Gun Rights Issues

Federal Over-Reach & Un-Constitutional Laws are Checked by State Nullification. 

When States become criminal neglecting their Duties & Obligations to Nullify Un-Constitutional Laws, and/or if States make Laws which violates the Peoples USA Constitutional Bill Of Rights it then becomes the Duty and Obligation of each and every American Male Citizen to Check the State & Federal Govt by way of Armed Revolution if necessary as the Last Resort.

WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE FINAL CHECK AND BALANCE OF THE SYSTEM!

IF WE FAIL, THE SYSTEM FAILS!!!

The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants.

The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are

Slaves"

-- James Madison, June 1785.

*    *    *

The Bill of Rights Simplified

https://www.aclund.org/en/news/bill-rights-simplified

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

    -- Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489

Quotes:

 The Second Amendment states:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Meaning of "well regulated militia":

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".   In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Meaning of "keep and bear arms" (DC vs.  Heller):

Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons." At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia

    "It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.

    The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.

    The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose." 

-Judge Thomas Cooley (explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the "right of the people")

There were several different reasons for this amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them; if protecting militias had been the only reason then the amendment could have instead referred to "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty ... The right of self defence 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 colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

    In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.

    True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." ...

        Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty."

- (St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803)

The British Banned Guns on our Founding Fathers & It Brought About A Revolution

http://joshuamark5.com/2014/07/british-banned-guns-founding-fathers-brought-revolution/

The Founding Fathers Warned Against Standing Armies

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/the-founding-fathers-warned-against-standing-armies.html

The Founding Fathers distrusted standing armies.

For example, James Madison said:

    "In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:

    "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

He was right.

Freud also argued that when men gave up the primal drive to protect ourselves, our families and our communities – and that power was transferred to standing armies – it disempowered us and made us weak psychologically.

Look at America today: Freud might have been right.

OATHS

"that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

http://essentialliberty.us/about/oath/

About the Oath to the Constitution

http://www.essentialliberty.us/about/oath/

    The oath for enlisted military personnel repeats the preceding affirmation, "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same," and concludes with, "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

    The subtle distinction between officer oath and enlisted oath is that officers are bound to disobey any order that violates our Constitution, while enlisted personnel are bound to obey only lawful orders.

    Notably, these oaths mandate the preservation, protection, support and defense of our Constitution as ratified, not a so-called "living constitution." And by extension, every American Patriot who has taken such an oath is bound by his or her pledge to also support and defend the Constitution’s foundation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Declaration’s basis, Natural Law.

    While uniformed Americans serving our nation defend our Constitution with their lives, many elected officials debase it by enacting extra-constitutional empowerments of the central government, invariably to appease special constituencies and/or to perpetuate their office.

    Although military service personnel who violate their oaths are remanded for courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, politicians who violate their oaths are often rewarded with re-election. However, those who do not abide by their oaths, elected officials first and foremost among them, must rightly and justly be removed from office, posthaste, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

President's Oath

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,

    and will to the best of my Ability,

preserve, protect and defend

the Constitution of the United States."

    Article VI.

    ...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

The United States Constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

North Dakota CHAPTER 109-02-05

PEACE OFFICER CODE OF CONDUCT AND OATH

http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/109-02-05.pdf

    Section109-02-05-01 Peace Officer Code of Conduct

    4.  It is a violation of this section:

a.  To possess or consume alcoholic beverages on duty or while in uniform on duty or off duty except as authorized or required for the lawful performance of the peace officer's duties.

b. To   possess,   sell,   consume,   use,   or   assist   in   the   use   of   any   illegal   or   unauthorized

controlled substances or medications whether on duty or off duty.

c.  To   engage   in   conduct   that   is   in   violation   of   the   criminal   laws   of   the   state   or   federal

government or ordinances of a political subdivision of the state of North Dakota.

d.  To engage in acts of corruption or bribery or to condone acts of corruption or bribery by other peace officers.

e.  To willfully lie, provide false testimony, provide misleading information, or falsify written or verbal communications in reports when the information may be relied upon by the courts, state's attorneys, or other law enforcement officials.

f.  To willfully provide false testimony, evidence, or misleading information in an application for a search warrant, arrest warrant, or criminal complaint.

g.  To engage in illegal harassment or intimidation of another individual, or to condone acts of illegal harassment or intimidation by other peace officers.

h.  To  willfully  fail   to   report   the  violation   of   a  criminal   law  or   North   Dakota   Century  Code

chapter 12-63 by a peace officer

    109-02-05-02 Peace Officer Oath

     Every   peace   officer   must   be   sworn   in   as   a   peace   officer   and   take   an   oath   that   substantially complies with the following:

1.  The peace officer will uphold the constitution and laws of the United States, the constitution and laws of the state of North Dakota, and the laws of the community that the peace officer has been entrusted to enforce.

LOL.  When Law is contrary to Constitution Peace Officer is immediately a Criminal, and Domestic Enemy upon swearing the Oath.

Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States

The Bill of Rights & All Amendments

http://constitutionus.com/

Firearms protect the citizen's Constitution which guarantees the citizens their right to bear arms to protect all the citizen's

Bill of Rights.

Yet at the same time Government, and Laws ban the citizens from doing this.

"We ban you from firearms but, go defend that right"

Constitution, not compromise

http://www.times-herald.com/opinion/20130822-Letter-Banta

    There is a fundamental fallacy in congressional deal-making and “compromise.” The Constitution is a contract written by the people that, in easily understood terms, specifically delegates to government both limited responsibilities and limited authority sufficient to fulfill them. It also specifically prohibits government from assuming any authorities or responsibilities not actually listed in the Constitution.

In the Declaration, the Founders were very clear that government is created “to secure those (certain inalienable) rights,” endowed equally to each of us by our Creator that exists even if there was never a government.

Inalienable means that no person or power can alter these rights. The Bill of Rights clearly lists some of those inalienable rights. Not all “rights” are inalienable.

For example, there are no inalienable rights to food, shelter, clothing, employment, transportation, education, pensions, insurance, health care or for government subsidies of any type for individuals, corporations, or foreign countries. No such “rights” exist in nature.

It is also essential to note that every state and federal legislative, executive, and judicial officer, as well as every member of the military and most domestic police, before being delegated any government authority must take a solemn oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” — as it is, not as they wish it would be.

The role of government is not subject to interpretation based on the political philosophy of the office holder. There is no provision for political parties in the Constitution. There is no Republican or Democrat policies or programs — only what is listed that government must do and nothing more.

The only reasons government should expand beyond securing inalienable rights is to enable politicians to manipulate the people and to assume powers they were never delegated. This is to control political processes that have neither moral nor legal standing, in order to enrich themselves at the citizen’s expense.

The Founders made our government very simple, with few responsibilities and few authorities, because they understood the human nature to abuse delegated authority and infringe the liberty of others. To restore America, we must restore Constitutional governance prohibiting deal-making and compromise. Vote wisely in 2014.

Frank D. Banta

Newnan

*        *        *

The Bill Of Rights stands between Tyranny and Liberty, Prevents the old anachronistic criminal elements of centralized government.

America:  Defenders of freedom,

or its own Slavery?

Loss of One Right indicates the Loss of All Rights.  America has lost all their Constitutional Rights.

The Constitution: Supremacy

http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Topic/27

Americans Have Lost VIRTUALLY ALL of Our Constitutional Rights

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/americans-have-lost-virtually-all-of-our-constitutional-rights.html

Scorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/constitution.html

       This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.

The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/12/the-men-who-destroyed-the-constitution/#.Ush_ZFlMEsY

Preserving Our Constitution

- No Compromise Foundation

http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/group/preserving-our-constitution

The Constitutionality Crisis

http://constitutionality.us/

        This site examines the Constitutionality Crisis facing the United States of America and suggests an approach for restoring Constitutional government.

        The federal government routinely violates constitutionally-protected rights of both its citizens and of the states making up the union.

        The legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government are all guilty.

The Constitution For The United States

Its Sources and Its Application 

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html

USA Constitution

Amendment XIV  Section 1: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

• 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.

           The “privileges and immunities clause” contained in Article IV, Section 2, provides, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of several states.”  This limits the ability of states to favor their own citizens and discriminate against out-of-state citizens with respect to certain fundamental rights.

       Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment first made clear that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens both of the United States and the States where they reside. 

        Then it provided three restrictions on the states.  The states may not (1) “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” nor (2) “deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law,” nor (3) deny any person “the equal protection of the laws.”

       The protections of the Bill of Rights are so fundamental, that when a state denies them it also denies “due process of law” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 

       Although the coverage of most of the Bill of Rights has been expanded to the actions of state and local governments, it does not generally apply to private conduct.  With some exceptions, private persons and organizations do not have to comply with the Constitution.  For example, while a public university cannot unduly restrict the free speech rights of its students, private universities are not subject to this rule. 

        This “state action” doctrine applies not only to the Bill of Rights, but also to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The language of the Fourteenth Amendment which begins “no state shall…,” requires this result.  Although the doctrine is called the “state action” doctrine, it actually refers to any governmental conduct.  Local governments are considered arms of the states for this purpose.

 Article VI...  This Constitution,

and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof

(Pursuance = constitutional only);

all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Whensoever any government entity transgresses Article VI shall be removed from office...

Article 2 - The Executive Branch

Section 4 - Disqualification

...The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Whensoever any person acting under color of any law transgresses any Right protected by the Constitution, or any Law made in pursuance of the Constitution, such person violates Federal LawTITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Punishable by Death.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

Summary:   Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

      For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

      The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

"The Supreme Law of the Land" is

"The Constitution as it is written"

    The Constitution, by both its general design and its terms as written, limits government to the powers delegated.

    Immunity from accountability to these limited powers it injures in violation of the law is a power not delegated. The Tenth Amendment forbids it.     Our Constitution is a closed legal and logical system that declares itself and the laws made pursuant to it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that is the only law that it allows. There is no room in it for "inherent sovereign immunity".

    With regard to Judicial Supremacy no clearer reason for the rejection of Judicial Supremacy can be given than the words of Thomas Jefferson in 1819:

        “If this opinion [of judicial supremacy] be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation ... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

    In 1820, he further clarified his rejection of the doctrine of judicial supremacy when he wrote:

        “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps ... And their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

    With respect to Supremacy, "The Supreme Law of the Land" is "The Constitution as it is written" and the laws made pursuant thereto. Its interpretations are not the supreme law of the land. They are mere interpretations that may or may not be correct, or may even be dishonest and treacherous to it.

    "Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves"

-- James Madison, June 1785.

    The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

    The Great Barrier to the Alienation of the Unalienable Natural Rights of All Free Men, and the Metes and Bounds of the Government of the United States, is the Constitution for the United States.

    "If we find our government in all its branches rushing headlong, like our predecessors, into the arms of monarchy, if we find them violating our dearest rights, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion, civil or religious, or opening on our peace of mind or personal safety the sluices of terrorism, if we see them raising standing armies, when the absence of all other danger points to these as the sole objects on which they are to be employed, then indeed let us withdraw and call the nation to its tents."

-- Thomas Jefferson to Colonel Wm. Duane, 1811

*    *    *

“The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the Legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

Judges, though they may not be omniscient or for that matter philosopher- kings, are better equipped for the task so long as they are aware of their limitations.”.

-Alexander Hamilton

“You need look no farther to see that liberal jurisprudence has nothing to do with law or the Constitution except in the instrumental sense that when liberal judges pronounce their judgments on these issues they invoke the document as their excuse for imposing their personal policy preferences.” 

-Harvard-trained lawyer Brian Troyer

The Greatness of the US Constitution

Constitution (U.S.), Duty to Preserve, Rests in the People:

https://www.nccs.net/2002-09-the-greatness-of-the-us-constitution.php

     "It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, and corruption or negligence of its only keepers, the people.                     Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and the profligates are rewarded because they flatter the people in order to betray them."

(From poster produced by Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution.)

IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION:

A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/28/us/iroquois-constitution-a-forerunner-to-colonists-democratic-principles.html

One forum to share ideas between the colonists and the Iroquois, in the years leading to the French and Indian War, was the the Albany Congress between June 19 and July 9, 1754. At the meeting, representatives of the six Indian nations and seven colonies heard Benjamin Franklin:

''It would be a strange thing,'' he told the assembly, ''if six nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming such a union, and yet it has subsisted for ages and appears indissolvable, and yet a like union should be impractical for 10 or a dozen English colonies.''

Senate resolution 331, from the 100th congress in 1988

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf

“To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution and to reaffirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the constitution.”

American Indians

& The United States Constitution

http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm

List of United States treaties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_(1851)

Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_(1868)

    The treaty formed the basis of the 1980 Supreme Court case, United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, in which the court ruled that tribal lands covered under the treaty had been taken illegally by the US government, and the tribe was owed compensation plus interest. As of 2018 this amounted to more than $1 billion. The Sioux have refused the payment, demanding instead the return of their land. ...

    Marking the 150th anniversary of the treaty, the South Dakota Legislature passed Senate Resolution 1, reaffirming the legitimacy of the treaty, and according to the original text, illustrating to the federal government that the Sioux are "still here" and are "seeking a future of forward-looking, positive relationships with full respect for the sovereign status of Native American nations confirmed by the treaty."

    On March 11, 2018, the Governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead signed a similar bill into law, calling on "the federal government to uphold its federal trust responsibilities," and calling for a permanent display of the original treaty, on file with the National Archives and Records Administration, in the Wyoming Legislature.

HALF OF OKLAHOMA IS CREEK/CHEROKEE/CHICKASAW/SEMINOLE NATIONS...

Supreme Court rules nearly half of Oklahoma is Indigenous reservation

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2020/07/09/supreme-court-rules-nearly-half-oklahoma-indigenous-reservation/5phtbNpc83i7Fz9F4hwmtI/story.html

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that nearly half of Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, a decision that could reshape the criminal justice system, preventing state authorities from prosecuting offenses there that involve Native Americans....The lands include much of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-biggest city.  The case was steeped in the US government’s long history of brutal removals and broken treaties with indigenous tribes, and grappled with whether lands of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had remained a reservation after Oklahoma became a state....Congress had granted the Creek a reservation, and that the United States needed to abide by its promises....

    In a statement, Mike Hunter, Oklahoma’s attorney general, said the state and the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations were working on an agreement to present to Congress and the US Department of Justice addressing jurisdictional issues raised by the decision....

John Locke:

Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

Locke's Writings Did Much to Inspire the American Revolution

http://fee.org/freeman/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/

    A number of times throughout history, tyranny has stimulated breakthrough thinking about liberty. This was certainly the case in England with the mid-seventeenth-century era of repression, rebellion, and civil war. There was a tremendous outpouring of political pamphlets and tracts. By far the most influential writings emerged from the pen of scholar John Locke.

He expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel....

     Tyranny:  “’Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”

    Right to revolution: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

Natural Law -

The Ultimate Source of Constitutional Law

https://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law.php

    Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."...

    "Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."  --Thomas Jefferson

...Under this code, individuals could not band together and do, through government's coercive power, that which was not lawful between individuals.

...Constitution's basis in natural law for the protec­tion of natural rights

    "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." -John Locke

Do you honestly think that the system of checks and balances is working?  Has corruption, compromise, and failure of each department, as well as the people to perform their duty to check and balance each other partly the cause of this system failure?

Checks And Balances -

The Constitutional Structure For

Limited And Balanced Government

https://www.nccs.net/checks-balances-limited-and-balanced-government.php

The Constitution was devised with an ingenious and intricate built-in system of checks and balances to guard the people's liberty against combinations of government power. ...

    "If the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it (constitutionality).

    Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united... the EXECUTIVE power would make itself absolu te, and the government end in tyranny.

    Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the subject (citizen) would then have no permanent security of his person or property.

...What were some of these checks and balances believed so important to individual liberty?

Several are listed below:

The Responsibility Of Citizens

https://www.nccs.net/the-responsibility-of-citizens.php

"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature." - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)

...It is not money that can induce citizens to labor and sacrifice for the common good. They must be moved by patriotism and their attachment to the Constitution. And patriotism alone, ignorant boasting about ones native land, would not suffice to preserve the Republic.

Politics and Justice – A Very Bad Combination

http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/11/17/politics-and-justice-a-very-bad-combination/

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, and again, and again. The justice system has been putrified by politics. I’ve stressed this point numerous times in the past with regard to the pernicious effect politics has on the actions of prosecutors. And of course, it’s not limited to just prosecutors. Elected judges are effected by politics as well. See Judicial Independence – How Do We Get There?

The fact that judges are influenced by politics, particularly big money politics, is supported and amplified by this recent article in The Atlantic: Big Money Propping Up Harsh Sentences.

And by the way, state attorneys general, sheriffs, and coroners are also powerful players in the justice system who are elected political officials.

Take Justice Off the Ballot

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23oconnor.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=sandra%20day%20&st=cse

A better system is one that strikes a balance between lifetime appointment and partisan election by providing for the open, public nomination and appointment of judges, followed in due course by a standardized judicial performance evaluation and, finally, a yes/no vote in which citizens either approve the judge or vote him out....

In our system, the judiciary, unlike the legislative and the executive branches, is supposed to answer only to the law and the Constitution. Courts are supposed to be the one safe place where every citizen can receive a fair hearing....

In a system where judges are evaluated before they are put on the ballot, voters can make their decisions more knowledgeably — with relevant information about the judges’ performance on the bench....

 "We, the people are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the constitution." - Abe Lincoln

The United States Constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

How constitutional ignorance gave us tyranny of the majority

https://personalliberty.com/constitutional-ignorance-gave-us-tyranny-majority/

    Constitution Day—September 17—

marked the anniversary of its 1787 signing....

As one National Constitution Center poll concluded, only one in six of us claimed detailed knowledge of the Constitution—despite the fact that two-thirds said it was “absolutely essential” to have....

    In other words, Americans know too little about our Constitution to maintain the freedoms it was designed to protect. Instead, our ignorance leads us to sacrificing rights out of undue deference to majority rule.

