PDA

View Full Version : Different view of the 2nd amendment


AlexF
11-21-2008, 8:50 AM
For all the 2nd Amendment scholars, what is your opinion of the following interpretations of it?

From: http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm


Myth 15:
The Second Amendment protects the personal right to keep and bear Arms

We have never seen a Supreme Court case alleging a Second Amendment Right to personally keep and bear arms prove successful. There was a case that stated that a shotgun was not a Militia type weapon so it was not protected under the Second Amendment secured rights. Remember, there is no such thing as a Constitutional Right and if you do not know what your rights are, you don't have them.

If one understands the English language, the Second Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America states, “A well regulated Militia …shall not be infringed.” Through the use of a ‘comma phrase’ the amendment also recognizes that such a Militia is “necessary to the security of a free State” and it so recognizes, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. But, what is being stated about the right of the people to keep and bear Arms? Is it that it shall not be infringed at all or is it that the right is intrinsic to, “A well regulated Militia”? We would suggest that, as a matter of English language rules, the function of such ‘comma phrase’ structure sets the meaning to be the latter. Therefore, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is intrinsic to the necessity of the existence of such a Militia. This is why the United States Supreme Court rulings are consistent in that the Second Amendment secured right is relevant only to the necessary existence of the Militia. Therefore, when a person stands to proclaim that they have a right to keep and bear Arms not recognizing the related Militia necessity, they most often loose their case.

We are not saying that the private Right to keep and bear Arms is not protected. We are simply stating that Right is not stated in the Second Amendment. That right is reserved from governmental control in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Further, if one were to go back to the notes of the First Congress’ deliberations on the Second Amendment one would find that initially the Amendment was written to include such personal Arms rights but the Delegates determined that if they mentioned those rights eventually they would get legislatively controlled. They chose to change the Second Amendment to exclude mentioning such private rights thereby excluding them wholly from governmental legislative control by leaving them under the blanket protection of the Ninth Amendment.




Myth 16:
The government is violating the Constitution by taking guns people carry in public

The first thing to notice about this myth is that it presupposes the body taking the guns is “government”. At this point we must remember, the prevailing power of governance addressed here as "government" is not our government; but is rather a private foreign corporation commonly known as “The United States Government” (Corp. U.S.), which was created by our government under The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 or it is some entity created under Corp. U.S.’ control. Though one may register to vote within that private foreign corporation’s elections and come under their governance through that act, such a registration does not make that corporation our nation’s government. This must be remembered before we go on to discussing gun rights and how such corporate governance contractually removes them.

To address the common misunderstanding at the core of gun right legislation today we present the following:

First, Congress (Corp. U.S.’) recognizes today’s Militia is the Army controlled National Guard and under the premise of Lincoln’s 1863 emergency Conscription Act et al. (still in effect today) they believe that there is no necessity today for a general people’s militia, which makes the Second Amendment's reservation of the people's posse comitatus militia related right to keep and bear Arms moot. They believe that today the concept of posse comitatus is passé and unnecessarily dangerous. For that reason, Congress today passes statutory controls over licensed gun ownership and use. These controls are not legally or lawfully functional over private ownership (as was again proven in Sheriff Richard Mack’s Supreme Court case against the enforceability of the Brady Bill). But, such controls are functional over the contracted gun use of registered gun owners.

This is the underlying limitation that swelters beneath a recent action reported to us in Denver, Colorado where a political candidate carried a gun to a rally as a political statement and was charged and convicted with a gun carry violation. In the newspapers and radio commentaries attorneys alleged that the Constitutions of Colorado and the United States were abandoned because Denver is under home rule. That is not a correct appraisal of the matter. Home rule does not eliminate proper application of a State's constitution or of the Constitution of the United States of America. Even under Home Rule the constitutions are properly applied under the State’s Enabling Act, as are the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

The fact that the gun itself was evidence in the case and that the man carrying it was a registered owner of the same binds that man to the local rules by contract. Wherefore it is well ruled that his private rights, though lawfully secured, are not applicable in this case because he voluntarily contracted to a higher standard via his registered gun ownership and use.

The key to this apparent dilemma of contractual liability is to secure Arms that do not come under registration requirements.

Further, on that point, any company controlled by legal (contractual) requirements limiting their sales through federally registered arms dealers cannot lawfully produce guns that are not so sold, therefore any gun produced by such a manufacturer that is not contractually registered is likely unlawfully owned and can therefore also be controlled (thus if the candidate above had not registered the gun he could legally be in nearly the same situation.

Obviously, the difficulties here are the not matters of law, and with this information it is very likely that the judge in question acted properly because the questions before him were not questions of Law, they were questions of equity (fairness according to contract), in which case the home rules and respective contractual application prevail.

The difficulties here are the people’s understanding of Law and their own contractual limitations. To discover what those are and what their remedies are—to simply and easily return to our self controlled lives secured by our God given inherent constitutionally secured rights—outside of any encroachment from such enforcement you can check out The Way of Kings™.

AlexF
11-21-2008, 8:50 AM
CONTINUED.......

