Our Right To Bear Arms Is Not About Hunting, It Is A Constitutional Balance Of Power Mechanism
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 13:45
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
From: Joan Swirsky
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:20 PM
To: Joan Swirsky
Subject: Great letter to the editor from patriot Frank P.
Dec 17, 2012 at 5:16 PM, frank p:
Editor,
Some deer hunting after-thoughts to ponder…. Less than 12 hrs. after the Marxist kenyan con-man was reinstated (getting well in excess of 100% of the vote in some districts, thanks to ACORN and its affiliates), now home free and no longer accountable to the people, he ordered a full court press assault on the 2nd Amendment through a UN Small Arms Treaty calculated to replace our Bill of Rights. Our right to bear arms is not about hunting, it is a Constitutional balance of power mechanism whereby the “master” (the People) reserve to themselves the means of last resort to put down mutiny and insurrection by their public “servants” should the need arise. Our Founders just fought and won a war over a tyranny – the last thing they wanted was for another to take its place. They did not trust government (established to protect their rights) with arms unless war was declared, reserving that right to themselves. There were to be no standing armies kept in time of peace.
Our Founders clearly explained their purpose in the Federalist Papers. James Madison writes in Fed. 46: “The highest number a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed 1/100th part of the whole number; or 1/25th of those able to bear arms. In the US, this proportion would not yield more than 30,000 men. To these would be opposed a militia of of nearly ½ million citizens with arms in their hands fighting for their liberties. It is doubtful that such a militia could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. The success of our resistance against the British denies the possibility of it. The kingdoms of Europe, with military establishments built up as far as public resources will bear, are afraid to trust the people with arms. Should a people so armed, possess the additional advantage of local governments, chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, it may be affirmed that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overthrown in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suggestion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they held in actual possession, than the debased subjects of an arbitrary power could rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors”.
Now: Add up the deer hunting licenses sold – American hunters carrying firearms make up the largest army in the world. In Wisconsin this season, there were 600,000 hunters, making it the eighth largest army in the world; it had more armed men than in Iran – more than in France and Germany combined. With all these men hunting with guns in the woods of a single American State, no one was killed.
There were 750,000 hunters in the woods of Pennsylvania, 700,000 hunters in Michigan (all returned home safely). Add the ¼ million more armed hunters in West Virginia shows that hunters in these four States alone comprise the largest army in the world.
Adding to this the millions more hunters in the 46 other States reassures us that with that kind of home grown fire power, America will be forever safe from a foreign invasion. Guns used for hunting, in the hands of citizens already skilled in their use, are more than a way to fill the freezer, they are our nation’s security, which is why our enemies, foreign and domestic, insist we be disarmed.
Disregarding assumptions of some, that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, what army of two million would want to face 40 or 50 million enraged armed citizens defending their freedom and homeland from a foreign invader? Admiral Yamamoto admitted that this was the reason Japan did not invade the US during WW II. We must never allow treasonous globalist politicians to deprive us of our guns, the means to assure our survival.