    America’s Constitution did not endorse majority rule. Our founders did believe in voting to select who should be entrusted with the power of government, but the more important and prior question they addressed was: “What powers do the people delegate to the federal government to exercise on their behalf?” That is why so much of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is devoted to what the government is not allowed to do, regardless of majority sentiment. As Jefferson said, our founders fought not for democracy, but for a government “tied down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

    In fact, our founders had a great distrust of majority rule. Alexander Hamilton asserted that “Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy.” James Madison said “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.” Thomas Jefferson warned that “an elective despotism was not the government we fought for,” and that “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”

    That is why the Constitution contains multiple non-majority rules to protect Americans against federal abuses, such as presidential veto power and the super-majorities required to change the Constitution. Its defense is the rationale for the Supreme Court’s power to strike down unconstitutional laws, regardless of how many congressional votes they received....

    “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by minorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” Consequently, our lack of Constitutional knowledge means that believing in protecting the rights of minorities does not actually protect them when they are outvoted....

George Washington Farewell Address.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Binding forever, change by amendment or revolution.

    "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government." (George Washington Farewell Address.)

    ...there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands. (George Washington Farewell Address.)

Resist all attacks on the Constitution

    ...Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

Party Influences

    All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

    However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Dangers of the Party System

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Encroachment of Departments

    It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Credit and Debt

    As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

Neutral with other nations, no favoritisms

    In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

    ...So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

    The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

    ...Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

    ... But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

    ...The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.    

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the CORRUPT United Slaves of America and to the DESPOTIC ARISTOCRATIC OLIGARCHY  for which it stands, one nation under CORRUPT GOVERNMENT LAWS, invisible CORRUPT GOVERNMENT TYRANNY, with NO liberty and INjustice for all.

Domestic Enemies Net

Exposing The Traitors To Our Nation's Creator-Endowed And Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights And Liberties

http://domesticenemies.net

Domestic Enemies

Make, Support, Enforce, and Defend "Un"-Constitutional Laws

Why Members Of The BAR Are Domestic Enemies Of The Constitution And Our Entire Legal System Has Become Corrupt

http://domesticenemies.net/index.php/why-members-of-the-bar?blog=2

Traitors in Government

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." --Cicero (58 B.C.)

What do we do now America? 

Federal Government is Rogue, and State Government is their partners in crime.

We the people are left powerless.

The Constitution is now illegal.

Todays generation will be forever remembered through all history as the "Treasonous Generation" that destroyed the American Constitution.

The Myth of Foreign Terrorism:

http://forejustice.org/write/myth_of_foreign_terrorism.pdf

    The events of 9/11 weren’t the acts of terrorism they are portrayed as being by Hans Sherrer is a 27,000 word essay explaining why there is no definitional basis to justify blaming the events of September 11, 2001 on  foreign terrorism. In contrast,  the most conspicuous beneficiaries of  9/11’s events have been politicians,  police agencies, and defense and security oriented businesses associated with the federal government. It also discusses an important but little known episode in American history that helps to explain the  fervor with which influential people associated with the federal government have seized on the events of 9/11 to obliterate the Bill of Rights and the liberty of Americans.

Government Spying On Social Media –

Not to Keep Us Safe –

But to Monitor Government Criticism

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/government-power-being-used-to-stifle-dissent-not-to-keep-us-safe.html

Gun Control based on inaccurate and misrepresented data:

How many killings reported by law enforcement as murder/offender were actually self defense/victim?  It is very difficult to prove self defense in court, and most often even self defense cases are convicted as some form of homocide, and the defender is wrongfully convicted with a criminal record.  Law enforcement, and prosecuters falsely report and wrongfully convict to skew data to push their agenda and politics of the day to further use this false data as support for their causes which is generally not justice but, rather a revenue source from grants and donations from powerful interest groups.   

Imagine you are forced by economics to live in an impoverished large urban community where the crime rate is high, or any place where you are threatened and your risk of an attack is high.  You would want some means of self defense.  Which is the main reason why people possess a firearm.  So when that person is forced to use their right of self defense during a real life attack police arrest the self defending victim, and falsely report the self defender as offender/defendant.  The courts find it easier to convict that person rather than seek true justice, and the self defender is wrongfully convicted, and crime data adds another false number to its already false and misleading data.

Then gun control advocates use this false data as support for banning firearms.  In a crime infested large urban community the probability is high that anyone living there has some type of criminal record.  So gun control advocates use this as their proof to say that people who kill using firearms have criminal records so only the criminals should be banned from firearms.

Although true many killings are perpetrated by an attacker and are rightly labeled murder however, many killings are the results of self defense and are mislabeled by law enforcement which misrepresents the firearm killings data making it appear more killings are from an offender rather than from a defender.     

I cannot imagine having to live in such an environment without self protection from a firearm anymore than I can imagine sending in law enforcement there without a firearm.  Yet that is what current gun control is doing depriving a citizen living in high crime areas from a right to save their own life by instituting Un-Constitutional bans on certain people with criminal records.  

But a criminal record is no more of an indicator of a murderer than where a person lives.  You are more likely to be killed by a person living in a large urban area, with or without a criminal record, than by a person living rural who has a criminal record.  So it is more accurate to say it is your environment, associates, and situation you are in rather than if you have a criminal record, or not which would more represent a murderer than if the person has a criminal record or not.  Because the majority of firearms deaths in the United States are not even caused by persons with criminal records.

Many criminal records are not even accurate.  Many people are wrongfully convicted and must live with a criminal record all the while being 100% Innocent.  And many people with criminal records will never kill anyone, while many people without a criminal record may commit murder.

So using criminal records as criteria for gun control is not only Un-Constitutional but, it is also inaccurate, misleading, and does not improve public safety rather it makes the public less safe.  It is misrepresentative to use data from the large urban areas where the majority of murders occur as a basis to set policies for gun control for the entire United States.  And furthermore, it is Un-equal protection under the law,  another violation of our U.S. Bill of Rights.  

The bottom line is if you do not want to be killed you can lessen the chance by being selective whom you associate with, where you go, and your situations.  Avoid conflict, and do not provoke.  Most killings can be avoided by being selective.

The same kind of consequence as striking a match next to a jug of gas.  The gas is dangerous but, it is the one who lights the match that causes the fire.

Most murders are not some hardened criminal indiscriminantly killing innocent people at random like the rare events seen on the news from time to time.  Most killings are situational heat of the moment consequence to a provacation.  Mass shootings, and serial killers are rare making up at most 1% of all murders.

Those who push gun control ban criminals from firearms trying to make a comparison that criminals cause most of the murders.  In fact that is not true.  The fact that some murderers have criminal records is no more an indicator of violence than saying that most murderers have drivers licenses so everyone with a drivers license should be banned from firearms.  You can make comparisons all day, and that comparison does not indicate that that person is going to kill someone.

Although the data shows hardened type criminals are "not" the majority of murderers the myth going around is that they are, and therefore they are banned.  Most murders are spontaneous heat of the moment reactions to provacations, and are most often committed by people who are not the criminal type.

District of Columbia v. Heller,

128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

    A District of Columbia statute that banned virtually all handguns, and required that any other type of firearm in the home be dissembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times violates the Second Amendment, which the Court held to protect individuals’ right to bear arms.

Justices concurring: Scalia, Roberts, C.J., Kennedy, Thomas, Alito.

Justices dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Bill of Rights Institute: Gun Rights

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/headlines/gun-rights/

Supreme Court judges' gun ruling shows they fooled themselves with pretend offender: DiManno

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/04/18/supreme-court-judges-gun-ruling-shows-they-fooled-themselves-with-pretend-offender-dimanno.html

By a vote of 6-3, demonstrating the considerable divide inside the top court of the land, the Supremes this week knocked the stuffing out of legislation that had once been promoted by some of the same elements which are now celebrating — striking down Section 95(2) of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional; cruel and unusual punishment.  “A three-year term of imprisonment for a person who has essentially committed a licensing infraction is totally out of sync with the normal of criminal sentencing — there is a cavernous disconnect between the severity of licensing type offences and mandatory minimum three-year terms of imprisonment,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin....“Empirical evidence suggests mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes,”.... any sensible prosecutor would not indict a merely absent-minded defendant but would proceed by summary avenues. The indictment alternative was absurdly far-fetched.  “The confluence of events necessary for a licensing-type offender to face the prospect of a grossly disproportionate sentence strikes me as more imaginary than real. With respect, this hypothetical scenario stretches the bounds of credulity.” ...they’ve clearly lost touch with their core role — that it’s for Parliament to craft legislation as the elected government of the day sees fit, and for the Court to determine constitutional validity upon vigorous legal consideration. ...the Supreme Court has, in the past, warned against the use of questionable assumptions or loose conjectures that are “far-fetched or only marginally imaginable.’’...legislation can and should be redrafted in Parliament to make it constitutionally inviolable — hypothetically.

"Title 10, U.S.C., clearly affirms the existence of the citizen militia; it is little changed since the original Militia Act of 1792 (except for the addition in this century of recognition of the third type of militia, the federally supported National Guard, in addition to the enrolled and unenrolled militia).

    "Further, the individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constitution, but the right to own firearms is not at all dependent upon the militia clause. The militia clause of the Second Amendment merely adds to the reason for the right, which is a common law right rooted in the right of protection of self, family, and community.

    "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to arms; participation in a citizen militia organization does not make that right more valid nor any stronger." 

As for the purported contradiction of "the RKBA is so the militia can overthrow the gov't if need be" contrasted with the power of Congress to call up the militia to suppress insurrection:

The Federalist Papers looked to the state militias, comprised of the armed populace, as the ultimate check on government. As James Madison put it, "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone." Madison predicted that no federal government could become tyrannical, because if it did, there would be "plans of resistance" and an "appeal to trial by force." A federal standing army would surely lose that appeal, because it "would be opposed by a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands." Exalting "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over almost every other nation," Madison contrasted the American government with the European dictatorships, which "are afraid to trust the people with arms." Note that half a million was the approximate unmber of male citizens at that time.

Alexander Hamilton explained that "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." Hamilton reassured skeptical anti-Federalists that no standing army, however large, could oppress the people, for the federal soldiers would be opposed by state militias consisting of "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 rights and those of their fellow citizens."

James Madison wrote the Second Amendment in order to prevent the right to bear arms from vesting only in "select militias" like state national guard units. The Second Amendment was written to secure an individual right to bear arms that provided an ultimate check on government and any of its "select" militias.

The core of the Second Amendment therefore was that state militias --comprised of individual citizens bringing their own guns to duty -- would have the power to overthrow a tyrannical federal government and its standing army.

To persons accustomed to think of the "right to bear arms" as a privilege to own sporting goods, it must seem incredible that the authors of the Second Amendment meant to ensure that the American people would always own weapons of war. But that is precisely what the historical record demonstrates. The only commentary available to Congress when it ratified

the Second Amendment was written by Tench Coxe, one of James Madison's friends. Coxe explained:

    The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any

possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

 The 2nd limits the basic power of Congress in regards to the militia in that it prohibits the power of Congress in regard to the militia from disarming the militia.  (Noting at the time the militia was considered to be every able bodied male, etc.)

2nd Amendment A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 The 14th prohibits the denial of an Federal right by any state. (The Doctrine of Incorporation holds the 2nd has not been incorporated as there has not been any Supreme Court decision related to a specific state law.)

14th Amendment

Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 Presser v State of Illinois [116 U.S. 252 (1886)]

   "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constituted the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional

provision in question out of  view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."  [id at 265]

What was the original intent of the Second Amendment?

     The original intent of the Second Amendment was that the people had specifically prohibited the Federal Government from prohibiting citizen ownership.

  Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty- Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

  The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

  On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent.

        In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the "importance" of the Second Amendment.

  He went on to describe the militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections," with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers."

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

        We also see this blending of individualist and collective accounts of the right to bear arms in remarks by Judge Thomas Cooley, one of the most influential 19th century constitutional commentators. Noting that the state might call into its official militia only "a small number" of the eligible citizenry, Cooley wrote that "if the right [to keep and bear arms] were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check."

 Finally, it is worth noting the remarks of Theodore Schroeder, one of the most important developers of the theory of freedom of speech early in this century.

  "[T]he obvious import [of the constitutional guarantee to carry arms]," he argues, "is to promote a state of preparedness for self-defense even against the invasions of government, because only governments have ever disarmed any considerable class of people as a means toward their enslavement."

Disturbing dark fantasies of the Ruling Class

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/02/14/disturbing-dark-fantasies-of-the-ruling-class/

    The big story out of California is a possibly mortal blow struck against the gun-control movement as it exists today.  Part of that story involves the assertion of dignity and independence by citizens who don’t think their inalienable right to keep and bear arms should be a crumb they beg off their political masters’ table.  The Second Amendment is a powerful statement of citizen supremacy over the State: we have the right to defend ourselves, not place blind and helpless faith in the ability of the government to protect us, and yes indeedy, that means we will hold weapons that pose a serious obstacle to tyrannical ambition.

... but they still threw the book at me.

(Click image, magnify, then read this article.) 

The consequences, and just one example how innocent people are turned into criminals by allowing government to make more laws.:

Entire Article:

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/01/04/2011/126181/farmers-warned-over-falling-foul-of-gun-laws.htm

Links:

http://gunowners.org

Facts about firearms:

https://sites.google.com/site/nodakwc/home/gun-rights/gun-control-fact-sheet-2004

The Essential LIberty Project-

Restoring Constitutional Rule

http://essentialliberty.us/about/oath/

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

My Law Review & Other Scholarly Journal Articles

http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/journals.htm

Some firearms related court cases.

“Arms in the Hands of Jews Are a Danger to Public Safety”: Nazism, Firearm Registration, and the Night of the Broken Glass

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2445

If you support gun control laws you are more Hitler Third Reich than American.

"Current" Un-Constitutional American Gun Control Laws are quite similar to Hitlers Third Reich government Gun Laws. 

And current American Justice is also similar to Hitlers Justice.  Both governments turn Innocent citizens into criminals to exploit them for profit.

https://sites.google.com/site/nodakwc/home/tell-your-story/hitler.rtf?attredirects=0&d=1

"So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order..."  - Adolph Hitler

Nazi Gun Control:

The Iron Fist Of Hitler Tyranny

http://alexanderhiggins.com/nazi-gun-control-the-iron-fist-of-hitler-tyranny/

Gun control advocates like to pretend Gun control wasn’t instrumental in the NAZI reign of terror but nothing is further from the truth.

Nazi Gun Control:

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is asine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

             –Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

• •     Classified guns for “sporting purposes”.

  •     All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.

  •     Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.

  •     Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

  •     The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.

  •     Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.  Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3

The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals.  He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4

Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.  In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5

For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

Strict Gun Control Laws ushered in World War.  Actually it was the Weimar Republic, the German Govt prior to Hitler's Govt, which was responsible for the strict gun control policies.  Gun regulation of the Third Reich actually relaxed harsh gun laws from the Weimar Republic for German CItizens but, it worsened gun rights for anyone else the German Government did not like.  But even the strict gun laws of the Weimar and Hitler Governments who were not bound to a Constitution to the contrary was far less restrictive than the current gun control in the USA today which is bound by a Constitution to prohibit its Government from making any law to infringe upon its citizens Right to Bear Arms. Thus, the USA is a criminal government in violation of many governing agreements.

History of firearms restrictions in Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

        Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.  The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.   When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military.   The laws were harshened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens.  The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.

        The treaty had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing inability to hold the state together during the depression, the German government adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens prior to completely disarming the German military. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."

        In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."

 Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

        On August 7, 1920, rising fears whether or not Germany could have rebellions prompted the government to enact a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

        In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

        The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

• •     Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."

  •     The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.

  •     Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.

  •     The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka the Nazi party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.

  •     Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.

       Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

Disarming Jews in Nazi Germany

Nazi law to disarm Jews

        On November 11, 1938 (the day after Kristallnacht) the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons were promulgated by Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, effectively depriving all Jews living under the Third Reich of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition.

        Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'".

Comments:

Comment:

The Constitution has made Firearms Legal for "All" U.S. Citizens.  It is only illegal to infringe on the Right to Bear Arms.  So the real criminals are the Domestic Enemies who Make, Support, Enforce, and Defend Un-Constitutional Laws.

Therefore, those citizens who have a criminal record for Firearms violations are not real criminals, they are POW's taken prisoner by corrupt Government.

Those domestic enemies who enforce Un-Constitutional Laws not only violate the Constitution but, they also are guilty of Perjury Of Oath.  The citizen then has a Right to resist any arrest from those enforcing Un-Constitutional Laws.  Those that enforce such laws commit Assault and Battery against the Citizen.

Comment:

The US Military protects the Federal Govt.

National Guard and State Police protect State Govt.

Sheriffs Dept protects County Govt.

City Police protects City Govt.

The Militia protects The People. 

You are 5 to 6 times likelier to die from rabies than you are from a firearm homocide.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/rabies-kills-77-year-old-woman-in-fremont-county-wyoming-493981.shtml

It is estimated that, each year, rabies kills around 59,000 people.

Comment:

In North Dakota you are 87 times more likely to die from a motor vehicle (130 deaths/yr) than from a firearm used in domestic violence (one and a half per year).

Firearm crime is not that serious of a problem in North Dakota.  Only 6 claimed homocides in 2009 used a firearm, and of the claimed homocides how many may have been self defense?  Most homocides use non-firearms.  Total homocides was not even on the top 10 list of causes of death in North Dakota, nor in all America.

North Dakota Leading Causes of Death.

The following data is for the entire year of 2009 in North Dakota statewide:

2009:

Cause of Death:                         # of Deaths (statewide)

1. Heart disease                 1,431

2. Cancer                     1,242

3. Chronic lower respiratory disease        341

4. Stroke                     337

5. Accidents                     324

6. Alzheimer's disease            366

7. Diabetes                    213

8. Influenza and pneumonia            138

9. Kidney disease                 118

10. Suicide                     90

Homicide by Handgun             3

Homicide by other Firearm            3       

Homicide by knife                2

Homicide by blunt instrument            2

Homicide by personal weapon        3

Homicide by unknown/other            2

(The total homicides for 2009 was 15.) 

