by our Government that defies the Bill of Rights and other freedoms listed in these doctrines, “arms”, by today’s definition, technically also includes any amount of technology or type of hardware necessary to stand against any and all abuses by the government. Therefore, there is no discussion to be had on the types of “arms” or quantity. A well-regulated militia, made up of the general populous, being necessary for a “free state”, must be able to combat foes domestic and international which means that every citizen has the right AND THE DUTY to stand against corruption at any level and the government has no business restricting this. To put it simply: A well regulated militia must be able to put up sufficient force to counter the government’s ability to be corrupt, creating a “stand-off” (Mutually Assured Destruction), and therefore, if AT ANY TIME, that same government institutes a SINGLE LAW restricting this capacity of the people… it is automatically tyrannical and demands that the government be “thrown off“. This is not a question. This is not a obscure. This is factual.

If the person making the rules hurts you and then makes it impossible for you to fight back or defend yourself from them continuing to hurt you … that goes beyond abuse and becomes absolute despotism.

But, what if you want to hunt? In accordance with the Constitutional Bill of Rights, states may make laws which exist outside the Constitution (but do not interfere with it) that regulate their own welfare. For example, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regulates hunting practices only insomuch as is needed to maintain animal population balances and preserve endangered species. However, nothing from the DFW does, can, or should regulate arms.

What if you want to defend yourself? This is obviously the trickiest question of all. The Declaration of Independence tells us that “... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And, in order to preserve those rights, we created the Constitution and instituted a government. However, this was only to “ensure” these rights and as per the U.S. Constitution, the federal government and military only exist to protect our many, unalienable rights, against foreign enemies. What about when the federal government spies on the people of America or (as is the case in the January 6, 2020 insurrection), wrongly arrests innocent people and holds them in violation of the Bill of Rights Amendments 5 and 8? The Declaration of Independence addresses these very abuses as tyranny: “He [the King] has obstructed the Administration of Justice … He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries … He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people…

The mere fact that the government is acting in accordance with the principles of tyranny and in violation of the Constitution means that the government does not protect “Life” nor “Liberty”. What about the inability of law enforcement to be everywhere, all at once, to protect people (which would be even worse if that happened, transforming America into a police-state)? Should people be required to live in fear that criminals could murder, rape, or hurt them? This would ABSOLUTELY be a fundamental violation of the principles of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness“. While we may elect governments to “ensure” our unalienable rights, it does not mean that they can or will. The events that occurred during the murder of 19 elementary school students in Ulvade, Texas in 2022 are one example of American citizens having to live in fear (violating their rights) because limiting the right to bear arms (by Joe Biden himself with the “Gun Free Zones” and anti-gun rhetoric, especially in a state without security against terrorist threats crossing the Southern border which is another legacy crime of the Democrat party) left children vulnerable. Being spied on by the government and having unprotected southern borders ONE HUNDRED PERCENT violates every Constitutional principle of the federal government’s role (that being to: “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“. The 2016-2022 “defund the police” movements were a blatant attack on the ideologies of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and yet, government agents were caving into this tyrannical program being fed by the BLM/CAIR movement (a known anti-American terrorist organization). These are acts of treason against Americans to which the populous has already failed to take action against their government to stop.

So, we are left with a 2-point conclusion: 1) the government cannot (and should not) be everywhere at all times inevitably leaving us with huge gaps of vulnerability and 2) the government has already proven itself to be a failure in the preservation of American’s liberty, to operate with the consent of the governed (taxation, abuse of taxpayer monies, salaries, etc.), and to provide for our “Safety and Happiness” (as defined in the Declaration of Independence). Either one of these points alone proves that the inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and those not covered justifies private gun ownership (as an effective tool of self defense). Both conclusions together make it an absolute necessity that people have a right to private gun ownership. The mere fact that there are acts of violence committed with guns does not purport to support the argument against guns in America, but in fact, demands that Americans have more, unrestricted gun access to ensure “Mutually Assured Destruction.” It is evidenced by Government officials not wanting to ban arms or any associated hardware related to them against their own security guards, militia, or law enforcement. In fact, every country that bans guns to the people still has gun violence proving that weakening the defenses of the innocent only makes them vulnerable to the abuses of criminals. While statistics are constantly drawn up to demonstrate how much guns are used to commit crimes – you will never see the government provide a statistic about how often people didn’t resort to gun violence out of the fear that they would be shot by the very people they were assaulting. And, with all the anger going on in America, it is a darn good bet that this number is in the millions.