Frank Polasky,
Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
MOST RECENT
HELP KEEP NEWS FREE
DONATE
HERE
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,603,065,890 |
| Stories: | 8,148,863 |
Wanted: Citizen Reporters,
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
"Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." Zechariah 4:6
Today's Top Stories
Featured
Top Global
Top Alternative
It used to be you were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now, everyone is guilty and has to prove their innocence (if they can). Everyone is a potential crimminal. keep making more and more restrictive laws and being human will be a cause for arrest and to possibly be murdered by the local law enforcement. Guns mean power, not violence. Just the same as rape is about power not sex. Guns empower people, take the gun away, you are just left with yourself. Not so good. We need our guns, or be disempowered and vulnerable simple as that. I will give it 3 months, maybe 6, before your country’s citizens have their guns confiscated, plus countless victims, (or are they actors), mind programming with this insidious evil, psyop murders. Same script, different location. Who would have thought this scenario would materialise in the good old USA? Man, these crazy people here are really organised. I have seen crazy people in the past, and usually they are just crazy. They do not premeditate their craziness, they just are!!!!!!!!!! I do not believe one word of the conflicting reports, one shooter, two shooters, three shooters. Make up your minds. Just goes to show how pathetic the law enforcement is, they can’t even get the facts straight before they inform the public, then threaten violence if anyone disagrees with their version of accounts. Its too corrupt, too obvious, too in your face. America spoke at the polls, you don’t really give a dam, you are just hot air puffing over the internet. You get what you deserve, and yes, you are weak without your guns
In our state the state sells more hunting licenses than there are animals. Why? Because in our state the game and fish department is not state funded. They are funded by the hunters and fishermen who purchase hunting licenses. So, to keep their ever expanding lives and paychecks coming in, our game and fish department sells more licenses than animals we actually have. What does this do? Well, in our state, the game and fish department allows any amount of guns to go with the hunter when he goes into the forest to hunt for his licensed bounty. It also means that when he takes his son Jonny with him, Jonny is allowed to hunt anything else that moves when he is not hunting for the animal he has a license for. So, Jonny and Dad are hunting for song birds, squirrels, rabbits, lizards, chipmunks and anything else that moves. What is the outcome of this? Well, since Jonny and his Dad are so frustrated because there are no big game animals for which each is licensed for, they are very very successful hunting all of the little critters around their camp. They were so successful that in the spring time are fewer song birds to listen to in the trees, fewer squirrels jumping around on the limbs, the chipmunks don’t come to beg for scraps at camp, rabbits are never seen, and very few lizards are scamper in front of you when you walk along a path. Welcome to New Mexico – The Land of Enchantment.
HERE ARE THE CLEAR AND IRREFUTABLE FACTS:
Anything repugnant to the Constitution if VOID Marbury V Madison 5 U.S. 137
The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supersede the Constitution. Help to dispel this myth.
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17. This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’ “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519). “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.” Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that, “The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion: “This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED. Do not believe the lies many want you to believe, it’s propaganda!
The president cannot alter or modify the Constitution!
in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), to wit:
Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
Congress does however have exclusive territorial legislative jurisdiction over property/territory owned by or ceded to the UNITED STATES.
Per Title 28 chapter 5 notes;
Sections 81–131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.
Conclusion;
The inclusion of Section 88 District of Columbia within the range “Sections 81- 131 of this chapter” makes the “territorial composition of districts and divisions” necessarily subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. Consideration of the two sections that represent Alaska and Hawaii in 1945 and the section that represents Puerto Rico confirms territorial composition of the districts and divisions to be limited to the territory over which the United States of America has exclusive jurisdiction.
The United States of America has exclusive jurisdiction over Washington, D.C. the seat of government, so the territorial composition of United States district court in the District of Columbia must be the entirety of Washington County. The rest of the Chapter 5 United States district courts would have districts whose territorial composition would be limited to the territory within the counties of the district subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. The DA and the United States Attorney have jurisdiction over the same territory, but it is NOT the entire COUNTY.
territorial property can be a national park, military installation or federal enclave. Enclaves such as Federal buildings, including correctional facilities, federal court and federal office buildings, penitentiaries, post offices, and buildings such as National Institute of Health; the federal clinical research facility in Bethesda, Maryland, managed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. etc.
Congressional legislation and presidential edicts are binding in and on the aforementioned places and districts!
You have rights, but only IF you can assert them intelligently and vigorously!
In the USA any treaty in violation of the Constitution is null and void from date of inception.
The US Constitution does speak to treaties under a separate governing principle. In fact, the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, §2, as interpreted by the Supreme Court is superior to any [*1009] state constitution or state statute (BALDWIN v. FRANKS 1887) and recognized by states courts in MISSOURI v. ARNOLD (1941).
additionally, with regard to federal statutes, lex posterior (giving precedence to newer law) applies (COOK v. U.S. 1933).
Treaty nullification can, therefore, be effected by statute, if one follows LEM MOON SING v. U.S., (1895).
Following this line, would Martin say that Congress can nullify the Constitution (which of course it can via the amending process found in Article V)?