(Average homocides per year in ND is 11. )

(Only 6 homocides in 2009 used a firearm.)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/ND_2012.pdf

http://www.ag.state.nd.us/Reports/BCIReports/CrimeHomicide/MURDER11.pdf

Even in the USA as a whole there are many other causes of death that should receive much more attention than gun violence.  People have to realize that life is violent at times with, or without firearms.  And firearms are not only weapons to hurt others but, are also weapons of self defense to save lives.  And because firearms have so many positives that easily outweigh the negatives is why the American Constitution guarantees every free citizen the RIGHT to bear arms.

Comment:

Gun Control actually increases violent crimes, because the person most likely to commit crimes will obtain a firearm off the street in like manner as a drug dealing.  This in itself can create violent crime.  But, the risk of violence increases to both public, and law enforcement because the banned person in possession becomes desperate and may act like a cornered wlid animal, and fight back to avoid capture and encarceration if caught in possession.  If a person is not banned then that person is not in a desperate situation, and therefore wont fight back to avoid punishment which poses less risk to officers.

Comment:

What happens when the enemies infiltrate the Law and government, and these enemies no longer support and defend the constitution? 

What happens when citizens are denied their freedoms because lawmakers and law enforcement have criminalized Constitutional Rights?  What happens when citizens are jailed for Constitutional activities? 

What happens when powerful influences become the Law of the land rather than Constitutional Rule?  What happens when the oath you swore is criminalized, and you are jailed for supporting and defending the Constitution?

Whether you want to admit it, or not it is happening now.  Many current laws are violating our Constitution.  Our Rights are currently not being protected, and are in fact being violated by Law Enforcement and the Legal Process.  The Laws are being Un-equally enforced, and Selectively Prosecuted.  And Laws are being made which restrict Constitutional Guarantees to every American Citizen.

What happens when the enemy is Domestic, and has obtained the Power of the Law and the Government itself?

Comment:

The Constitution guarantees all American citizens the RIGHT to bear arms.  You swore an oath to defend the Constitution therefore, please honor your oath, and prevent any further intrusions on our rights.  And end all current restrictions on firearms presently in place.  The Constitution had a purpose for the Rights.  What the Liars in Law and government are doing is making INNOCENT citizens into criminals so they can restrict firearm possession.  They say we will be safer when criminals dont have guns.  LIE.  Marijuana is illegal but, look how many people get it.  Gun control will only create black markets, real criminals will still get guns but, the innocent citizens will not have any. 

Comment:

 If traitors are above the Constitution, and want to whittle away Constitutional Rights by technicalities saying criminals should not have firearms.  First off many INNOCENT citizens have a criminal record due to many various inadequacies in law.  Falsely convicted, injustices in Law, and/or forced to admit guilt due to various reasons all the while being INNOCENT.  

And many people are guilty of crimes that were never convicted due to many various inadequacies in law.  The reasons are countless. 

So in truth the Law cannot tuely 100% certified guarantee correctly label a person as a "criminal", or "not a criminal".   Many people dont realize that Law is too imperfect.  People assume what ever decision the court makes must be true.  But in reality so many INNOCENT people are turned into criminals, and many guilty persons are not even brought to court, or decided innocent by injustices in Law.   And unless a new device can be invented to guarantee 100% accuracy it is wrong to deprive a person their right to stay alive.  It is bad enough innocent people are punished by the law but, it's "Death Sentence" against that person to deny their right to self defense.

If true criminals could be identified truthfully, I believe the hypocrits who claim to be so self righteous would be labeled as criminal, as well as many people in the Legal system and in governemnt.

Even a real criminal deserves the Right to protect themself and family when free.  If a person is deemed too dangerous for society remove the person, and not the person's Constitutional RIGHT. 

Comments:

This restriction against criminals not allowed to possess firearms is not only Un-Constitutional but, it is also emotionally based, not scientifically founded, and is stereotyping.

Of all firearm violence what percentage of those are done by labled criminals, and how many are done by people not labled as a criminal?  There are people who have never been convicted of a crime who have killed.  And many people labled as criminals who have never killed. 

There is no more certainty that a "labeled" criminal is more likely to kill than a person who is not "labeled" a criminal, other than making more "labeled" criminals only increases the probabilty because you make more "labeled" criminals.  In other words, the more nickels you put in a bag the greater your chances you will pick a nickel from the bag.

It is ridiculous to say only criminals kill so the criminals cannot have firearms.  And it is equally ridiculous to say people who are not criminals do not kill so they should be allowed to have firearms.  Fact is some people with no criminal record kill just as easily as "labeled" criminals.  And some "labeled" criminals have never killed and never will kill.

Anyone at any time is capable of killing either using firearms, or using other weapons.  So it is vanity, and stupidity that boast the Law is so perfect that it now can be God and pre-determine who will kill, and who wont kill.?  And so now it gives the law the right to be above the Constitution.?

Comments:

If I was a victim of a crime, and given a choice of how I would rather be attacked from use of either a firearm, knife, bomb, or a blunt object I would rather be attacked by firearm.  Because a firearm to me is more humane.  It is a small piece of lead that goes into or through the body quickly, and a better chance of survival depending on location of body wounded. 

I would not want to be attacked with a knife.  That would be absolutely the worse.  I could not imagine having to endure a knife going into my body repeatedly, and/or slashed and cut open feeling my body being cut open while my insides fall out, and/ or bleed to death.  That has to be the worse form of attack.

Attack by bomb would be terrible having many pieces of various shapes and sizes of shrapnel metal giong into the body.  That would be worse than multiple gunshots.  Plus the concussion blast alone would damage the body in many ways that can not be repaired.

Attack by blunt objects seems so inhumane also.  The thought of having an attacker picking up something like a club, a rock, a branch, or any household item laying around and continuously striking me blow after blow with it until I am dead or just left in a handicapped state seems totally barbaric.  The thought of my attacker being so close to me as that person is causing so much harm just adds the psychological damage to the physical damage. 

Knife attacks and blunt object attacks are up close attacks whereas gun attacks are usually at a distance so the traumatic stress is reduced by gun wounds.

Also these mass shootings I think are over inflated by the media.  Sad and meaningless as they are, they are a rare event.  And even in those rare cases I would rather see the attacker use gun fire than have them resort to bombs.  Because with gun fire that person is easy to identify and eventually stop.  Plus the attacker can only wound a victim when all ballistics are exact (sighting, trajectory, etc.) and then there is probability the victim will survive.  Whereas bombs are usually hiden and planted covertly so attacker is not easily identified and stopped immediately as a shooter would be.  Plus a bomb injures indiscriminately, and wounds multiple victims in a single blast creating more casualties.

I think real criminals will always find ways to do their crimes with or without guns.  Guns to me is just more humane.  Restricting firearms by way of laws is wrong because it prevents the intended use of the firearms by citizens as explained in the Constitution Bill of Rights and writings of the Framers. 

To think law is so perfect it can classify a person as a criminal and say that person is the one who will kill is the most stupidest statement ever uttered by mankind.  That ridiculous statement is like saying "If I label a bathroom Women, and another bathroom I label Men I can prevent most Men from going into a Womens bathroom, and vice versa".   With more laws being made, increases the number of criminals made, which in turn increases the number of labeled criminals committing crimes.  I imagine if you make more criminals probability is in turn more criminals will be labeled to commit more crimes.Thus naturally makes the data appear that more criminals are committing the crimes.  That is similar to saying "I am in charge of Alligator Control in North Dakota, do you think I am doing a good job?"

In turn all that is really happening is we are making more INNOCENT people into criminals as an excuse to deprive them of Constitutional rights by indirect methods.  And the real reason to make more criminals is to make more money.  By inflating crime data law enforcement and the legal system as a whole make more money from gov't grants, fines, fees, court costs, attorneys, etc...  It's a revenue stream for governments. 

The push to ban firearms from criminals is ridiculous.  Making INNOCENT citizens into criminals so Law can raise money is theft, and deception, and is deprivation of our Rights.  The real criminals are those that steal my Freedoms, and my Rights, and pervert the Constitution. 

It is time to end this discussion and move on to more meaningful things.  LIke improve our economy, improve our way of life, or help those suffering by real causes of death like Heart disease, Cancer, Chronic lower respiratory disease, Stroke, Accidents, Alzheimer's disease, Diabetes, Influenza and pneumonia, Kidney disease, Suicide,           

Why dont those morons pushing their traitorous gun control either accept the American Constitution, or get out.  America, Love it or Leave it.  Firearms bind Americans to the Constitution.  It is supposed to be our guarantee of freedom and liberty.  It is like apple pie, baseball, and the fourth of July.

Comments:

If gun control is about saving lives then the data speaks for itself.  More lives are saved by Americans with guns than are lost by criminal use of guns.  So gun control is an emotional reaction to unfortunate events that happen in society.  Yet removal of firearms will only create more unfortunate tragedies.

Comments:

I dont think there should be any compromise with Firearm possession.  There is no middle ground for Gun Ownership.  Either Firearms for all citizens with no restrictions pertaining to who may possess a firearm, or Firearms should be banned entirely from all citizens.

Gun control people feel they are protecting innocent lives looking at the issue one sided. But, fail to see how firearms may actually save lives by way of self defense of self or others.  If some people can possess firearms while other people cannot creates an un-equal, and un-safe playing field where the armed individual(s) has the advantage to easily over-power the un-armed individual(s).

Gun control people in their efforts to protect some are actually un-protecting others, and neglecting the rights of the citizens who want to protect their lives and lives of others.  Gun control people are setting up the crime scene for muder.  They are not preventing it.  They are allowing one side a firearm, while not allowing the other side equal right.  

What right does another person have to tell me if I can defend my own life?  By denying me the right to save my own life is the same as they murdering me for not allowing me my right to self preservation. 

Therefore, Gun Control people are guilty of Murder on all counts of loss of life for any and all citizens who are denied the Right of firearm possession. 

Then the murder victims family should sue the Local, State, or Federal goverment who enacted the gun control law and claim damages for loss of life due to neglect, and un-equal protection.  Because if the contolling body restricts self preservation then the controlling body must provide at least equal protection that the denied individual would have had if the individual was not restricted.

And monetary award should be granted to the victims family for moneys lost to the family caused by death of the victim, and any all other awards allowed by law.  Which would be in the millions.

Gun control really sets itself up for negligence, and is un-equal protection under the law.

Firearm restrictrictions, or gun control is discrimination with respect to persons.   This Right must not ever be compromised.  Firearms must be either hot, or cold.  Either left, or right right  Never in the middle.  Either Firearms for all , or remove them out of society entirely.

It must not even include criminals, nor mental incompetence.  Because they also have a right to protect their self as well.  If the person is deemed too dangerous for society remove that person from society, not his right to protect himself while amongst society.  Otherwise provide equal protection the individual would have if not denied his right to firearms.

Comments:

What!?  Have you read some of the laws, and the penalties?  Not only firearms laws but, other laws?  Do your listeners realize some of these laws and their impacts?  Do people realize the complexities of these laws in interpretations that not even lawyers can understand let alone the average citizen.  And the vast number of laws which many are just redundancies.

These complexities only lead to un-equal enforcement of the law.  Allowing the law to pick and choose at will whom to enforce the law against, and interpret at will.  Because how many people fight the decision of the court.  IT is Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome to go through the legal process once let alone appeal and go through it again.  People lose, Law wins.

It is Shocking and Scary.

Most of our laws punish people for not only what they actually did wrong but,  our legal system punishes people for what they might do in the future.

You get a clear picture why no one speaks up.  Their mouths are shut.  You cant speak.  There are so many laws you are probably breaking one right now and not knowing it.  Come on man is this really Freedom?  Is this how America is supposed to be?  Have we really become Brittain 1700's? 

Comment:

Vote NO on gun control.  Vote YES to protect 2nd Amendment & Freedom for everyone.

In wake of gun control and gun rights controversy I ask you to fight for the Constitution Bill of Rights that guarantees every free person the Right to bear arms.

As sad are the tragedies are in life they will happen with, or without firearms.  And the fact that firearms protect more lives than they take make them a valuable tool for the citizens.

I also ask you fight to end current bans on firearms as well as preventing new bans.  Even "so-called criminals" have a right to protect their lives, and the lives of their family when they are free in society.

The legal system is too im-perfect, and un-just to guarantee every person it convicts is truely 100% guilty.  As modern science, such as DNA is proveing that many people are wrongfully convicted of crimes.  From several studies, at least 12% of labeled convicted criminals are in fact Innocent.  My belief is that more than 12% are wrongfully convicted.

According to current bans these wrongfully convicted people are not allowed to possess firearms because of a false criminal record.  In addition,  that means the real perpetrator's are roaming free in society without the criminal record allowing them free and legal use of firearms.

So what is created by banning "so-called criminals"?  You will have the true criminal having "legal" use of firearms, while the Innocent wrongfully convicted persons will not be allowed use of firearms.  And the wrongfully convicted person is generally law abiding therefore that person will be unarmed, and defenseless against the real criminals.

Also face the facts that people mis-use the Law for personal gain rather than to fight true crime.  In life people cross paths with some who just may not like you such as a bad neighbor, or are a political rival trying to discredit you, or a business rival trying to destroy  your good image.  Those people make up stories to falsely accuse you to law enforcement to tarnish your record, to punish you for revenge, and all possibilities that will prevent you from fair success.  It is bad enough when those evil people ruin an innocent person's life with false accusations but, then to ban that innocent person from protecting his/her life and depriving that person from their Bill of Rights is absolutely a crime against humanity as well as a crime to this country.

Banning criminals, or any ban against any certain groups will increase wrongful conviction rates because people who want a person dis-armed only need to invent a false story against another to produce a criminal record that would in turn prohibit that Innocent person from their Rights.  This has been used currently by the anti-American gun control individuals.

In addition to the false accusations from the hateful citizens against their peers, the law enforcement itself makes many mistakes in their job that produces criminal records for Innocent citizens as well as not convicting the truely guilty.  Many true crimes are not enforced equally by law enforcement, and many true crimes are not even prosecuted.  Not too mention the fact that there are so many laws on the books that probability is every person has broken the law in some fashion.

So until our criminal justice system can guarantee with 100% accuracy that those they convict are 100% guilty of the crimes they are accused of there should NOT be any infringement of the Right to Bear Arms.

Thank you for your consideration of the truths.

Comment:

Do you think if we make more Laws to ban criminals from Bombs it would stop the mass killings caused by bombs?

Better yet we should ban the capacity of bombs to only enable the bomb to kill only 10 people.  Then we should make more Laws to ban certain types of Bombs.  We should ban hidden bombs, because if they're hidden no one can see them so they are a more deadlier type of bomb.

Then we should have background checks before you can have a bomb.  If you are a criminal you do not get a bomb.  That should stop all the killings, and we will all be safe because the criminals will not be allowed to have bombs.

Comment:

I think many killings are a direct result of the provocations, and actions of the people involved.  Either the killer, or the killed.  I do not use the term victim because the true victim could be either person.  So the answer, in part to preventing killings is to "Change the Conditions that produce violence", and stopping the provocations and injustices that push people to commit acts of violence. 

Looking at violence two-sided rather than one-sided punishment against the accused.  As the saying goes "it takes two to tango".   Often times the action is a reaction to a stimuli.  Thus, equally a person is responsible for our own actions, likewise, the actions of others should also be held responsible.  For example, a person continuously and deliberatley annoying another could cause a violent reaction from the annoyed.  This is a case similar to a match, and a gallon of gas.  The person who lights the match (or person doing the annoying) is at least as much responsible for causing the gas to ignite.  Yet, generally it is only the person who reacted who is punished ( or the gas was punished because it was ignited by the match.)

Thus, changing the conditions that produce undesireable reactions may be the answer, in part, to preventing many violent acts in society as well as many other crimes in society.

Comment:

Any vote that defends our Bill of Rights is the duty of every Official for the people, as well as the duty for all citizens.  Not to make Laws that restrict our Rights but, to preserve them.

Unfortunately, sometimes spineless officials get elected, and bow down to every emotional whim that comes along.  A sad fact of life is that societies since beginning of time have always had people killing people even before the invention of firearms, and this will probably never change even if firearms are totally removed.  People will seek alternatives to firearms such as bombmaking, blunt objects, knives, and all sorts of lethal devices which in the end will make the problem worse taking more innocent lives.

I think the current firearm  bans, and restrictions should also be removed since they are un-constitutional, and are a direct violation of our Bill Of Rights.  The current restrictions are pointless, and do nothing to prevent people from killing.  They only prevent a restricted person from defending themself and their family.  Imagine living in the society such as ours with no means of defense.  Think how many innocent lives were lost because they were banned from firearms.  In my opinion the current firearm restrictions are "aiding and abedding" murderers by not allowing a citizen the natural right of self preservation.

I dont want to appear merciless here but, America is fostering a nation full of cry babies with the ones crying the loudest getting what they want from mommy government. 

According to some scientific studies the researcher claims the best approach to preventing killings are:   "To his credit, Pincus comes down decidedly on the side of changing the conditions that produce violence, as opposed to the contemporary one-sided focus on either individual treatment or punishment, which have far less potential for beneficial results...."

"Changing the Conditions that produce violence" is a logical step to take in appeasing the crowds rather than turning our country upside down restricting and banning our own Constitution, and convicting every false claim that comes along. Convicting even innocent people just to falsely believe we are stopping crime.  Then wasteing more tax dollars to fund this worthless circle of deception.

Comment:

Maybe why so many people hate today's America is not for reasons of hateing the American Constitution but, rather they hate today's America because of what it has degraded to by not following the Constitution by those who think they are above it. 

Comment:

Gun Control focuses on the negatives disregarding the positives that firearms deters some crimes, and saves lives.  It is cruel and unusual punishment to deprive anyone their natural right to self protection.  Is it unreasonable to expect police to patrol the inner-city streets without firearms?  A reasonable person would say that police should be armed because they are in dangerous situations. 

This same reasoning should also extend to the rest of the population as well because the citizens are also in the same dangerous locations as police.  Oftentimes a citizen's situation is much more dangerous than police because the citizen is in the immediate attack zone.  Police arrive most often after the crime has been committed.  So the citizens need for self protection is at a much greater need than police.