Myth 17:
The government is trying to eliminate gun ownership:

Unlike the other myths presented and debunked on this page, this myth may not be a myth in accord to its own words, however, we believe the alleged purpose of this process is a myth with a far more diabolical intention that must be disclosed. All indicators except outcome indicate that the political intent of the powers that be is to limit and control gun ownership and use. The real intent is to flood the nation with non-automatic, low round semiautomatic and manual guns preparatory to an intentionally activated civil revolution. People believe the government wants to eliminate guns because that is what we hear from the media. The simple fact is, if you ask people if they can believe what they hear and see in the media, they will tell you that you cannot. Still, the media promotes removal of gun ownership from the people of our nation. But is that really their intent—if it is, why has their campaign caused more people to buy guns and why are guns more available today than ever. In the last few years (since the first Brady Bill), gun ownership has risen to over 100 times the guns that were owned before the gun control scare. If Corp. U.S. was really wanted to get rid of the guns, do you think you would still have them (except stored secretly)? Reports indicate that, under the threat of gun control, in the last ten years more guns have been produced and sold to Americans than all of the guns that were ever owned before in the history of our nation. Using this outcome as evidence, it indicates the powers that be are doing what they are doing to cause the people of America to arm themselves while they limit the capability of those arms. That is certainly the effect of their campaign, regardless of popular opinion. Thus we call it a myth.

Put that together with the fact that the verdict of the United Nations conference on World Population in Cairo was that they need to reduce the World’s Population to around one billion people! That was a call to eliminate over four billion people! That call was made in 1994 with a global population of estimated at five and a half-billion. To maintain zero population growth a nation has to have a birth rate of at least 2.1%. The current birth rate in the United States is .8%. These figures spell serious economic difficulties in ten years if something does not change.

Then consider the almost annual events that take place on the anniversary of Great Britain's attack on Lexington and Concord, April 19th—the United States Government admits its representatives: attacked and killed (murdered) the Randy Weaver Family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho without just cause; attacked and killed almost the entire parish of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas (the Branch Davidians); provided the explosives and participated in the first World Trade Center bombing, eight people were killed and 1,000 were injured; further, evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates they blew up their Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (though they have not admitted their participation in that yet); and there is a massive cover-up now going on as to their involvement in the WTC and Pentagon attacks from September 11th, 2001 (the big question is how could an airliner hit the Pentagon and not break the windows where the planes tail and wings would have to have hit). Interestingly enough that attack against the people of our nation took place on “911” (their emergency code). Then compare the result of these acts of terror against our people and notice the outcome. Notice Corp. U.S. creating a “security envelope” around the people violating your God given inherent rights secured to you by our Constitution; notice the exact same pattern of events that took place in Hitler’s Germany as he started W.W.II and instituted his SS (a.k.a. Homeland Security). Compare that to Bush instituting his HS (Homeland Security Police). We expect they will continue to tighten their “security” grip until they destroy our economy causing starvation and rebellion. We expect that is their intent—to cause a revolution that will reduce our nation to a similar status with any third world power so they can institute their global new world communistic order control with 4,000,000,000 less people. After all, isn’t that what they already agreed to do in their Cairo Conference? It should be no surprise that they may be working to that end.

Having stated all of that, please remember this point is not factually a myth. This response is simply conjecture, a theory based on reviewing the outcome we have before us—the stuff mythology is made of. We presented this merely as food for thought—presented to cause a person to notice one of the ways of debunking mythology is to notice outcome. Regardless of what a person says, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. When we see a power of governance doing things that cause people to start, the Patriot Movement, the Tax Protest Movement and the Legal Research Movement, awakening in our nation, it is evident the people are working hard to discover the truth about what is happening. This question regarding the purpose of Corp. U.S.’ gun politics is not really a myth, it is a question and a warning, where the evidence is not all in yet. We presented it here to set a standard of review, watching and preparing for any outcome. Corp. U.S. has legislatively recognized for years that the people of this country are their enemies. It should be no surprise that there is a possibility that they are working to cause us to rebel against them so they can quash the rebellion and with it your right to private property and with that our nation. To that end we remind you, the King of Kings has said in this war we cannot raise conventional weapons of war and win. In this war we must first get ourselves right personally and spiritually, we must repent and we must prepare by learning who we are and by learning the Law. Then we must win by applying the Law. This is the only way we can be sure to win our nation back legally, lawfully and with our lawful system intact secured and operating explicitly according to the Constitution of the United States of America.

nrakid88
11-21-2008, 9:51 AM
I don't beleive this point of view because they are taking it out of context. When the constitution was written, all men in good shape and of ripe age were in civilian militias, even if you couldn't afford a firearm, one was provided to you by the militia. They had it right here, the phrase about the people is decribing that they need guns to secure a functioning militia. The founding fathers were putting in an adittional check and balance, that if the gov't got too big and tyrannical, the civilian militia could fight the gov't. Alexander Hamilton wrote this in the Federalist papers number 78

nrakid88
11-21-2008, 10:05 AM
Wow, I posted that first one before I finished the article. I thought for sure it was liberal brain wash non-sense. Now, I am not so sure. Seems a little paranoid, but at times I feel a little paranoid. Interesting point of view. I don't get the U.S. Corp thing though, gotta doa fact check on that. I like that they kinda mirror my fears that even if we faced the tyrannical gov't, they'er powers would overwhelm ours...