Furthermore, if hunting and/or sports/recreational shooting satisfy happiness, then that is an acceptable use of a gun. It is no more justified to say that because someone drives crazy and kills innocent people so we should ban all vehicles (which enjoy NO protection under any government doctrine) than it is to say the same for guns of any nature.

Fact: 9 people died in a bus accident involving a bad driver on May 22, 2022 (link); April 6, 2022, 2 students killed at a bus stop by an impaired driver (link); and this list goes on to thousands of people across the United States, every year. There is no acceptable moratorium on a quantity of “deaths”. Either murder by the abuse of an inanimate object such as a vehicle or gun is acceptable, or not. Yet, actors like Alec Baldwin face no penalties, not even manslaughter, after killing a director on 10/21/22, “accidentally” while in April, it was reported than 15 law enforcement officers (to date) mistook handguns for tasers and 4 of them were charged with crimes for murder (link). And, on May 16, 2022, a citizen was sentenced for manslaughter for an accidental discharge of their weapon (link).

The point is: how are we supposed to have an honest discussion on the processing of limiting firearms solely to the rigid Constitutional definition of preserving freedom and liberty when the Declaration of Independence outlined some of our unalienable rights including life and happiness? How are we supposed to have an honest discussion on this topic when the system of justice, established by the Constitution, fails to protect the public from some people while letting others go and there is an element of “privilege” that leaves the citizens of a country vulnerable to ongoing abuses (not new or suspected potential abuses – actual ongoing abuses) by the justice system, by the government, and by criminal elements?

Thus was born the Ninth Amendment, whose purpose was to assert the principle that the enumerated rights are not exhaustive and final and that the listing of certain rights does not deny or disparage the existence of other rights. What does this mean?

It means that simply because the Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not discuss the right to self defense and preservation of one’s own life do not dis-include those as inalienable rights. In fact, it is the fundamental principle of ALL LIFE to demand preservation of its existence – otherwise, we would not have the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution to serve that very function.

Let’s sum this all up:

  1. The right to defend one’s self in life and liberty is an INALIENABLE right that whether outright listed or not in our founding doctrines, by the mere nature of life, the existence of our founding doctrines, the term, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” it can be, without any doubt, inferred that all people want to exist and be able to defend themselves. Ergo, there is no law that can be lawfully made by a government whose powers are derived SOLELY from the consent of the masses to counter this.
  2. The duty to defend one’s country from domestic and international threats by any government, whether it is our own or another, it demanded of us and people have an outright right that cannot be interfered with by the very government these laws are meant to stop, lest it be tyranny and the people are automatically authorized to take to arms, form a well regulated militia, and march on said government to throw it off and replace it.
  3. No government can provide all the principles promised in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and it is therefore demanded by the inalienable rights granted to us by God Himself, that we have a right to bear any arms we so choose or need for our own civil defense.
  4. The government does not exist to create laws to restrict our freedoms – they exist solely to protect and preserve our freedoms and any action they take to the contrary is once again the equivalent of treasonous tyranny and demands their removal by force. The government should consider itself massively privileged that the people have not, to date, taken control by force in America.
  5. The government has already proven, for over 100 years, that it has failed to abide by the laws designed to restrict its power and in fact, have enacted laws in abuse of their power and of the people. This is literally treason against Americans and therefore, the people must keep any weapons or technology necessary to combat this government and ACTIVELY use these arms to stop the government must be free to do so or else America is lost.
  6. It’s easy to forget, but law enforcement and the military may say: to protect and serve, but the truth is that they will follow the rules given by their leadership, our government, and if those rules are against us, the majority of them will also go against us. It’s unfortunate – but even the military has told their troops that if they do not agree to shoot their own family members if ordered to do so (in words only) that they will never rank up and they will never make what they need to survive. This is the current military system – proving already, that the military has been weaponized against the people as the founding fathers feared (see the fence around the Capitol).
  7. Those who would argue against guns because murders are committed by crazy people using guns fail to cover the vast amount of deaths and murders that occur in other ways. Vehicles, foods, medicines, drugs, etc. The difference with guns is that guns used in self defense first mean that someone was acting against the law or against the health and well-being of the gun owner. We live in a country of “JUSTICE”. There is no excuse to be given for a law-breaker of any level if they are shot in the process of harming someone (physical, economic, mental, etc.). The argument: “is it fair to shoot someone who only steals from you?” is a failed argument. Harm is harm.
  8. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. And, until we have a fair and balanced system that punishes abusers of gun laws, even accidentally, then there is no serious argument that can be had about gun control because no criminal would fear reprisal. Until we address mental illness, poverty, and other factors that influence crime, there is no discussion that can be had regarding what tools should or should not be made available to the public to defend themselves.
  9. The mere fact the government wants to hold private manufacturers of weapons accountable for the actions of crazy people abusing those weapons but invests in military weapons manufacturers and encourages war to boost their sales is evidence that there is no government of legitimate ethical morale which can be trusted at this time to have any say in how the citizens of America defend themselves.
  10. There is NO SUCH THING as an “assault” weapon. A weapon is a weapon. It may be used for defense or offense. Only offensive actions, when taken against other people or in violation of common good laws, may be interpreted as an “assault” and literally any object in the world may be used to commit an assault (case in point – rape, is an assault, and is committed with the body). Any attempt to define a weapon as an “assault” weapon is a violation of the principles of justice and the clarity of the law as it should be interpreted for the common good.
  11. Until the government provides a universal allegiance to both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, providing for the tranquility and safety they were elected for, such as food, money, borders, crime, etc. – there can be no trust, nor discussion between the government and its people for the government no longer serves the people and is a mechanism eating up the taxpayer’s money for no good, harming its citizens for no good reason, and betraying every principle upon which America was founded.
  12. Until the government stops being divided and using that division to strike fear and discourse into the hearts of American citizens that they fight among themselves, making such a government an instigator of hate, disparity, and the evils which oppose liberty, the people shall never be free, shall never have security of life, and shall always be required to have the tools necessary to defend their lives against such dissension. In these instances, the manipulation of governments to weaponize the citizenry is no different than a standing army being used for partisan political tyranny and any defense thereof is still a defense covered by the second amendment as written.
  13. Attempts to use the acts of individual crazy people using guns as tools of murder is applying a minority principle against a majority of people. Using voting to restrict the rights of gun owners is a violation of the Constitutional REPUBLIC which was meant to protect freedoms against the tyrannical abuses of a mob.
  14. We must always remember that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by God-fearing men who had just come from brutal wars, who were divided among themselves on the brink of war, and did not come into a nation of slavery, but witnessed its rise, watched the abuses of men, women, and children, and were not like the people you see in movies. They were us. They worked to survive (not because the economy was designed to force it like it is today, but because they had no choice), and they struggled. They had families and loved ones. They did not even enjoy the benefits of modern medicine and technology. They had the benefits of knowing the historical abuses of tyrants, kings, and emperors.

Of course, no one likes to see anyone hurt. But, it happens. Sadly, far more than we’d like. The abuses by the media to compare America’s gun violence to countries with a fraction of the population size is misleading and manipulative. These abuses must end. A President who says that the Constitution is not absolute says that the blueprint defining the limitations of Government is not absolute and that government may commit any atrocity in excess of that limitation and that is a terrifying proposal. If the government spent the same amount of time and taxpayer money finding solutions to the problems of mental illness and stopped spreading dissension for their political gain, there would be no concerns over gun ownership.

As a father, I am very sensitive to those who have lost their children due to ANY form of violence. With schools indoctrinating children into socialism and transgenderism, pushing for bullying and confusing kids – the world is not a friendly place for our kids (and that is a crime). I, in no way, want to hurt those parents or see the memories of their loved ones hurt – but we cannot weaponize their deaths. There will never be enough retribution, punishment, or fallout that will ever bring back those beautiful angels and I want to honor them by seeing more guns in our schools to defend all future children – to terrify the monsters that would hurt them into not even trying it again. Peaceful “hoping” that bad guys don’t attack has never worked and is the very reason those poor children are lost to us. My prayers are with them and my hope is that we no longer treat criminals peacefully – but with the force deserved of their nature.