Would you feel safe living in a high crime area of an inner-city without a firearm for self protection?  Yet the idea of gun control is to remove your right to defend yourself in a dangerous area.  You cannot expect any person to live in those conditions without personal defense no more than you can expect police to work there unarmed, nor expect soldiers to work in a war zone without firearms, nor expect any person in any dangerous situation their right to personal protection.  The actual need for protection in dangerous situations is increased, not decreased as gun control would have.

So the banned criminal type feels no more safe living in the dangerous inner-city as any other person would.  So they aquire a gun off the street, and they are armed again.  So what has gun control accomplished?  The criminal type is still armed.  The person who tries to abide by the law is unarmed.  In the end the conditions are made much more dangerous, and more crime is actually made.

Gun control is aiding and abedding the real murderers who kill by making their job of killing much easier.  Even the citizen who has a criminal record is entitled to defend themself while free.  Gun control cannot be partial.  It must be either firearms for all, or firearms for no one.  Gun control therefore becomes unequal protection under the Law.    

Instead of removing a persons right to stay alive as gun control does, why not focus on changing the conditions that make people kill.  Divert the wasted billions of dollars spent on gun control and other useless law enforcement programs, and put the funds on programs to improve the lives of those people who are forced to live under impoverished conditions.  Rather than turning innocent people into criminals, and denying the rest of the population their Bill of Rights.

Comment:

    By banning certain citizens from their ability to fight for their "own" Rights and Liberties, you are also preventing those citizens from fighting for "your" Rights as well.  You are also placing a heavier load on yourself because the few remaining citizens still allowed their Rights are left with the burden of fighting without the support of those who cannot.  In a sense you are sending your militia out to war but, only arming a few soldiers while removing the arms from the majority of your soldiers.  All of the soldiers are now in a much dangerous situation.

    By stripping away the Constitutional Rights from your fellow citizens you become a domestic enemy not worthy of protection.  You are making enemies out of allies who would rather see you defeated because of your traitorous acts against their Constitutional Rights which your duty is to protect.

     "those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves".  --Abe Lincoln

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Benjamin Franklin

     Why would anyone fight to preserve the Liberties for the very people who denied them of their Liberties?

Trumps 2nd amendment stance

Trump finally added his second position page to his official campaign website last week. Now, in addition to “Immigration,” we can learn about Trump’s views on “Second Amendment Rights.”

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights     

    But wait, the policy statement continues with the following: “The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans.” A ha! There’s the exception. Only “law-abiding Americans” should be allowed to own as many firearms of any variety as they want. Put another way, he supports infringing upon gun-ownership rights. To repeat: according to Trump, you can only own firearms if you’re law-abiding. But where does it say that in the Second Amendment? There’s nothing in the text specifying that this fundamental right is restricted to “law-abiding” Americans. This means Trump interpreted the Second Amendment in absence of constitutional language to support his position. To be clear, Trump is okay with infringing on the rights of certain Americans who commit crimes.

    Why, then, is it okay for Trump and other gun rights activists to individually interpret the Second Amendment, adding new details that aren’t enumerated there.

Yes, breaking news. Trump contradicts himself a lot and his positions don’t make any damn sense. Shocker.

        Trump notes: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  This statement is not only hypocritical and contradictory but, it also indicates ignorance of the Corrupt Legal Process that Wrongfully Convict Innocent's while rewarding the truely guilty.  

    As examples Law Enforcement Officers commit the most violent assault crimes, the most sexual assault crimes, the most fatal excessive force crimes, and police domestic violence is two to four times higher than the general population.  

    And with over 1.4 Million Laws in the USA the odds of no one breaking one in a lifetime are so astronomical, it would make DNA odds look like simple math.  So we can safely conclude that "IF" every Law was enforced equally, then every American citizen would be a Criminal.  

    Also factor in the number of Innocent citizens Wrongfully Convicted in the USA.  Despite Innocence, over 95% are forced to plead guilty rather than go to trial.  At least 12% of People convicted of  'Serious' crimes are INNOCENT with less serious crimes much higher % innocent wrongly convicted.  Further add the number of Un-Constitutional Laws people are convicted for.  It becomes clear that excluding certain groups from their Rights will significantly increase more Innocent citizens being wrongfully convicted, and it will increase more law making which reduces freedoms.

    So if hypocrits touting the second amendment yet infringe on it themselves by excluding criminals, mental health, licensing, checks, passing tests, this reason and that reason, on and on, .....  then they really dont support the Constitution they claim to support.  What they are really saying is I support the Constitution for myself, and only for those people who share my views but, no one else.  This is clearly a two tier system.  Us, and the Rich.  And if allowed to continue only the Rich will have Rights and be allowed to carry firearms while the rest of us will be their slaves with no Rights.

        Project Exile, using the most superficial analysis possible, might appear to have been successful back when it was implemented in the late 1990s. But digging deeper into gun-related crime statistics, it becomes clear that Richmond’s crime reduction had much to do with a prosperous economy and job growth rather than the draconian use of “mandatory minimum” laws like Exile.  A similar program in Rochester, NY, appeared to work, too, until the economy dipped and crime spiked again.

    Although I think Trump, and Carson are sounding like they are on the right track they both fall short either due to ignorance, or pressures from the elites.  Constitution is for All American CItizens, or it is for None of its citizens, period.

Bill of Rights

According to Trump, NRA, law enforcement, Government, and many other domestic enemies the Bill of Rights was written only for the Law Abiding citizens?  According to them only "Good Guys" are entitled to a Bill of Rights.

Anyone who has broken a law is no longer law abiding, and is considered a Bad Guy, and a criminal by the "Good Guys".

Accordingly, no criminal, or "Bad Guy" is allowed the guarantees of the Bill of Rights?

      Now take that ideology along as you read each of the Bill of Rights.  If you are law abiding why then do you need a Right to protect you from:

Unwarranted search?

Witness against yourself in court?

Double jeopardy?

Speedy trial?

Right to Counsel?

Cross examine witnesses?

Trial by Jury?

No excessive bail?

No excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment?  Etc., ...

      It appears the Bill of Rights was actually written to protect the accused "Bad Guys" from the Tyranny of the self proclaimed "Good Guys".  Remember the Patriots were also called Terrorists, and Criminals by the Government. 

      The framers were so entrenched in these Rights they ensured the so called "Good Guys" from Government would never be able to infringe on any of these Bill of Rights by including the Right to Bear Arms.  That when the Rights are violated we have a natural right to defend our Rights by way of armed force to overthrow the Tyrants, or those self proclaimed "Good Guys". 

Cop's Gun Store Shuts Down After Domestic Violence Arrest

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Gun-Store-Owned-By-Mountain-View-Cop-Shut-Down-Following-Domestic-Violence-Arrest-363199091.html

    NBC Bay Area has learned the San Jose Gun Trader in Santa Clara shut down because owner Tim Minor was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence. That kind of allegation causes a lot of problems when it involves someone who deal with guns....Minor, who ran the store with his wife, was arrested by a Santa Clara County Sheriff deputies on suspicion of domestic violence and spousal abuse...under state law prevents Minor from having any involvement with firearms. The law also applies even if the owner is a police officer....Customers are worried and wondering about the hundreds of guns associated with the store....many guns were confiscated at the time of Minor's arrest and that the other firearms are accounted for.

Rand Paul Fights Back Against Obama on Gun Control

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/rand-paul-fights-back-against-obama-on-gun-control/

...The Junior Senator from Kentucky has introduced legislation which would label any Executive Order as “advisory only” until Congress has voted to approve the same measure. It would also allow any state official, member of Congress or person affected by an executive action on gun control to launch a civil lawsuit. The move by Senator Paul exemplifies his commitment to both the Second Amendment and the Separation of Powers. While no date has yet been set for a vote, the proposed bill is expected to be placed on the Senate calendar in January....

Simply put, there is no such thing as gun “control”— there is only centralization of firearms. When guns are taken, they are removed from law-abiding citizens, leaving those weapons in the hands of only two classes of persons: those engaging in criminal activity and those who work for the state. With that in mind, it is also important to note the historical use of gun centralization to empower totalitarian governments.

For example, following the Boston Tea Party, the British made it more difficult for colonists to bear arms by banning firearm and gunpowder importation. This was in large part because in order to enforce many of the British policies, gun control was a necessity. In one instance, British soldiers attempted to disrupt an illegal town meeting in Salem only to retreat when 3,000 armed Americans arrived.

Another example is that in the South, prior to the Civil War, black Americans had not been permitted to have guns. Many of them possessed these weapons for the first time during the War, either in the course of their service to the Union or in underground markets. Black Codes after the War prohibited Black Americans from owning guns, and the Ku Klux Klan had gun control as one of its most important agenda items.

By fighting against gun control, Rand Paul is taking a stand for the entire Bill of Rights, just as he has so often explained during his Presidential campaign. Paul understands the significance of the Constitution and the principles which it embodies: a guarantee against mob rule and in favor of the protection of individual rights.

Just like his stances on criminal justice and the War on Drugs, Senator Paul wishes to protect those who are most vulnerable from the excesses of government....

2015 Gun Rights in Review

• 68% of voters feel safer having a gun in their home.

• 62% of Americans do not trust the government to administer gun laws fairly.

• Of all mass shootings in America since 1950,       98% took place in gun free zones.

• Guns stopped crime, or were used to save lives        1.5 Million times.

Should Politicians Who Support Gun Control Be Provided Armed Guards?

http://bearingarms.com/secret-service-disarmed/

     ...the vast majority of these politicians are hypocritically receiving publicly-funded armed security to protect their lives. Should these public servants, so intent on disarming the citizenry and stripping their constituents of practical self defense, be allowed security armed with the same firearms they would take away from constituents?

     Or should they be restricted to security armed with less-lethal means such as tasers and chemical sprays, forced to live as they would have those they represent live?

     Politicians are not a special class in the United States, as much as they would like to believe that they are. Those politicians who want to gut the Second Amendment rights of their citizens simply should not be afforded protections they would deny others.

     I’d like to see lawmakers nationwide who value the Constitution do their part to make these anti-liberty politicians play by the rules they would impose on others, and vote to defund the armed security details of anti-gun politicians.

Somehow, I suspect that the views of these politicians might change if they have to live under the same rules they wound spitefully impose upon others.

The alternatives to firearms-  BOMBS, Boobytraps, IED, Homemade devices, Knives, Blunt Objects, Household Items, Vehicular, ...

Do bans and restrictions on the second amendment stop crime, or create more crime?  During the prohibition days did that stop alcohol use, or just created a black market underground world?  Does the ban on marijuana stop people from obtaining and using it?  Do current bans stop violence or increase it?  I imagine once everybody has been incarcerated the problem may diminish but by then, there wont be anyone left in the free world to keep it moving because everyone will be behind bars.

In like manner, creating more bans and restrictions against the citizens may actually provoke normally ordinary law abiding citizens that may retaliate against such restrictions of their freedoms, especially when it is loss of constitutional rights, or injustices in Law.

When Law becomes the criminal, and its crimes are directed at the citizens, by nature mankind seeks self preservation and justice.  Mankind is a social creature and generally is compassionate, sharing, loving, caring, merciful, and normally wants to do right for their fellow man, and woman.  However, as history has proven governments can become tyrannical, and oppressive, and can enslave the people.  Which is why the American Constitution was instituted to guarantee the citizens the right to fight against such tyranny.

Those in power will write laws to preserve their power and their interests at the expense of the common American.  As such, your right to even fight back will become hindered.  Loss of Free Speech where you cannot even speak out in protest.  Those criminals in Law and government who are criminalizing our Bill of Rights know that someday the people may revolt, and so they are disarming those people they think may revolt against them, while allowing those on their political side and who follow their agenda to store up firearms to protect their interest and overcome the resistance.

Basically, law and government has become a cartel where the true criminals of law and government protect their crimes by arming themselves, and disarming everybody else.

As the people are disarmed they may be forced to seek alternatives to firearms.  The IED's, bombmaking, and everyday items may become the future.  Are these devices preferred over firearms.  Are they more humane than firearms?  Are they less deadly?  Are they traceable? 

It's not rocket science to think if a person is determined to kill, that person will do it with or with out a firearm, or will obtain one off the street, or will make one.  So what is the point in gun control other than the fact that it shows lack of respect to our Constitution and everything that it means, and disrepects every man and woman who has ever died to defend it.

For every Law that is made to try to solve a problem, many more problems and more crimes are created as a result.  Thus, a vicious cycle continues which grows.  More crimes creates more laws which creates more crime.  Partly as a direct result of the new laws, and partly as an indirect consequence of the new laws.

In the end no one is Free, and we all are just criminals.

Wrongful conviction rates increase as the Law enforcement look for scapegoats to take the heat for the guilty, and make it look as if they are doing their job by all the convictions they have.  But, yet they didnt tell you that those are not the real perpetrator.  INstead those they arrest are innocent while the guilty are free to make more crimes so more innocent people can become convicted to keep that flow of money going into the hands of all those in the legal system.  And to show everybody how serious crime is in America so more money from tax dollars and private donations are directed back into this fraudulent circle of deception created by the real criminals, the Law itself.

So what are some of the devices being used that people use as an alternative to firearms?  This section briefly looks into these do-it-yourself-everyday-items that replace the firearms.

The following articles come from various sources and I have not personally tested any of them so caution to any person attempting there use.  I have read when making pipe bombs to be sure to carefully clean all powder off the threads, and use a pipe dope or something to reduce risk of sparks when screwing on the end caps.  Nor do we here advocate there use rather we list these articles for educational purposes, and to allow people to realize that firearms are not the problem since methods of killing are many even without firearms.

If you have stories, or links that you can share dealing with this topic of gun alternatives, and why people use them please email them to us at:

NoDakWrongfullyConvicted@gmail.com

Articles for Improvised firearms, munitions, traps, and other deadly devices easily made by anyone using common items are located at end of this page below, and at  https://sites.google.com/site/nodakwc/gun-rights/improvised-lethal-weapons

Why People Kill Links:

This section addresses some of the reasons why people are driven to the point that force them to their "Last Resort".  Refer to Chris Dorner story for his Last Resort manifesto, a fight against injustice in Law.

"No one grows up and wants to be a cop killer. It was against everything I’ve ever was. As a young police explorer I found my calling in life. But, As a young police officer I found that the violent suspects on the street are not the only people you have to watch. It is the officer who was hired on to the department (pre-2000) before polygraphs were standard for all new hires and an substantial vetting in a backround investigation." 

"Those of you who “go along to get along” have no backbone and destroy the foundation of courage. You are the enablers of those who are guilty of misconduct. You are just as guilty as those who break the code of ethics and oath you swore."

-Chris Dorner Manifesto, War Vet & Former Police Officer

For some it may be revenge.  For some the oppression is greater than the joy of living where dieing is preferred over their misery while living.  For some it may be to bring awareness to a topic they are so concerned about.  For some it may be to fight injustices.  For others it may be religion, or political.  The reasons are many.  I think more reasons are due to the result of some injustice rather than just a random act of mischief.  For a person to be driven to their "last resort" in my opinion would have to be due to such a drastic unfair, and unjust action against that person.  As Dorner said, no one grows up and wants to be a killer.  Society shapes and forms the individual.

Most people kill in response to injustices, provocations, and evils directed at them. 

Why do people kill? A Typology of Violent Offendershttp://everydaypsychology.com/2008/07/why-do-people-kill-typology-of-violent.html

Boston Bombing Suspects- Internet Information:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a 19-year-old immigrant from Kyrgyzstan:

To Glasby, Tsarnaev was a social, low-key guy with a messy dorm room and liked to listen to hip hop music.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/umass-dartmouth-friend-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-acted-happened-day/story?id=19005157#.UXKG8Vm6SSp

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev apparently maintained an active Twitter account.  What These Tweets Tell Us About Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Some Tweets: 

"There are people that know the truth but stay silent & there are people that speak the truth but we don't hear them cuz they're the minority".

"Ain't no love in the heart of the city, stay safe people".

"Most of you are conditioned by the media".

"If you have the knowledge and the inspiration all that's left is to take action".

"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing".

"I don't argue with fools who say islam is terrorism it's not worth a thing, let an idiot remain an idiot".

"The value of human life ain't shit nowadays that's #tragic".

"a decade in america already, i want out".

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-bombing-tweets

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 year old brother:

He described himself in a photo essay as a “very ­religious” Muslim who didn’t smoke or drink, but also condemned “people who can’t control themselves,” adding that “there are no values anymore.”...

“I don’t have a single American friend,” he said, “I don’t understand them.”

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/uncle_tamerlan_tsarnaev_started_hating

Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov Statement following the Boston Bomber' Capture:

"Any attempt to draw a connection between Chechnya and Tsarnaevs — if they are guilty — is futile. They were raised in the United States, and their attitudes and beliefs were formed there. It is necessary to seek the roots of this evil in America. The whole world must struggle against terrorism — that we know better than anyone else. We hope for the recovery of all the victims, and we mourn with the Americans."

Read more: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-the-chechen-president-released-his-statement-about-the-boston-bombers-via-instagram#ixzz2R0CKoyT1

It is apparent in Chris Dorner story that he was fighting injustices in the legal system.  Law enforcement personel committing crimes, and the legal system that was allowing it to happen.  Then the legal system punishes him in retaliation for him exposing the crimes in law.  The whole process that pushed him to his Last Resort along with his belief "You are the enablers of those who are guilty of misconduct. You are just as guilty as those who break the code of ethics and oath you swore."   We conclude here Dorner's belief that if you dont fight against injustice you are enableing it to happen.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's tweet "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" , "If you have the knowledge and the inspiration all that's left is to take action", and his strong religious faith and dissatisfaction in American culture that promotes, and rewards evil injustices lead one to conclude he allegedly killed in belief that to fight evil and injustice you must take action and fight against it. 

So from just these two stories the main motives for killings are in response to the American legal system of injustice.  And the belief of doing good is to fight against the bad and evil.

American media and thought are one sided showing only the "results" of American injustices.  We see how a crazed killer for no reason at all is insane and goes on a killing spree.  But, why do we not hear what led up to, and why people kill? 