X-NewYawker
11-21-2008, 10:19 AM
now look in the COnstitution and find the text where they say it is a right to have an abortion, marry another man and take the ten commandments out of schools.

the left loves to use interpretation to "find" rights in the constitution that aren't in there, and they cannot face that the meaning of the founders were for us to be armed AGAINST GOV'T TYRANNY.

nrakid88
11-21-2008, 10:23 AM
yeah, liberals live in this dream world where the Gov't is there best friend and will always be there for them, thats why they'll never understand the concept of fighting against tyranny....

FortCourageArmory
11-21-2008, 10:25 AM
Well, Myth #15 was effectively destroyed last June by SCOTUS in the Heller decision. It doesn't lend much to this group's credibility after that.

Annie Oakley
11-21-2008, 10:47 AM
I'm really curious about when this was written. If this person is really serious about this, I think Heller should be the rebuttal. It's just so surreal that these people actually believe these things.

postal16
11-21-2008, 11:11 AM
I love the irony of his quoting the Bible as the basis of his views being the truth...

Annie Oakley
11-21-2008, 11:15 AM
Wow, I posted that first one before I finished the article. I thought for sure it was liberal brain wash non-sense. Now, I am not so sure. Seems a little paranoid, but at times I feel a little paranoid. Interesting point of view. I don't get the U.S. Corp thing though, gotta doa fact check on that. I like that they kinda mirror my fears that even if we faced the tyrannical gov't, they'er powers would overwhelm ours...

I think that before we consider how bad a resistance against tyranny would be overwhelmed, we really should look at the American revolution and the civil war. In the revolution, we had former British officers and soldiers as well as militia fighting against, and capturing British forces and their equipment and weapons, which helped American forces resupply (to the victor goes the spoils). And in the Civil War, we had classmates from USMA Westpoint, on opposing sides, and former U.S. soldiers were fighting for the confederacy along with militia. In fact, the Federal troops and Confederate troops had identical equipment. And I believe it would be the samething if there was to be a second Civil War. I don't believe that the entire U.S. military would blindly follow someone who is a tyrant just because they tell them to do it. But I do believe that there is a greater chance of there being a military coo against a tyrannical government. So I truly can see a devastating war, should something like that really occur. In this case, like the civil war, it will be won by the side with the best tactics, and best training.

BillCA
11-21-2008, 11:45 AM
I don't know who wrote this twaddle, but I suspect it was someone at the extreme of the political spectrum. The author is not someone who can make their point easily and must, therefore, wrap it up in 2,000 words of explanation.

Myth 15 falls apart in light of Heller holding that the militia clause is not the totality of the right.

Myth 16 is absurd. Regardless of whether such a thing as "Corp US" exists, one cannot "voluntarily" enter into a contractual agreement under threat of force such as incarceration and/or heavy monetary fines for failing to accept the contract. Using the case presented, the registration of handgun is required by law with sanctions for failing to properly register it. The idea that one waives a constitutional right because they 'voluntarily' entered into some other 'contractual' agreement by following the law is absurd. The alternative is that one becomes a criminal in order to exercise the right or is severely limited in exercising that right with only a single shot percussion arm from 1787.

Credibility in the discussion of Myth 17 suffers badly. I get that the whole 2nd paragraph is a parallel-paranoid rant. But what the author does is drag out the red-herring about the media. If the media says 'x' and everyone agrees you can't believe everything you see/hear in the media, then 'x' must be false. That is a steaming heap of bull patties. One cannot believe everything in the media, but one can believe some things in the media.

pnkssbtz
11-21-2008, 2:19 PM
Isn't this list of myth's from the brady website?

dwa
11-21-2008, 4:43 PM
did aliens tell the author all of this?

Max-the-Silent
11-21-2008, 6:33 PM
I don't claim any sort of scholar status on the Second Amendment, But after reading through some of the material at the site, including the end where they make the call for returning to biblical laws (as interpreted by them, of course) as a tactic to return government to where it should be (again as interpreted by them) I'd put this in tinfoil hat territory

aileron
11-21-2008, 7:00 PM
now look in the COnstitution and find the text where they say it is a right to have an abortion, marry another man and take the ten commandments out of schools.

the left loves to use interpretation to "find" rights in the constitution that aren't in there....

9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to "deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So I truly can see a devastating war, should something like that really occur. In this case, like the civil war, it will be won by the side with the best tactics, and best training.

Even if the other side has superior tactics, if the people will not give up and continue a guerrilla type war against the government without ever ceasing, then the government will fail because the economy will have been in the toilet for so long that the taxes will not be coming in. It would be horrible. :(

Everyone that lived through it unscathed would be very lucky indeed and probably would have lost so many loved ones they would not feel so lucky.

I hope nothing of the sort ever happens.