Ultimately: the answer to the question: “Does the 2nd Amendment protect personal firearms” is: yes. For the purposes of a Well Regulated Militia – but more specifically, within the framing of the purpose of the Constitution: controlling an abusive government. Therefore, the right of the people to march on Washington DC and forcibly remove corrupt politicians – even if by gun violence – is actually preserved in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and in fact, demanded as a duty of American citizens who support freedom.

However, the better question is:

“Do Americans have a right to gun ownership and use for personal reasons that cannot be infringed upon by the government?

The answer is inevitably, yes. We did not establish a government to “replace” our right to self defense. That is not stated anywhere in any doctrine. We established a government to “ensure” our rights, including our defense. Our inalienable right to protect ourselves by ANY MEANS NECESSARY is outside of any Constitutional restrictions (as per the Ninth Amendment), and in addition to the continuing PAID protection provided by the Government. States may make laws such as restricting animal hunting for the purposes of balancing our ecology and preventing the use of firearms against another person for any reason other than self defense. Those are sensible and logical inclusions that balance gun ownership with the “common good”. However, limiting magazine capacities or types of guns for any reason (which the ATF loves to just randomly play with that definition and is an abusive agency which needs dismantled until it can be brought under stricter regulations of non-abusive behavior), by the government is a violation the people must defend against.

Hopefully this makes sense. I did my best in a hurry to get this information out. I hope it helps someone.

Thanks for reading.

(As always – feel free to post intelligent retorts, additions, corrections, etc. Please just keep the conversations civil)


(I’m going to add a footnote to this of my own opinion regarding the state of the union: The U.S. Government has already, by the definitions you’ve read herein… not mine, but those that come from the documents that define our Country, committed treason. By law, you have had the obligation to threaten and demand their voluntary removal, although the right to march against them has already been secured by their behavior. The failure lies in part with our complacency in a world of “things”, but more importantly, to prove and validate everything I am saying, the reason the government keeps you in a system of “work” slavery and massive media overload is because they KNOW what they’ve done is wrong and if you were to gain some courage – you would realize that you’ve waited too long, let them turn into the same abusive tyranny as the old king, and now you have to revolt and there will be bloodshed. Worse are those people that say: “They’ll have to come take my gun from my cold dead hands.” You’re waiting for a war, the government knows it and so they will continue to destroy your gun rights until you stand alone and then you WILL lose and it WILL be bloody and there will be no glory or justice in your death. The POINT of the second amendment was this: The founding fathers saw what happened when the king kept making abusive laws and they did nothing. The founders saw what happened with their “boston tea party” which was the equivalent of January 6th’s so-called insurrection and they did nothing. The founders saw that people who waited to actively defend their freedom on an ongoing basis will be met with bloodshed and suffering and they wanted YOU … not as some unknown stranger, but their children’s, children’s, children, to understand that you must act at the first sign of treasonous leadership.

You must act swiftly and from time to time, you have to flex your muscles just a little bit to remind the evil corruption in men’s hearts to not defy you. THAT IS THE PRICE OF MAINTAINING FREEDOM. Not comfort and privilege – but the ability to be an active participant in sustaining a good and honest government. They also knew that most likely … you wouldn’t. You’d let evils continue because the government would make them appear tolerable and you’d do nothing and their hope… their dream .. was that one day, you would still have enough weapons left that when you woke up from this foolish haze of letting abusers abuse you – that you could fight back. That is the price of RESTORING freedom. This is NOT a call to violence. Oh no – for if the criminals (disguised as leadership) who have exempted themselves from the rules voluntarily submit to the laws and punishments due, then their resignation was formed peacefully and therefore – the decision of peace or war by those whom you must defend yourself against, now lies with them. If you take to arms against their tyranny (which is in no way “violence” in America as it is a protected right in our founding doctrines), and they choose to fight back, then it was they who promoted violence.

It may be nice to live in America where it “feels” like we can pretend that it’s free – but Mexico disarmed its citizens and fell into ruin, Venezuela is full communist-dictator, Canada has just had their gun rights impeded by the son of Fidel Castro, Australia built prison camps for people who simply didn’t want a vaccine, China is brutalizing an entire civilization for cultural differences, mutltitudes of countries being funded with your taxpayer dollars are the hubs of child sex trafficking, weapons trafficking, money laundering, and worse. Do not fail for one minute to realize just how frail America’s existence has been – and continues to be and that she is never to big, to fall.)


The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s