For example why are the Moslem world so hateful of America?  Why do they attack us?  You see on TV when they bomb American interests.  But, when you see through their eyes you see American forces killing their people, and changing their way of life.  You see a Jewish takeover of Palestine.  It is today American war devices and troops that kill their people.  You see the Christian crusade wars that pushed into the mideast long ago.  You see Western culture invading their culture.  So it is a vicious circle that has at least two sides of view.

Likewise, in America, disregarding religion, you have a cycle of Law, which makes crime, which in turn makes more Law, which creates injustices, which creates more crime, which creates more Laws, .. etc...  These injustices build hostilities.

Most Laws are unnecessary, petty, and un-constitutional and is just intrusion into personal rights and freedoms.  These Laws are made mostly to allow law and government to control you.  All these Laws allow Law to go around your Bill Of Rights so they can violate your privacy, and Rights.  By making everyone a potential criminal stifles political thought, stifles economic growth, creates injustices in Law, promotes evil and corruptness, ... etc..  In the end YOU are NOT Free.

So these stories are revolutionary fights from people with enough guts and courage to act against evil and corruptness in Law and governement.  The same revolutionary spirit as in the days of the early American Patriots at the founding of America who fought against British tyranny.

The legal system loves it because it reinforces the need for their business which packs their pockets full of money from free govt grants, private donations, attorney fees, court fines, and etc....  The trigger happy cops love it so they get to shoot people to fulfill their sick killing fantasies and boost their hero image.  The public loves it because they love dirty laundry, and real life events beat the latest action movies.

So to people who love good, truth, and justice they see America as a great Satan.  They see a nation of evildoers that justify their crimes to make it appear that they are doing what they do for righteousness.  America is covering up their bad by making it appear right, or justified.  It is blind justice.  So the injustices only grows, and worsens.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm....

Articles: Women Disarming Women

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/women_disarming_women.html

The gun control movement has become the new feminist battleground. Courtesy of millions of dollars flowing from Michael Bloomberg to women-fronted groups, the face of "gun control" is now decidedly female. Feminization of the issue is not by happenstance. It is a deliberate strategy designed to appeal to gender voters, to beta males, to those who make decisions based on emotion rather than fact, and to those who are ill-informed but know what is best for all. If this movement is successful, the consequences will be tragic and deadly -- especially for women. ...

    ...The right to protect self and family is the most precious of our constitutional and God-given rights. To all of the Moms who choose to outsource this right to police or a random Good Samaritan, I say, that is your choice. If you as a woman choose to respond to a home invader by cowering in a closet with your children and hoping help arrives in time,,that is your choice. If you prefer to plead for mercy from a criminal who does not value your life, instead of defending your life with a gun, that is your choice. You are free to choose to be a helpless victim. I, and millions of other women, however, choose to be self-reliant and armed so that we have a fighting chance to protect ourselves and our families. We refuse to be defenseless prey for criminals. The Second Amendment gives us that choice and you will not take it from us.

If one were to take out the inner cities, America would rank near the lowest in the world in gun-related homicides. In fact, in the places where gun ownership is least restricted, gun violence is lowest. Mass shootings of the type that took place in Oregon recently – despite the media’s noise over the matter – are the rare exception and not the rule.

And the truth of the matter is that places with the most restrictive gun laws – the inner cities of New York, Detroit, Chicago and Washington, D.C. – have the highest murder rates in the country. That cannot be the fault of guns per se. It is the fault of criminals fighting over the illegal drug trade.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp

    ...There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!...

    Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?...

...it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come....

    It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Domestic Violence is all about Government Supremacy Controlled by Feminists, and to achieve it they must dis-arm America, and Empower Women.

Domestic Violence Laws are actually concealed Un-Constitutional Gun Control Laws made by cowards hiding behind women and children.

The Government freely dishes out Bribery (Grant) Money to the States, Law Enforcment, DV Industry, and others so they will enforce and support the Un-Constitutional Acts of Government.  All of this in violation of the Constitution.

H.R.3813 - Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2015

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3813/text

20,000 Gun Control Laws?

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

So how many gun-control laws are there? Recently, we assembled a significant new database of Major State gun laws, including laws governing how firearms are designed, manufactured, sold, and possessed, that sheds some light on the 20,000 figure. Although we didn’t include every possible law, our count yields approximately 300 different State Laws as of 1999.

State Gun Laws: Slave Codes and the "Wild West"

http://gun-control.procon.org/#background

    Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans;...

    From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called "slave codes" and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, "black codes" (and, still later, "Jim Crow" laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified "free white men." 

    For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, "it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale."

Gun Laws of America (August 1995)

http://www.gunlaws.com/GLOA_Contents.htm

The 271 federal firearm statutes are spread through 30 of the 50 Titles of the U.S.Code.

There were over 1500 bills introduced in the 2013 legislative session, over 100 of which were enacted into law.

FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS

http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html

The following information regards Federal firearms laws only. This information is not meant to offer legal advice.  For exact information contact your attorney or local ATF office. Most States have some firearms laws. Contact your State and local law enforcement officers about local firearms laws. All persons must comply with the Federal and State firearms laws. Violations can result in severe penalties. See FindLaw to read specific statutes and regulations.  See ATF and NRA for further information. The sections of law cited are from Title 18 of the United States Code, e.g. 18 U.S.C. Section § 922(g), unless otherwise described.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF AMERICANS

THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

STATE & FEDERAL GUN LAWS

http://www.freewebs.com/gunlaws/

THERE ARE OVER

20,000 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

STATE & FEDERAL GUN LAWS

NRA-ILA

http://www.nraila.org/legislation.aspx

        Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

(I only listed this site as another source of information so you can see the corrupt activity going on in government.  I do not endorse, nor recommend the NRA.  The NRA is an ass kissing organization that compromises with our Constitution.  Furthermore, read their above "about statement".  Notice the catch phrase "law-abiding individuals".  So only law abiding individuals have Constitutional Rights?  Only law abiding individuals have the Right to Defend Self, Family, and Nation?  Who is law abiding?  Every person in this over-criminalized country is breaking one of the 1.3 Million laws.  Who among you is without sin throw the first stone.  Maybe NRA hasnt heard about the corrupt legal system that makes criminals out of Innocent citizens, or lets truely Guilty people off scot free.  Tell NRA that the Constitution they claim to support guarantees every citizen of the USA the Right to Bear Arms.)

US Senate:

Legislation & Records Home

 - State Traitors making Laws.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/Legislation_and_Procedure.htm

Congressional Record

- US Govt Printing Office

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=CREC

No militia means more intrusive law enforcement:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/09/second-amendment-militia-guns-military-swat-constitution-column/6230769/

    But there is still that language. If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then where is ours? Because if a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it follows that a state lacking such a militia is either insecure, or unfree, or possibly both....

    A professional standing army could turn on the people, placing its loyalty with its paymasters rather than with those it was supposed to protect. The militia, on the other hand, couldn't betray the people because it was the people....

    (In this sense, the militia was like a jury, which is free to acquit even a guilty defendant if it thinks conviction would be unjust. In fact, Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar has likened the militia to jurors with guns because, like the jury, it was an institution made up of the people, through which the government must act, and one not susceptible to the kinds of corruption besetting professional institutions)....

    But this departure from the system the Framers set up has encouraged more intrusive law enforcement at home, and more military action abroad. So I'll ask you: If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then are we insecure? Or unfree? Or both?

American Revolution 2.0 - Are You Ready?

http://americanmilitiaassociation.com/blog/american-revolution-2/

    The primary aspiration of most of today's American Revolutionaries is the correction of the errors in our social system and removal of all existing tyranny and oppression caused by a failure to uphold our compact in its entirety.  Many Americans today who contemplate some sort of revolt do so mainly for a conceptual restoration and execution of the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land which should justly override the errors of all invalid regulations and acts of usurpation by elected or otherwise appointed despotic officials...

    We should not be quick to label such a revolution as an act of insurrection or rebellion, although the enemy will be quick to frame it as such.  The true enemy of these United States are the seditious tyrants occupying power throughout various levels of our state and federal government who defy their Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

    In the case of such an impending conflict, the battle lines are unfortunately blurred due to massive political opposition to such ideas by a population which many of us consider as either to be blindly misled or otherwise grossly ignorant of the concepts of liberty, capitalism, republicanism or our mutual contractual obligations under the Constitution.  Some of our opposition are even entirely indifferent to our compact and favor true democratic mob rule or something far worse....

    Getting people together to change government through the electoral process is almost impossible in an environment where such a large segment of the population is neither educated nor interested in political affairs.  The fact that political parties and candidates are being funded by huge corporations and associations, results in a situation where the elite class just have way too much power and influence over legislation and little care for protecting individual rights.  Of course, it's our own collective fault for blindly allowing the parties to create both the problems and solutions appearing to face our nation.  By simply allowing these party machines to frame all of our political arguments and optional cures, the result will normally be an oppressive act or regulation that violates someone's right.  Regardless of which party wins an electoral battle, we continue to blindly lay the groundwork for some eventual reduction in our liberty when we play their well orchestrated game under their established rules rather than our own original compact.

    It seems a futile effort to try and fight against such power through the exercise of an individual right to vote, especially when the list of candidates are rigged, and the polls are invaded by outsiders or paid operatives of the parties and private interests seeking to enlarge their political influence.  Politicians, once elected, who swear an Oath to support and defend the Constitution commonly ignore it altogether or create mythical interpretations of its clauses to support their actions.

    As revolution is relatively deemed a final step in a series of options available to us,  many have tried other avenues of recourse.  Protests, rallies and grassroots political campaigns have been attempted over several decades revealing no acceptable solution to the problems which face our dwindling republic. We have been forced to witness the continued reduction of our liberties and stand by in amazement as even our expressly written protected rights fade away almost entirely into oblivion as our failures with these approaches continue to have no great effect.  Revolution, therefore becomes a path completely worthy of consideration.

    When considering revolution however, we must ask ourselves if we are truly ready to take such a path.  We must give great consideration to our ability to unite and successfully execute such a war.

Are we ready?

The answer unfortunately is an absolute NO....    

    While Congress is supposed to provide standards for our training under a set military discipline, they have ignored that responsibility entirely.  While federal and state governments do fund the National Guard with uniforms, arms, ammunition, and a variety of support systems, we the people, in our own local jurisdictions are essentially abandoned.  There is no budget for genuine militia training, no legal requirement for attendance and no broad election by the States to provide adequate management or appointment of its officers.  Yet billions of dollars are spent each year on national defense, supporting the standing armies under direct control of the tyrannical leadership of state and federal government.  The result is a well financed police state, for which the people have little control or influence.

Paul Jenkins: To decide whether we're fighting guns or violence, we need better definitions

https://www.adn.com/article/20151212/paul-jenkins-decide-whether-were-fighting-guns-or-violence-we-need-better

        Obama’s predictable response to the well-planned California attack that killed 14 and left 21 wounded should come as no surprise. It is the same tired rhetoric we have heard for years; the same approach. Make a law. It didn’t work? OK, make another one. That did not work, either? Make yet another. We are left with thousands of “common sense” gun control laws that have no effect on bad guys with guns. It is business as usual. Again, no surprise. ...

        When the numbers are adjusted for a host of factors -- population, development, ethnicity -- the annual death rate for mass public shootings in the United States ranks eighth when compared to European nations, the Crime Prevention Research Center notes. When you compare the frequency of mass shootings, it ranks ninth....

        “three or more killings in a single incident” is a “mass murder.” ...mass shootings in the United States have averaged about 20 per year since the mid-1970s, with no clear trend.

How to disarm the American People:

Domestic Enemy Gun Control Strategy

    First you ignore the Constitution and make numerous Laws that are voluminous and too incoherent to be understood.  You further make Laws that criminalize normal human emotions, reactions, feelings, thoughts, etc.... so that every human is guilty of the Law just for being a human. 

    You further make Laws that are un-equal in definition, and un-equally enforced to create division, hostilities, vengeance, etc.... 

    Then make more Laws that Ban Firearms against those people who violate the unjust, and most often Un-Constitutional Laws that were made. 

If a Government, or any entity makes a law which bans a person his/her natural right to self defense and prohibits the person their firearm right does that same government or entity have a duty to provide equal protection of the law to the denied person? 

    In other words, Government must supply equal protection to the denied citizen as that citizen would have received if he were not denied his right to firearms.  Thus, government must provide 24/7 personal armed body guard protection to every citizen who is banned from firearms.   

    For example, if a man who is banned from firearms under a State, or Federal Law in his home is attacked by an armed attacker, and the armed attacker shoots the home owner and suffers severe injuries because the homeowner is banned from protecting himself and family, should the banned homeowner be allowed to sue the Government for failure to provide equal protection he would have had if he were not denied his firearm rights?

    What if a Govt law was made banning seatbelts for certain people, and you were in a car accident.  Should you be able to sue the Government for preventing your Right to be safe in your own car?

Law School Prof Suing Over Gun Prohibition In Wake Of Unarmed Prof Being Gunned Down

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/law-school-prof-suing-gun-prohibition-wake-unarmed-prof-gunned/

        In a suit that falls just after unarmed history professor Ethan Schmidt was gunned down on the Delta State University campus, a University of Missouri law professor is suing to have his school’s prohibition against guns for self-defense declared unconstitutional.

Missouri’s state constitution declares the right to keep and bear arms “unalienable” and requires that any prohibition against carrying guns for self-defense be examined under “strict scrutiny.”

"Gun Control" is "People Control"

For gun owners, an alternative to seizure

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/for_gun_owners_an_alternative_to_seizure_di_ionno.html

    Hand guns. Long guns. Legal guns. Guns once legal, now illegal due to new laws. Collectible guns. Hand-me-down guns, worth nothing but sentimental value.  Guns from people facing domestic violence charges, temporary restraining orders or other legal trouble. Guns from deployed soldiers. Or from people with kids in the house. Or from people trying to sell their houses.

    That vault – encased in 3 feet of concrete on all sides, with steel-plated floors, ceilings and walls, and a 10,000-pound dynamite-proof door – now holds hundreds of guns legally transferred by their owners to a unique business called "Gunsitters."...

    The New Jersey laws for gun seizure cast a very wide net in domestic incidents. A gun collector in Cumberland County had his weapons seized after his wife was accused of abusing her 81-year-old father. Because the husband and wife lived together, his guns were taken, even though he wasn't named in the complaint....

    "Another client is a retired police officer whose son got in trouble, so he can no longer keep his guns in the house," ...

    Much of Gunsitters business comes from people facing domestic charges. In New Jersey, the law requires guns be seized in the case of any domestic complaint, including verbal harassment....

    State police statistics from 2012 (the last year available) show there were 65,060 domestic complaints in New Jersey. ...

    The answer came three years ago, when a friend of Rebels, who is police officer, was facing a domestic harassment charge.  "He knew they would seize his guns and he would probably never get them back," Rebels said.  Rebels and Osias hired gun-rights experts and worked with law enforcement agencies to create a legal temporary and permanent transfer business....

    "This way, at least they get money for their guns," Rebels said. "If police seize them (and eventually destroy them), it's a total loss."

North Dakota, Minnesota see record highs in handgun permits

http://www.inforum.com/news/3926301-north-dakota-minnesota-see-record-highs-handgun-permits

 FARGO – Over the past decade, the number of people with a permit to carry a concealed handgun has increased more than fivefold in North Dakota ...

"Gun Control" protects the "Government Criminals" from You.

"Guns" protect "You" from the Government Criminals.

The Bill Of Rights stands between Tyranny and Liberty, Prevents the old anachronistic criminal elements of centralized government.

The newly usurped despotic 

Second Amendment now states:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless otherwise regulated by illegitimate Laws, and Governmental Regulations."

Usurpation of Powers

https://youtu.be/RUuF4qjMFQs

When the federal government does things outside of its delegated authority, it unlawfully takes sovereign power that doesn’t belong to it.  So, the feds steal power with every unconstitutional act.  Or, as the founders referred to it, the feds are committing an act of usurpation.  As St. George Tucker put it, this is an act of "treason against the sovereignty of the people."

North Dakota State Firearms Prohibited Persons:

North Dakota Century Code

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t62-1c02.pdf#nameddest=62p1-02-01p1

62.1-02-01. Persons who are not to possess firearms - Penalty.

1.    a.  A person who has been convicted anywhere of a felony offense involving violence or intimidation in violation of chapters 12.1-16 through 12.1-25 or an equivalent felony      offense of another state or the federal government is prohibited from owning a firearm or having one in possession or under control from the date of conviction and continuing for a period of ten years after the date of conviction or the date of release from incarceration, parole, or probation, whichever is latest.

    b.  A person who has been convicted anywhere of a felony offense of this or another state or the federal government not provided for in subdivision a or who has been convicted of a class A misdemeanor offense involving violence or intimidation in violation of chapters 12.1 -16 through 12.1-25 or an equivalent offense of another state or the federal government and the offense was committed while using or      possessing a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or, as defined in subsections 7 and 8 of section 12.1 -01-04, a destructive device or an explosive, is prohibited from owning a firearm or having one in possession or under control from the date of      conviction and continuing for a period of five years after the date of conviction or the date of release from incarceration, parole, or probation, whichever is latest.

    c.  A person who is or has ever been diagnosed and confined or committed to a hospital or other institution in this state or elsewhere by a court of competent jurisdiction, other than a person who has had the petition that provided the basis  for the diagnosis,   confinement,   or   commitment   dismissed   under   section  25-03.1-17,   25-03.1-18,   or   25-03.1-19, or equivalent statutes of another jurisdiction, as a person requiring treatment as defined in section 25-03.1-02, or  as a mentally deficient person as defined in section 25-01-01, is prohibited from  purchasing a firearm or having one in possession or under control. This limitation does not apply to a person who has not suffered from the disability for the previous three years or who has successfully petitioned for relief under section 62.1-02-01.2.

    d.  A person under the age of eighteen years may not possess a handgun except that such a person, while under the direct supervision of an adult, may possess a handgun for the purposes of firearm safety training, target shooting, or hunting.