The Court also noted in DOE v. BRADEN (1853) that the Constitution is superior to treaties, but federal courts can not nullify treaties even if there is a conflict between the two agents as found in FELLOW v. BLACKSMITH (1857).
Perhaps the strongest Court statement is found in REID v. COVERT (1957), with the decision that no treaty can override the Constitution.
A TREATY CANNOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!
Great. Super. The problem is NO ONE in the legal system or the government cares about your point.
If you doubt my point then run a quick test, call your congressman’s office and see what their response is. Then call your state representative and see what his response is. You can even write a letter to your State’s senators’. I am pretty sure you and everyone else here on this message board know exactly what type of response you will get to your fine point of law. And the Founding Fathers’s knew that this would be the case as well.
That is why we have the 2nd Amendment.
A point overlooked; t is reported that the Fire Arms employed by the British Regulars, and by the Colonials, were virtually the same. During the Revolutionary War the Fire Arms on both sides had similar characteristics and performance. Is it not reasonable to conclude that the Framers intended that the Law Abiding Citizen should possess a Firearm that was comparable to that carried by a potential Professional Adversary?
You hit the nail on the head! The purpose of the coming ‘gun ban’ is to eliminate the potential citizen army that could repel an invasion. It has nothing to do with ‘safety’, but a precursor to total tyranny by the ‘anti-christ’ himself.
If the writing talent of BIN contributors is any indication, they could not hit their target even with high capacity magazines.
In my country (Ireland) the citizens do not have the right to carry arms, and that vast majority of us like it that way.
Even our regular police force is not armed.
Some criminals are armed but almost never use them on any anyone except members of rival gangs.
The lack of any right to bear arms has not enslaved us to our government, and has not left us feeling that we are not a free people. If we don’t like the government we vote them out – we don’t need guns – it’s a democracy.
Americans are slaves to their guns, and to the gun loving Americans, the regular massacres of innocents is a fair price too pay for their freedom. Is that moral?
Arguments that if people want to kill they’ll get the guns anyway is invalid. The free availability of guns facilitates the killers – it makes it so easy for them. If you want to prevent such crimes why make it so easy for the criminals? If they had to go to a lot of trouble to get a gun then maybe they’d have time to cool down, or raise suspicions among others that would prevent the crime. Without the free availability of guns impulse killings (e.g. as a result of disagreement with a neighbour, being in a car crash, someone jumping a queue etc.) simply would not happen.
Cars kill, kitchen knives kill, workshop tools kill and so on- this is also a nonsense argument. Guns are designed for the express purpose of killing people, but cars etc. are not and any deaths attributed to cars etc. are almost always due to accident. Guns kill by intention.
I’ve read now that they want to arm the teachers in American schools. I cannot imaging anything more horrific for my grand-children as being taught by a gun-toting teacher. I don’t know how anyone would want to live in a society where it was necessary to arm teachers of small children – to most civilised people this would be a nightmare scenario.
You are slaves to your constitution if you don’t have the power to change it to reflect civilised rather than the values of the wild west. The world has moved on.
Real freedom is freedom FROM guns, not the right to have them.
Ireland is a wonderful country and full of wonderful people.
If you one day become multicultural you will want the right to have a gun.
In the USA the police force could never go unarmed. We live in a different world than you do.
Erin go Braugh
First step to establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the populace,an example would be Adolf Hitlers dictatorship in Germany where gun control crippled people from fighting back.Remember, it is registration, then confiscation.They are not worried about the criminals who may or may not register but they will know you the law abiding individual did.
AND this the the United States of America ..not some other countries freedoms and rights we are talking about.
MASS SHOOTER SCAMS ; SHARE THIS LINK
http://soundofstars.org/fakeloneshuuters.htm
If we are rendered powerless, what else can we do to confront the tyrants?
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-12-17/gun-control-big-picture
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
Time for mass mailings by the NRA and other groups. Put this info out along with the new FBI stats on murder weapons used!! And include a list of recent use of firearms for self defense. This way all info can be confirmed to all gun controllers and more so to the Uninformed Public!!