    A person who violates subdivision a or b is guilty of a class C felony, and a person  who violates subdivision c or d is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

2.  For the purposes of this section, "conviction" means a determination that the person committed one of the above-mentioned crimes upon a verdict of guilt, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere even though:

    a.  The court suspended execution of sentence in accordance with subsection 3 of section 12.1-32-02;

    b.  The court deferred imposition of sentence in accordance with subsection 4 of section 12.1-32-02;

    c.  The court placed the person on probation;

    d.  The person's conviction has been reduced in accordance with subsection  9 of section 12.1-32-02 or section 12.1-32-07.1;

    e.  Sentence dispositions, sentence reductions, or offense determinations equivalent to this section were imposed or granted by a court, board, agency, or law of another state or the federal government; or

    f.  The person committed an offense equivalent to an offense described in subdivision a or b of subsection 1 when that person was subject to juvenile adjudication or proceedings and a determination of a court under chapter 27-20 or of a court of another state or the federal government was made that the person committed the delinquent act or offense.

Federal Prohibited Persons

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:

• •     Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

  •     convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

  •     who is a fugitive from justice;

  •     who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

  •     who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

  •     who is an illegal alien;

  •     who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;

  •     who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

  •     who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

  •     who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

Federal Firearms Denials year 2014

https://sites.google.com/site/nodakwc/gun-rights/fed%20firearm%20denial%202014.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

Background Checks Prevent Gun Violence and Save Lives

https://everytownresearch.org/background-checks-loophole/

    Since the system was established, background checks have blocked over 3 million sales to people with felony convictions, domestic abusers, fugitives, and other people prohibited by law from having guns....

THE MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT IN

VOISINE V. UNITED STATES

AND THE RESULTING LOSS OF SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION

http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2414&context=akronlawreview

DV LAW = GUN CONTROL = USURPED LAW

Democrats Are Using VAWA to Extend Gun Prohibition to Non-Violent Domestic Crimes

https://fee.org/articles/democrats-are-using-vawa-to-extend-gun-prohibition-to-non-violent-crimes/

Loss of Gun Ownership...Nonviolent and common behavior can result in the loss of gun ownership.

Economic, Verbal, and Technological Abuse...

SHALL NOT INFRINGE, EXCEPT FOR:

Here is every new gun law in the U.S. since the Parkland shooting

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/02/13/here-is-every-new-gun-law-in-the-us-since-the-parkland-shooting/

    In all, 123 new laws were enacted in the 364 days since the Parkland tragedy, according to data collected by the Associated Press. Below is a list of them all, organized by state....

LOL. THE HYPOCRATS AND REPUBLICRATS OLIGARCHIES NOW HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR STANCE BECAUSE THEY STAND FOR EVERYTHING SO THEY FALL FOR ANYTHING....

The NRA Now Opposes the Violence Against Women Act

https://splinternews.com/the-nra-now-opposes-the-violence-against-women-act-1833611872

    Amid pressure to act on gun control, GOP lawmakers have turned to their staunchest ally, the NRA, for backup on an issue near and dear to their hearts: voting down the Violence Against Women Act. ...

LAW USURPS THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS ANYONE, INCLUDING THE COLOR OF LAW, TO DENY RIGHTS...

New California laws for 2020

https://www.latimes.com/projects/new-california-2020-laws

    California will ring in 2020 with hundreds of new state laws addressing a range of issues including monthly limits on gun purchases...Gov. Gavin Newsom signed almost 1,200 new laws this year...

    Employers, co-workers and teachers will be able to ask for a gun-violence restraining order against a person beginning in September — no longer leaving the gun seizures only to families and law enforcement.  If a judge agrees, one-year gun seizures from those who are thought to pose a danger to themselves or others could be extended annually for up to five years....

    Law enforcement officers can use deadly force only when it’s “necessary in defense of human life,” a standard created following fatal officer-involved shootings across California....

DOMESTIC ENEMIES OPENLY ADMIT THEY WILL VIOLATE AND DENY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW...

Denver Police start enforcing the red flag law now — here’s how

https://denverite.com/2020/01/01/how-denver-police-will-enforce-the-red-flag-law-now-in-effect/

As of Jan. 1, the state’s red flag law is in effect.

The law allows family members to ask a judge for what’s called an extreme risk protection order, which removes guns from someone that family member believes is a danger to themselves or others. Cops and household members can also request this protective order. Denver Police Division Chief of Investigations Joe Montoya admits the law makes some of his officers nervous but said the department is equipped and prepared to enforce it. And he thinks that could happen soon....

DOMESTIC ENEMIES MAKING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS USURPING POWERS WHICH THE USA CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS THEM TO DO IS ALSO USING THE MONEY THEY STOLE FROM JOHN SLAVES TO BRIBE THE STATES TO ENFORCE THE USURPED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS...

All Information (Except Text) for H.R.4192

Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2017

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4192/all-info

    To establish a grant program to encourage States to adopt certain policies and procedures relating to the transfer and possession of firearms....

As of Sept. 2017:

AT LEAST 17 MILLION USA CITIZENS DENIED FIREARM RIGHTS.

Gubmint Blackmale to force its Ho's to submint their False Reports to deny Bill of Rights, or lose Bribery Money...

Bill would require states to report domestic violence information or lose grants

http://www.guns.com/2017/11/02/bill-would-require-states-to-report-domestic-violence-information-or-lose-grants/

    Pennsylvania Republican Ryan Costello is sponsoring a bill that would encourage states to add more of their domestic violence abusers to the federal database of prohibited firearms possessors.  A bipartisan effort to increase domestic violence reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System would trim federal grant opportunities to states that don’t play ball.  The measure, H.R.4183, was introduced Wednesday by Pennsylvania Republican Ryan Costello and New York Democrat Kathleen Rice. It aims to create incentives for states to provide complete domestic violence records to federal background check databases while penalizing those that do not.... Designed to improve local criminal history record systems, the NCHIP program awarded $33.9 million in grants to states and territories last year. ... As a carrot to balance the proverbial stick, the bill would also allow participating states to receive more funding through the NICS Act Record Improvement Program, which helps offset local efforts for the transmittal of records to federal systems. Established in 2008, the program awarded more than $15 million in grants in 2016.... Of the nearly 17 million view active prohibitive records in NICS as of September, 152,000 are for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence....

Symbols of Rebellion: Then and Now

http://bearingarms.com/symbols-rebellion-now/

The American Revolution is just as relevant now as it was in 1775. In this video, we cover the Sons of Liberty, the Gadsden Flag, and the Pine Tree Flag, or Appeal to Heaven Flag common during the times of the Founding Fathers. We also discuss John Locke and his 2nd Treatise on Government.

THE WITNESS' TESTIMONIES SEEMS TO CONFLICT...

Boston Massacre

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre

    The Boston Massacre was a deadly riot that occurred on March 5, 1770, on King Street in Boston. It began as a street brawl between American colonists and a lone British soldier, but quickly escalated to a chaotic, bloody slaughter. The conflict energized anti-British sentiment and paved the way for the American Revolution. ...

The Founding Fathers Fought the Revolutionary War to Stop the Type of Militarized Police We Now Have In the U.S.

www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/founding-fathers-fought-war-stop-militarized-police.html

    The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770, was a catalyst toward the American Revolution. Five civilians were killed by the British soldiers.

The Declaration of Independence, in condemning the offenses against liberty by George III, stated:

• •         He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

  •         He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

  •         He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction  foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  •             For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us

  •             For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states

     “Just before the American Revolution, it wasn’t the stationing of British troops in the colonies that irked patriots in Boston and Virginia; it was the England’s decision to use the troops for everyday law enforcement.”

    The Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of troops in Americans’ homes against their will during peacetime. The Third Amendment is rarely litigated, and the Supreme Court has never heard a case primarily concerning the amendment, but it was included in the Bill of Rights out of a larger concern that a standing army could be used for the purposes of enforcing the law. “The actual quartering of British troops in the private homes of colonists was rare…It was the predictable fallout from positioning soldiers trained for warfare on city streets, among the civilian populace, and using them to enforce law and maintain order that enraged colonists.”

How The British Gun Control Program Precipitated The American Revolution

https://www.oathkeepers.org/how-the-british-gun-control-program-precipitated-the-american-revolution/

          Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army....

        In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate....

        The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770....

        It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule.,,,

        “If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes. “And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.”...

        Governor Gage then tried another approach – warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. ...

        The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills....

        British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. ...Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence....

          Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands....

        “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.”...

        When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy.

But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following (emphasis added):   {"The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .”}

Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them....

        Their reason for disarming American citizens today is the same as that of the British in the 1770s.

At the time of the Siege of Boston, the Continental Army at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in June 1775, is estimated to have numbered from 14-16,000 men ...

The British force in Boston was increasing by fresh arrivals. It numbered then about 10,000 men. ...

Major Generals Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne, had arrived late in May and joined General Gage in forming and executing plans for dispersing the rebels. Feeling strong with these veteran officers and soldiers around him—and the presence of several ships-of-war under Admiral Graves—the governor issued a proclamation, declaring martial law, branding the entire Continental Army and supporters as "rebels" and "parricides of the Constitution." Amnesty was offered to those who gave up their allegiance to the Continental Army and Congress in favor of the British authorities, though Samuel Adams and John Hancock were still wanted for high treason. This proclamation only served to strengthen the resolve of the Congress and Army.

Patriot (American Revolution)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_%28American_Revolution%29

"Patriot":    "A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter. Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence."  - The Oxford English Dictionary third definition

Sons of Liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty

The Sons of Liberty was a formal underground organization with recognized members and leaders. More likely, the name was an underground term for any men resisting new Crown taxes and laws.

"...a forerunner to German concentration camps."

POWs During The American Revolution

http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-america-review/volume-6/pows-during-the-american-revolution/

    ****American Prisoners captured by British:  On September 14, 1775, Americans received the notice of the death of twenty of the thirty-one prisoners taken at Bunker Hill. [iv] The reason why over half these men died is unclear. Some may have suffered from wounds and others may have succumbed to the crowded, unsanitary conditions of prison life...

    The British armada arrived in New York on September 15, 1776 and captured Fort Washington on November 16. A detailed account of the capitulation of Fort Washington is described in Richard Ketchum’s book, The Winter Soldiers. Ketchum writes that of the 230 American officers and the 2,607 American soldiers who surrendered at Fort Washington, only 800 were still alive eighteen months later.

The treatment of American captives progressively worsened the farther they were removed from the battle area. Typically, they were stripped of their clothing and given old worn-out garments. They were marched through the streets of the city and subjected to insults from the Loyalist crowds. During the winter of 1776-77, snow would blow in and sweep across the great rooms....

    “Each morning several frozen corpses were dragged out, thrown into wagons like logs, and then pitched into a large hole. In a brief time, the naked bodies would be exposed because of the weather conditions and afterwards be consumed by swine and wild animals”.

Samuel Young recalls being confined in a stable with 500 men where food was thrown to them, “…in a confused manner, as if to so many hogs, a quantity of old biscuit, broken, and in crumbs, mostly moulded, and some of it crawling with maggots… next day a little pork given to each of them, which they were obliged to eat raw”.

Prisoners received their rations twice a week: one-half pound of biscuit, one half pound of pork, one-half pint of peas, one-half gill of rice, and a half ounce of butter. They were allowed one fire every three days on which to cook their food. Guards would sell old beef bones and other types of garbage to the Americans. They slept in bare rooms with no straw or hay on which to lie. Their water was brought to them in chamber pots. They became afflicted with lice and other vermin. “As a consequence, the men began to die like rotten sheep, with cold, hunger and disease as constant comrades.” ...

    On December 24, 1776, a group of prisoners were released, but several of them had fallen dead on the way to the ship. According to Ambrose Serle, somewhere in the neighborhood of two thousand militia-men were released without exchange and allowed to return to their homes to spread the message of Howe’s humanity and the futility of further resistance. [xiii] The health of these men was so deplorable that many died before reaching home. One man, Lieutenant Oliver Babcock, brought smallpox home with him and died of the disease on January 24. A short time later, two of his children died of smallpox. [xiv] As a result, Washington refused to return healthy British prisoners for Americans who were so ill that many died. One of the captives later reported, “The guards were wont to tell a man, while in health, ‘You have not been here long enough, you are too well to be exchanged'”. ...

    Joseph Plumb Martin’s autobiography of his life as a revolutionary soldier, had this to say about the Provost in Philadelphia and his treatment of American prisoners of war,

“At the Battle of Germantown, in 1777, a Dutchman, an inhabitant of that town, and his wife fired upon some of the British during the action. After the battle, someone informed against them and they were both taken and confined in the provost guardhouse and there kept with scarcely anything to sustain nature and not a spark of fire to warm them. On the morning that the Augusta was blown up at Fort Mifflin, the poor old man exclaimed ‘Huzzah for General Washington. Tomorrow he comes.’ The villain Provost Marshal upon hearing this put him into the cellar, without allowing him the least article of sustenance, till he died.”...

    Prison Ships:  “When our crew was put on board her, the number of prisoners amounted to about 800. …Our situation here was extremely unpleasant. Our rations were not sufficient to satisfy the calls of hunger. …We had a great deal of sickness on board the Jersey and many died on board her. The sickness seemed to be epidemic, which we called the bloody flux or dysentery. …Boxing (among prisoners) was tolerated without stint. Pilfering of food was another evil, which prevailed. …The situation of the prisoners was truly appalling.”...

    **** British, German and Loyalists’ Captives in America:  Laura L. Becker of Clemson University wrote a journal article focusing on a single town, Reading, Pennsylvania, and the role of her citizens in housing British and Hessian prisoners of war. As early as February 1776, Reading was already receiving prisoners of war and her leading citizens petitioned the Pennsylvania Assembly to erect barracks “capable of containing four of five hundred men.” …They were “much surprised at so large a party being ordered here without any previous notice.”

Reading was a small, backwater market town of roughly 300 heads of families of mostly German decent. For the first few years of the war, a substantial proportion of the prisoners were officers but “in October of 1781, no fewer than 1050 prisoners arrived, most of whom were privates.”

When they arrived, the prisoners were disarmed and subject to an eight P.M. curfew. Laura Becker writes, “This curfew was not strictly enforced because at least some of the officers participated in the town’s social activities. One British officer who ‘was under the patronage of Doctor Potts…had been introduced to our dancing parties and being always afterwards invited, he never failed to attend.’ Although POW’s were not allowed to leave Reading without permission, grants of parole were readily available, and a substantial number of the officers held in Reading were permitted to go to Philadelphia, New York, or elsewhere. Still others were exchanged.”...

    ****Conclusion:   Colonial prisoners of war started with a hand-full collected by the British after the Battle of Bunker Hill. A year later, the humiliating defeat and surrender of Fort Washington in New York City greatly increased the number of ‘rebel’ prisoners that the British were forced to warehouse and feed. The American failure of the Canadian campaign, the occupation of Philadelphia and the loss of several southern cities, overburdened the feeble English effort to properly house and feed the numbers of colonial prisoners that were forced upon them.

When I first started my research into prisoners of war, I was shocked to learn from one book, The Winter Soldiers that over two-thirds of the prisoners taken in the New York campaign perished....

    The Continental soldiers and the so-called troublemakers who remained suffered terribly. Lack of warmth, clothing, and crowded, unsanitary conditions with often-brutal jailers did not make a pleasant experience for most enlisted men.

Prison ships were another place where conditions were intolerable. The stink and the filth and the bugs must have been a forerunner to German concentration camps. But again, certain patriotic historians try to estimate the amount of deaths over a multi-year period and come out with figures like eleven thousand. These numbers do not take into account the number of sailors who defected to save their lives nor the number of prisoners shipped to England after 1781....

The American Revolution Was Just One Battlefront in a Huge World War

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/american-revolution-was-just-one-battlefront-huge-world-war-180969444/

     “The American Revolution: A World War” demonstrates with new scholarship how the 18th-century fight for independence fit into a larger, international conflict that involved Great Britain, France, Spain, the Dutch Republic, Jamaica, Gibraltar and even India. “If it had not become that broader conflict, the outcome might very well have been different,”...   “As the war became bigger and involved other allies for American and other conflicts around the world, that led Britain to make the kind of strategic decisions it did, to ultimately grant the colonies independence and use their military resources elsewhere in the world.”... 

To the French, Spanish and Dutch governments, this was not a war about liberty: It was all about power and profit....

On the other side of the Atlantic, France and Spain planned to invade Britain, and the Spaniards hoped to re-capture Gibraltar. However, Britain thwarted both endeavors before deciding to fight for India. While France faltered in trying to regain some of its Indian footholds lost in the Seven Years War, Great Britain succeeded. The last battle in this global conflict known in the United States as the American Revolution was not fought on the fields of Virginia in 1781: It occurred two years later at Cuddalore, India....

“We Americans are too narrow-minded in how we view our national history, as if we alone have determined our own destiny. Yet this has never been true,” says Allison. “Our nation was formed from colonies of other nations, and the native peoples they encountered in North America. The revolution that gave us independence was in fact a world war, and battles fought elsewhere determined the outcome as much as what happened in North America. Without allies, the colonies would never have gained their freedom. Since then, development and prosperity have always been shaped by our relations with other countries, as they continue to be today. American history without the perspective of its international context leads us to false and dangerous perceptions of who we really are."

Top 40 Government Watch List of Suspected Terrorists and Criminals

1765 to 1788:

    George Mason, Alexander McDougall, Daniel Shays, Joseph Plumb Martin, Marquis de Lafayette, Jack Sisson, Ethan Allen, Joseph Warren, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Hancock, John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, Jonathan Shipley, William Paca, James Madison, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, William Molineux, Timothy Matlack, Thomas Paine, Paul Revere, Patrick Henry, Samuel Prescott, Molly Pitcher, Roger Sherman, Philip Mazzei, Nathanael Greene, Nathan Hale, Francis Marion, Andrew Pickens, Daniel Morgan, James Mitchell Varnum, Joseph Bradley Varnum, George Washington, John Paul Jones, Thomas Sumter, Francis Vigo, Elijah Isaacs, Benedict Arnold (defected), ...  A Few Black Patriots:  Crispus Attucks, Jack Sisson, James Armistead Lafayette, 1st Rhode Island Regiment, William Flora, Saul Matthews, Prince Whipple, ...

ARNOLD WAS A BRITISH LOYALIST...

Benedict Arnold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold

    Benedict Arnold (14 January 1741 [O.S. 3 January 1740] – 14 June 1801) was an American military officer who served during the Revolutionary War. He fought with distinction for the American Continental Army, rising to the rank of major general, before defecting to the British side of the conflict in 1780. General George Washington had given him his fullest trust and placed him in command of West Point, New York. Arnold planned to surrender the fort to British forces, but the plot was discovered in September 1780 and he fled to the British lines. Arnold received a commission as a brigadier general in the British Army, commanding the American Legion in the later part of the conflict. Arnold's name quickly became a byword in the United States for treason and betrayal because he led the British army in battle against the very men whom he had once commanded....

    Others in his military and political circles brought charges against him of corruption or other malfeasance, but most often he was acquitted in formal inquiries. Congress investigated his accounts, however, and concluded that he was indebted to Congress, and he borrowed heavily to maintain a lavish lifestyle.  Arnold mingled with Loyalist sympathizers in Philadelphia and married into one such family...

    He led British forces in the Raid of Richmond and nearby areas, and they burned much of New London, Connecticut, to the ground and slaughtered surrendering forces after the Battle of Groton Heights—just a few miles downriver from the town where he had grown up. In the winter of 1782, he and Peggy moved to London, England. He was well received by King George III and the Tories but frowned upon by the Whigs and most Army officers....

USA MINUS ITS CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS EQUALS BRITISH.

THE RATIO OF LOYALISTS TO PATRIOTS TO THOSE WHO DIDNT GIVE A SHIT EITHER WAY IS UNCLEAR.  SOME SAY PATRIOTS ACCOUNTED FOR A THIRD. SOME SAY THE LOYALISTS WERE A THIRD.  OTHERS HAVE NUMBERS GOING HIGHER AND LOWER FOR EACH.  EITHER WAY THE AMERICAN CAUSE WAS N OT UNANYMOUS AND NEITHER WAS THE BRITISH CAUSE...

Loyalist (American Revolution)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

    Loyalists were American colonists who stayed loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War, often referred to as Tories, Royalists, or King's Men at the time. They were opposed by the Patriots, who supported the revolution, and called them "persons inimical to the liberties of America". Prominent Loyalists repeatedly assured the British government that many thousands of them would spring to arms and fight for the crown.... Patriots watched suspected Loyalists very closely and would not tolerate any organized Loyalist opposition. Many outspoken or militarily active Loyalists were forced to flee, especially to their stronghold of New York City. William Franklin, the royal governor of New Jersey and son of Patriot leader Benjamin Franklin, became the leader of the Loyalists after his release from a Patriot prison in 1778. He worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war, but the number of volunteers was much fewer than London expected....

    Historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:  Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle—some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority.

    Before Calhoon's work, estimates of the Loyalist share of the population were somewhat higher, at about one-third, but these estimates are now rejected as too high by most scholars. In 1968 historian Paul H. Smith estimated there were about 400,000 Loyalists, or 16% of the white population of 2.25 million in 1780.

    Historian Robert Middlekauff summarized scholarly research on the nature of Loyalist support as follows:  The largest number of loyalists were found in the middle colonies: many tenant farmers of New York supported the king, for example, as did many of the Dutch in the colony and in New Jersey. The Germans in Pennsylvania tried to stay out of the Revolution, just as many Quakers did, and when that failed, clung to the familiar connection rather than embrace the new. Highland Scots in the Carolinas, a fair number of Anglican clergy and their parishioners in Connecticut and New York, a few Presbyterians in the southern colonies, and a large number of the Iroquois stayed loyal to the king.

    New York City and Long Island were the British military and political base of operations in North America from 1776 to 1783 and had a large concentration of Loyalists, many of whom were refugees from other states.

    According to Calhoon, Loyalists tended to be older and wealthier, but there were also many Loyalists of humble means. Many active Church of England members became Loyalists. Some recent arrivals from Britain, especially those from Scotland, had a high Loyalist proportion. Loyalists in the southern colonies were suppressed by the local Patriots, who controlled local and state government. Many people—including former Regulators in North Carolina — refused to join the rebellion, as they had earlier protested against corruption by local authorities who later became Revolutionary leaders. The oppression by the local Whigs during the Regulation led to many of the residents of backcountry North Carolina sitting out the Revolution or siding with the Loyalists.

    In areas under Patriot control, Loyalists were subject to confiscation of property, and outspoken supporters of the king were threatened with public humiliation such as tarring and feathering, or physical attack. It is not known how many Loyalist civilians were harassed by the Patriots, but the treatment was a warning to other Loyalists not to take up arms. In September 1775, William Drayton and Loyalist leader Colonel Thomas Fletchall signed a treaty of neutrality in the interior community of Ninety Six, South Carolina. For actively aiding the British army when it occupied Philadelphia, two residents of the city were tried for treason, convicted, and executed by returning Patriot forces.

    Many of the slaves in the South joined the Loyalists with intentions of gaining freedom and escaping the South....The survivors joined other British units and continued to serve throughout the war. Black colonials were often the first to come forward to volunteer and a total of 12,000 African Americans served with the British from 1775 to 1783....Americans who gained their freedom by fighting for the British became known as Black Loyalists. The British honored the pledge of freedom in New York City through the efforts of General Guy Carleton, who recorded the names of African Americans who had supported the British in a document called the Book of Negroes, which granted freedom to slaves who had escaped and assisted the British....

    many Loyalists departed the U.S. for British North America. She calculates 60,000 in total, including about 50,000 whites (Wallace Brown cites about 80,000 Loyalists in total permanently left the United States....The vast majority of the half-million white Loyalists, about 20-25% of the total number of whites, remained in the U.S....  The great majority of Loyalists never left the United States; they stayed on and were allowed to be citizens of the new country. Some became nationally prominent leaders, including Samuel Seabury, who was the first Bishop of the Episcopal Church, and Tench Coxe.... The Patriot reliance on Catholic France for military, financial and diplomatic aid led to a sharp drop in anti-Catholic rhetoric. ...

The Real Story of Paul Revere’s Ride

https://www.biography.com/news/paul-reveres-ride-facts

       On the evening of April 18, 1775, silversmith Paul Revere left his home and set out on his now legendary midnight ride. Find out what really happened on that historic night.

Paul Revere's Ride by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

https://americanliterature.com/author/henry-wadsworth-longfellow/poem/paul-reveres-ride

Independence Day (United States)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(United_States)

    During the American Revolution, the legal separation of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain in 1776 actually occurred on July 2, when the Second Continental Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence that had been proposed in June by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia declaring the United States independent from Great Britain's rule. After voting for independence, Congress turned its attention to the Declaration of Independence, a statement explaining this decision, which had been prepared by a Committee of Five, with Thomas Jefferson as its principal author. Congress debated and revised the wording of the Declaration, finally approving it two days later on July 4....

    Americans celebrated independence on July 4, the date shown on the much-publicized Declaration of Independence, rather than on July 2, the date the resolution of independence was approved in a closed session of Congress....

    By a remarkable coincidence, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the only two signers of the Declaration of Independence later to serve as Presidents of the United States, both died on the same day: July 4, 1826, which was the 50th anniversary of the Declaration. Although not a signer of the Declaration of Independence, James Monroe, another Founding Father who was elected as President, also died on July 4, 1831. He was the third President who died on the anniversary of independence. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President, was born on July 4, 1872; so far he is the only U.S. President to have been born on Independence Day....

         Independence Day, also referred to as the Fourth of July or July Fourth, is a federal holiday in the United States commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The Continental Congress declared that the thirteen American colonies regarded themselves as a new nation, the United States of America, and were no longer part of the British Empire.... After voting for independence, Congress turned its attention to the Declaration of Independence, a statement explaining this decision, which had been prepared by a Committee of Five, with Thomas Jefferson as its principal author. Congress debated and revised the wording of the Declaration, finally approving it two days later on July 4. ...

Declaration of Independence

http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.htm

DocuVEVO | The American Revolution, Vol.1 of 6 PBS Documentary

https://youtu.be/wJSUmpT77hw

DocuVEVO | The American Revolution, Vol. 2 of 6 PBS Documentary

https://youtu.be/XAwO2VvgkvY

DocuVEVO | The American Revolution, Vol. 3 of 6 PBS Documentary

https://youtu.be/RpLys3gI8VQ

DocuVEVO | The American Revolution, Vol. 4 of 6 PBS Documentary

https://youtu.be/F0_RmcIYhhw

DocuVEVO | The American Revolution, Vol5 of 6 PBS Documentary

https://youtu.be/XNPmQXQY9Dg

DocuVEVO | The American Revolution, Vol 6 of 6 PBS Documentary

https://youtu.be/KPIm0SF5CkQ

Mayflower Compact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact

Mourt's Relation:

A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, 1622

http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/mourt1.html

Colony of Virginia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_Virginia

Was the first permanently settled English colony in North America. Newfoundland, with seasonal settlements, had been established as a colony by Royal Charter in 1583. ... this was the first colony in the British Empire."  The colony existed briefly during the 16th century, and then continuously from 1607...

John Smith -  British explorer

https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Smith-British-explorer

Tisquantum

http://mayflowerhistory.com/tisquantum/

William Bradford (Plymouth Colony governor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bradford_(Plymouth_Colony_governor)

List of Mayflower passengers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayflower_passengers

Aboard the Mayflower, 1620

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/mayflower.htm

Wampanoag

http://mayflowerhistory.com/wampanoag/

THE TURKEY GOD

Chalchiuhtotolin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalchiuhtotolin

    In Aztec mythology, Chalchiuhtotolin ( "Jade Turkey") was a god of disease and plague. Chalchihuihtotolin, the Jewelled Fowl, Tezcatlipoca's nahual. Chalchihuihtotolin is a symbol of powerful sorcery. Tezcatlipoca can tempt humans into self-destruction, but when he takes his turkey form he can also cleanse them of contamination, absolve them of guilt, and overcome their fate. In the tonalpohualli, Chalchihuihtotolin rules over day Tecpatl (Stone Knife) and over trecena 1-Atl (Water).

    The preceding thirteen days are ruled over by Xolotl. Chalchihuihtotolin has a particularly evil side to him. Even though he is shown with the customary green feathers, most codices show him bent over and with black/white eyes, which is a sign reserved for evil gods such as Tezcatlipoca, Mictlantecuhtli, and Xolotl. Another depiction of Chalchiuhtotolin's evil side includes the sharp silver of his talons. His nahual, of course, is a turkey in which he terrorizes villages, bringing disease and sickness.

NATIVE AMERICAN GENOCIDE DARK ORIGINS OF THE "AMERICAN DREAM"

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Genocide/genocide.html

How Columbus' "Discovery" Set Off the Brutal Native American Oppression that Continues Today

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/doctrine-discovery-500-years-genocide/

    Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery...  In 1454, the Bull Romanus Pontifex was issued by Pope Nicholas V to King Alfonso V of Portugal, which declared war upon all non-Christians worldwide. He specifically sanctioned and promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of all non-Christians and lands under their control....

Religious Doctrine That "Legalized" Columbus' Native Genocide Went On To Become US Federal Law

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/religious-doctrine-columbus-native-law/

Thanksgiving (United States)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(United_States)

    Fourth Thursday in November....practices that long predate the European settlement of North America. The first documented thanksgiving services in territory currently belonging to the United States were conducted by Spaniards and the French in the 16th century.  Thanksgiving services were routine in what became the Commonwealth of Virginia as early as 1607, with the first permanent settlement of Jamestown, Virginia holding a thanksgiving in 1610. In 1619, 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Hundred in Charles City County, Virginia. The group's London Company charter specifically required "that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned ... in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God."... 

    The most prominent historic thanksgiving event in American popular culture is the 1621 celebration at the Plymouth Plantation, where the settlers held a harvest feast after a successful growing season....The Plymouth settlers, known as Pilgrims, had settled in land abandoned when all but one of the Patuxet Indians died in a disease outbreak. After a harsh winter killed half of the Plymouth settlers, the last surviving Patuxet, Tisquantum, more commonly known by the diminutive variant Squanto (who had learned English and avoided the plague as a slave in Europe), came in at the request of Samoset, the first Native American to encounter the Pilgrims. Squanto taught the Pilgrims how to catch eel and grow corn and served as an interpreter for them until he too succumbed to the disease a year later. The Wampanoag leader Massasoit also gave food to the colonists during the first winter when supplies brought from England were insufficient.

    The Pilgrims celebrated at Plymouth for three days after their first harvest in 1621. The exact time is unknown, but James Baker, the Plimoth Plantation vice president of research, stated in 1996, "The event occurred between Sept. 21 and Nov. 11, 1621, with the most likely time being around Michaelmas (Sept. 29), the traditional time." Seventeenth-century accounts do not identify this as a Thanksgiving observance, rather it followed the harvest. It included 50 people who were on the Mayflower (all who remained of the 100 who had landed) and 90 Native Americans. The feast was cooked by the four adult Pilgrim women who survived their first winter in the New World (Eleanor Billington, Elizabeth Hopkins, Mary Brewster, and Susanna White), along with young daughters and male and female servants.

    Two colonists gave personal accounts of the 1621 feast in Plymouth. The Pilgrims, most of whom were Separatists (English Dissenters), are not to be confused with Puritans, who established their own Massachusetts Bay Colony on the Shawmut Peninsula (current day Boston) in 1630.  Both groups were strict Calvinists, but differed in their views regarding the Church of England. Puritans wished to remain in the Anglican Church and reform it, while the Pilgrims wanted complete separation from the church.

    William Bradford, in Of Plymouth Plantation wrote:...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Plymouth_Plantation

    Edward Winslow, in Mourt's Relation wrote:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourt%27s_Relation

    The Pilgrims held a true Thanksgiving celebration in 1623... William DeLoss Love calculates that this thanksgiving was made on Wednesday, July 30, 1623...

    The First National Proclamation of Thanksgiving was given by the Continental Congress in 1777...Delegate Samuel Adams created the first draft. Congress then adopted the final version:...It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive Powers of these United States to set apart Thursday, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise: That at one Time and with one Voice, the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that, together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favor; and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please God through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance;...

    This proclamation was published in The Independent Gazetteer, or the Chronicle of Freedom, on November 5, 1782, the first being observed on November 28, 1782:

By the United States in Congress assembled, PROCLAMATION.... commanding the observation of THURSDAY the TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER next as a day of SOLEMN THANKSGIVING to GOD for all His mercies...

    As President, on October 3, 1789, George Washington made the following proclamation and created the first Thanksgiving Day designated by the national government of the United States of America:...assign Thursday the 26th day of November...

    President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national Thanksgiving Day, to be celebrated on the 26th, the final Thursday of November 1863....  Abraham Lincoln's successors as president followed his example of annually declaring the final Thursday in November to be Thanksgiving. But in 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt broke with this tradition. November had five Thursdays that year (instead of the more-common four), Roosevelt declared the fourth Thursday as Thanksgiving rather than the fifth one.... Roosevelt thought an earlier Thanksgiving would give merchants a longer period to sell goods before Christmas. Increasing profits and spending during this period, Roosevelt hoped, would help bring the country out of the Depression....  December 26, 1941, President Roosevelt signed this bill, for the first time making the date of Thanksgiving a matter of federal law and fixing the day as the fourth Thursday of November....

Mourt's Relation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourt%27s_Relation

    The booklet Mourt's Relation was written primarily by Edward Winslow, although William Bradford appears to have written most of the first section. It was written between November 1620 and November 1621 and describes in detail what happened from the landing of the Mayflower Pilgrims on Cape Cod in Provincetown Harbor through their exploring and eventual settling of Plymouth Colony....   Morton was an Puritan Separatist who had moved to Leiden, Holland. He stayed behind when the first settlers left for Plymouth, Massachusetts...In 1623, Morton himself emigrated to the Plymouth Colony with his wife Juliana, the sister of Governor William Bradford's wife Alice. But George Morton didn't survive long in the New World; he died the following year in 1624....   A copy was rediscovered in Philadelphia in 1820, with the first full reprinting in 1841.

BRADFORD WAS A SEPARATIST.  HE WAS NOT INTEGRATIONIST, AND NOT SEGREGATIONIST.  THE PILGRIMS WERE THE PEOPLE ON THE MAYFLOWER WHICH WERE BOTH SEPARATIST AND NON-SEPARATIST ONLY BECUS THE SHIP SPEEDWELL WAS UNSOUND FOR THE VOYAGE....

William Bradford (governor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bradford_(governor)

    was an English Puritan separatist originally from the West Riding of Yorkshire in Northern England. He moved to Leiden in Holland in order to escape persecution from King James I of England, and then emigrated to the Plymouth Colony on the Mayflower in 1620. He was a signatory to the Mayflower Compact and went on to serve as Governor of the Plymouth Colony intermittently for about 30 years between 1621 and 1657. His journal Of Plymouth Plantation covered the years from 1620 to 1646 in Plymouth....

    King James I came to the English throne in 1603, declaring that he would put an end to church reform movements and deal harshly with radical critics of the Church of England....The Scrooby congregation decided in 1607 to leave England unlawfully for the Dutch Republic, where religious freedom was permitted, and Bradford determined to go with them....By the summer of 1608, however, they managed to escape England in small groups and relocate to Leiden in the Dutch Republic. Bradford was 18....By July 1620, Robert Cushman and John Carver had made the necessary arrangements, and approximately fifty Separatists departed Delftshaven on board the Speedwell....The Speedwell, however, proved to be not structurally sound enough to make the voyage, and some of the passengers were transferred aboard the Mayflower, making crowded conditions....These passengers of the Mayflower, both Separatist and non-Separatist, are commonly referred to today as "Pilgrims."...The Mayflower departed Plymouth, England on September 6/16, 1620....

    They spotted Cape Cod hook on November 9/19, 1620, after about a month of delays in England and two months at sea. They spent several days trying to get south to their planned destination of the Colony of Virginia, but strong winter seas forced them to return to the harbor at Cape Cod hook, now called Provincetown Harbor, where they anchored on November 11/21, 1620. The Mayflower Compact was signed that day, Bradford being one of the first to sign....In November and December, these parties made three separate ventures from the Mayflower on foot and by boat, finally locating Plymouth Harbor in mid-December and selecting that site for settlement....

    Loss of first wife...Great sickness...Governor of Plymouth...  William Bradford's most well-known work by far is Of Plymouth Plantation. It is a detailed history in journal form about the founding of the Plymouth Colony and the lives of the colonists from 1621 to 1646...  William Bradford died on May 9, 1657 and was buried on Burial Hill in Plymouth....

WINSLOW WAS A SEPARATIST.  HE WAS NOT INTEGRATIONIST, AND NOT SEGREGATIONIST.  ALONG WITH BRADFORD WHO OPPOSED THE CORRUPT GUBMINT OF ENGLAND....

Edward Winslow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Winslow

    3rd Governor of Plymouth Colony... Edward Winslow (18 October 1595 – 8 May 1655) was a Separatist who traveled on the Mayflower in 1620. He was one of several senior leaders on the ship and also later at Plymouth Colony. Both Edward Winslow and his brother, Gilbert Winslow signed the Mayflower Compact.... Edward Winslow was born in 1595 and would have been baptized a few days later. He was the eldest son of Edward Winslow Sr. of Droitwich, in Worcestershire, England, by his wife Magdalene Oliver...    In 1617 Edward Winslow traveled to Leiden Holland to join the English exile Separatist church and help Elder William Brewster with his underground (illicit) printing activities. Brewster and young Edward Winslow in 1618 were responsible for a religious tract, Perth Assembly, critical of the English king and his church bishops...

    Winslow quite soon became a leading member of the English exiles meeting as the Leiden church group. On June 10, 1620, Winslow was one of four men – the others being William Bradford, Isaac Allerton and Samuel Fuller...  Winslow and his wife Elizabeth were part of the Leiden Separatist group who had decided to travel far away from England and the repressive regime of King James I to more freely practice their religious beliefs...Traveling on the Mayflower... Edward Winslow lost his wife Elizabeth on March 24, 1621 and just a month and half later, on May 12, 1621, Edward Winslow and Susanna White became the first couple to marry in Plymouth Colony. They were married in a civil ceremony by Governor William Bradford....

    Edward Winslow was an experienced diplomat acting for Plymouth in its relationship with English officials....in 1643 Winslow was one of the commissioners of the United Colonies of New England, which was a military group uniting the various New England colonies against the natives.  By the early 1640s England was engaged in a great civil war. Some settlers returned to England to join the efforts to overthrow the reigning King, Charles I. In 1646, Winslow began working for Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector. After King Charles was executed in 1649, Edward Winslow had plans to return to Plymouth but soon became involved in the problems of England. He would never return to Plymouth....

In 1654, Winslow was commissioner of an English naval mission against the Spanish in the West Indies. They were victorious but Winslow contracted yellow fever and died on May 7, 1655 near Jamaica....

Of Plymouth Plantation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Plymouth_Plantation

    Of Plymouth Plantation is a journal that was written over a period of years by William Bradford, the leader of the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. It is regarded as the most authoritative account of the Pilgrims and the early years of the colony which they founded.

The journal was written between 1630 and 1651 and describes the story of the Pilgrims from 1608, when they settled in the Dutch Republic on the European mainland through the 1620 Mayflower voyage to the New World, until the year 1647. The book ends with a list of Mayflower passengers and what happened to them which was written in 1651....

    The document has carried many names. At the top of the original text is Of Plim̃oth Plantation,[a] but newer prints of the text often use the modern spelling, "Plymouth." The text of Bradford's journal is often called the History of Plymouth Plantation. In Wilberforce's text it is cited as History of the Plantation of Plymouth. It is also sometimes called William Bradford's Journal. A version published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (after the return of the manuscript from England in 1897) is titled Bradford's History "Of Plimoth Plantation".

    Bradford, Edward Winslow, and others contributed material to George Morton, who merged everything into a letter which he published as Mourt's Relation in London in 1622. It was primarily a journal of the colonists' first years at Plymouth.  The Bradford journal records the events of the first 30 years of Plymouth Colony,...

    Bradford's original manuscript was left in the tower of the Old South Meeting House in Boston during the American Revolutionary War. British troops occupied the church during the war, and the manuscript disappeared—and remained lost for the next century....the missing manuscript was finally discovered in the Bishop of London's library at Fulham Palace; it was brought back into print in 1856....  Diocese of London was not the proper repository for that information at the time when the Thirteen Colonies declared independence in 1776. So the bishop's court ordered that a photographic copy of the records be made for the court, and that the original be delivered to the Governor of Massachusetts.  The Bradford journal was presented to the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during a joint session of the legislature on May 26, 1897. It is on deposit in the State Library of Massachusetts in the State House in Boston....

Bradford's History of 'Plimoth Plantation' by William Bradford

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24950

     Of Plimoth Plantation.  1. Chapter....

    2. Chap.  Of their departure into Holland and their troubls ther aboute, with some of the many difficulties they found and mete withall....

    The 3. Chap.  Of their setling in Holand, & their maner of living, & entertainmente ther...

    The 4. Chap.  Showing ye reasons & causes of their remoovall....

    The 5. Chap.  Shewing what means they used for preparation to this waightie vioag....

    The 6. Chap.  Conscerning ye agreements and artickles between them, and such marchants & others as adventured moneys; with other things falling out aboute making their provissions....

    The 7. Chap.  Of their departure from Leyden, and other things ther aboute, with their arivall at South hamton, were they all mete togeather, and tooke in ther provissions....

    The 8. Chap.  Off the troubls that befell them on the coaste, and at sea being forced, after much trouble, to leave one of ther ships & some of their companie behind them....

    The 9. Chap.  Of their vioage, & how they passed ye sea, and of their safe arrivall at Cape Codd....

     The 10. Chap.  Showing how they sought out a place of habitation, and what befell them theraboute....

      The 2. Booke. The rest of this History (if God give me life, & opportunitie) I shall, for brevitis sake, handle by way of annalls, noteing only the heads of principall things, and passages as they fell in order of time, and may seeme to be profitable to know, or to make use of. And this may be as ye 2. Booke.

        Anno Dom: 1620. - Anno Dom: 1647-8.

    IF THIS IS WHAT IS BEING CALLED THE FIRST PILGRIM THANKSGIVING?  IDK...

    Anno Dom: 1621.    After this, ye 18. of Septembr: they sente out ther shalop to the Massachusets, with 10. men, and Squanto for their guid and interpreter, to discover and veiw that bay, and trade with ye natives; the which they performed, and found kind entertainement. The people were much affraid of ye Tarentins, a people to ye eastward which used to come in harvest time and take away their corne, & many times kill their persons. They returned in saftie, and brought home a good quanty of beaver, and made reporte of ye place, wishing they had been ther seated; (but it seems ye Lord, who assignes to all men ye bounds of their habitations, had apoynted it for an other use). And thus they found the Lord to be with them in all their ways, and to blesse their outgoings & incom̅ings, for which let his holy name have ye praise for ever, to all posteritie.

    They begane now to gather in ye small harvest they had, and to fitte up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health & strenght, and had all things in good plenty; for as some were thus imployed in affairs abroad, others were excersised in fishing, aboute codd, & bass, & other fish, of which yey tooke good store, of which every family had their portion. All ye som̅er ther was no wante. And now begane to come in store of foule, as winter aproached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, &c. Besids they had aboute a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since harvest, Indean corne to yt proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largly of their plenty hear to their freinds in England, which were not fained, but true reports....

Zuni Turkey Dance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rNIZInG5as

Kawaika Laguna Pueblo - Laguna Turkey Dance 1969

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQcAbxNwgJ0

powwow dance styles

https://youtu.be/kzmTa9x14BA?t=145

START AT 2:25

Awesome Pow Wow Nevada Native American Dancing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJkkK3PG3qw

Loon Lake Powwow '09, Mens Traditional Special, Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEnYkp0bCIg

THE REASON USA NEEDS NRA IS BECUZ USA DOESNT HAB A CONSTITUTION.  CORRUPT AMERICA NEEDS CORRUPT REPRESENTATION....

NRA declares bankruptcy, says it will reincorporate in Texas

https://news.yahoo.com/nra-files-bankruptcy-says-reincorporate-215035964.html

The National Rifle Association said Friday it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and will seek to reincorporate in Texas, calling New York, where it is currently registered, a "toxic political environment."  The big picture: The move comes just months after New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit to dissolve the NRA, alleging the group committed fraud by diverting roughly $64 million in charitable donations over three years to support reckless spending by its executives....

BIDEN IS A SLAVE HOLDER AND SUPPORTS SLAVE LAWS.   ALL SLAVES WHO CALL NIGGERS THE "N" WORD ARE BANNED OF HIS RIGHTS BECUZ THAT IS WHAT IS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THEREFORE BANNING ALL SLAVES FROM THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT INFRINGING ON THE CONSTITUTION.  ANYONE WHO CALLS NIGGERS THE "N" WORD IN A CROWDED THEATER MUST BE BANNED OF ALL RIGHTS BECUZ HE IS A SLAVE BECUZ NIGGER IS THE CODE WORD FOR FIRE...

Remarks by President Biden on Gun Violence Prevention | The White House

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-gun-violence-prevention/

    Nothing — nothing I’m about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment.  They’re phony, arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what we’re talking about.  

     But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.  You can’t yell crowd — you can’t tell [yell]* “fire” in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech.  From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.  From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.  So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.

     Gun violence in this country is an epidemic.  Let me say it again: Gun violence in this country is an epidemic, and it’s an international embarrassment.  (Applause.) ...

Missouri Senate approves bill seeking to nullify federal gun laws

https://www.therolladailynews.com/story/news/2021/05/14/missouri-senate-approves-bill-seeking-nullify-federal-gun-laws/5093280001/

    State and local law enforcement would be prohibited from enforcing certain federal gun laws under legislation approved Thursday night by the Missouri Senate.  For more than six hours, Democratic Senators tried to add an amendment to the bill aimed at keeping people convicted of domestic abuse from buying and keeping firearms — but ultimately failed.  The bill now goes back to the House. If it passes there, which is expected, it would head to the governor’s desk.  The bill creates a “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” which would mandate that law enforcement officers face fines if they “infringe” on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.....

DEMOCRACY IS HYPOCRISY.

AFTER BANNING NIGGERS, SLAVES, AND BAD GUYS, THE LAW ABIDING GOOD GUYS LEGALIZE THE CONSTITUTION FOR THEMSELVES TOUTING THEY HAB A RIGHT TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT WHILE DENYING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THE REST.  NOW SLAVE PATROL IS WORRIED THE LAW ABIDING GOOD GUYS MIGHT SHOOT THEM....

Texas will soon allow people to carry handguns without a license, background check, or training

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/05/26/nation/texas-will-soon-allow-people-carry-handguns-without-license-background-check-or-training

    The bill would allow adults 21 and older without a felony criminal conviction to carry a handgun without a license or background check.  Nearly two dozen other states allow some form of unregulated carrying of a handgun....  Before the bill’s passage, law enforcement groups expressed concern there would be no way to weed out people who should not be carrying a gun in advance if they do not possess a license. To alleviate concerns, a bipartisan group of lawmakers conferred, adding stiffer penalties for felons caught illegally carrying guns....

Background checks blocked a record high 300,000 gun sales

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/background-checks-blocked-record-high-300000-gun-sales-78420709

    The number of people stopped from buying guns through the U.S. background check system hit an all-time high of more than 300,000 last year amid a surge of firearm sales, according to new records obtained by the group Everytown for Gun Safety....background checks blocked nearly twice as many gun sales in 2020 as in the year before....

The increase in blocked gun sales largely tracks with the record-setting surge in sales that took hold along with the coronavirus pandemic and has continued into this year, through historic demonstrations against police brutality, deep political divisions and an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol....

    About 42% of those denials were because the would-be buyers had felony convictions on their records....  Everytown’s research found that 16% of would-be gun buyers in 2020 were prohibited by state law, like the extreme-risk protection orders or red-flag laws passed in several states. Another 12% were related to domestic violence, either people subject to a protective order or convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime....

Biden Tries To Turn Domestic Security Into Partisan Witch Hunt

https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/biden-tries-turn-domestic-security-partisan-witch-hunt

    The day after 9/11, everything changed. Realizing the nation needed a more integrated, holistic approach to domestic security, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security. Combating terrorism became job No. 1.

    All this came with a caveat. From the start, Americans remained understandably concerned. Under the wrong leaders, these powerful instruments of public safety could be turned into weapons for partisan action: suppressing free speech, invading privacy, denying the right to assemble peacefully, and persecuting political opponents.

    Isn’t that exactly what the Biden administration is now doing?

    The warning signs are certainly all there.

    Consider how this administration is politicizing the threat of domestic terrorism. Addressing Congress in April, President Joe Biden intentionally labeled "white supremacist" terrorism as the "most lethal terrorist threat" to the United States.

    False.

    A March 2021 intelligence community assessment says domestic violent extremists of all political stripes pose "an elevated threat." We must remember several serious threats facing the homeland, such as cybersecurity breaches, pandemics, natural disasters, foreign terrorist organizations, and transnational criminal organizations. Each of these causes serious economic damage and loss of life. There is no data or supporting assessment to claim white supremacists are the most lethal threat to the homeland.

    Yet, that is exactly what our president asserted.

    Nuance matters. Biden wants Americans to pay attention to one threat above all others, and he wants to tie that threat to his political opponents....

    The strategy also emphasizes restricting gun rights, which indicates a very politically driven agenda....

    One upshot of this insidious partisanship is that many states may cease cooperating with Federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces and end cooperative intelligence sharing. They may fear being recruited into a partisan witch hunt against Biden's political opponents....

HEAD SLAVE PATROL GUBMINT PIMP SAYS THE USA CONSTITUTION IS A MISTAKE.  BILL OF RIGHTS IS A BILL OF WRONGS.  THE STARS AND BARS MUST BE DESTROYED AND REPLACED WITH A RED FLAG.  GUBMINT PIMP SAYS HE CANT MAKE MORE SLAVES IF THE SLAVES HAB RIGHTS.  HE URGES EVERYONE TO WAVE THE RED FLAG AND FABRICATE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ALL NIGGERS OR SLAVES TO HAB HIM BANNED OF ALL RIGHTS.  SIMPLY CALL 911-SLAVE-PATROL AND SAY SLAVE PUT MASTA HO IN GAS CHAMBER....

Attorney General Bonta Releases 2020 Gun Sales Data, Calls on Californians to Use Red Flag Laws

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-releases-2020-gun-sales-data-calls-californians-use-red

    Press Release Attorney General

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released statewide 2020 gun sales data. The data shows a record increase in the number of hand guns legally sold in the state, and the number of long guns sold last year was second only to 2016. With the increase in firearms across the state, Attorney General Bonta partnered with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to call on Californians to utilize the state’s red flag laws – Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs). GVROs and DVROs can help local law enforcement temporarily recover firearms or prevent the purchase of firearms by individuals who have shown a probability to commit violence. Red flag laws can be a proactive tool to help prevent gun violence....

WHITE SUPREMACIST HYPOCRAT BIDEN SAYS SHALL NOT INFRINGE GIBS HIM THE POWER TO DENY RIGHTS TO NIGGERS OR SLAVES SIMPLY BY WRONGFULLY CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME OF EVERYTHING BECUZ HE WILL USE GUNS TO PUT MASTA HO IN GAS CHAMBER....

Remarks by President Biden at a Meeting with Latino Community Leaders

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/03/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-meeting-with-latino-community-leaders-to-discuss-his-economic-agenda-immigration-reform-and-the-need-to-protect-the-sacred-constitutional-right-to-vote/

    And, you know, we all act together to counter what is basically domestic terrorism, domestic violence, domestic extremism, and end the scourge of gun violence in America. We can’t end it, but we sure can make a big difference than what it is now. And so, I continue to do everything in my power to do that.  The most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland in recent years is domestic terrorism — domestic terrorism rooted in white supremacy....

    And my administration is carrying out the country’s first-ever comprehensive effort to tackle the threat of domestic terrorism — from reducing online radicalization to disrupting networks that inspire violence, and providing resources to communities to build up some resilience.  And I’m going to continue to fight this for more commonsense gun laws. And we’re going to continue to call on Congress to take action, which they’ve been reluctant to do.  That includes a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines like the one used in El Paso. The idea anybody needs, for a pistol and/or a rifle — anyone needs 10, 12, 20, 30, 100 rounds in a rifle is just — it just makes no sense at all. Zero. Doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights to say, “You can’t do that.” But it just has to stop.  And that includes using my existing authority, which I have...

WHEN LAW AND CONSTITUTION DISAGREE WHICH IS SUPREME?  IN THE UNITED SLAVES THE CONSTITUTION WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SUPREME BUT THE USA JUST MAKES LAWS THAT SAY LAW IS SUPREME DESPITE THE LAWS MOST OBVIOUS AND BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS...

Poland’s top court rules its constitution trumps some EU laws

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/07/world/polands-top-court-rules-its-constitution-trumps-some-eu-laws

European laws were unconstitutional and could not be honored in Poland because this would prevent the country functioning as a “sovereign and democratic state” and would “stop the Polish constitution being the supreme law of Poland.” The European Union, she added, “acts outside the competence delegated to it in the treaties.”...

leaving the government to press on with its case before the constitutional court, based on arguments that the Polish constitution, not EU courts, must be the ultimate legal arbiter.

The government has said it has no intention of leaving the union, which has provided billions of dollars in funding...

Brussels has hit back at Poland’s previous refusal to dismantle the disciplinary system by asking the European court to impose a penalty of up to $1.2 million per day on Poland. In a further sign of rising tension, the commission last month acknowledged that it was withholding $42 billion in payments to Poland from the bloc’s coronavirus recovery fund because of the country’s challenges to the supremacy of EU law....