Why ALL Gun Permits, Restrictions & Background Checks are 100% ILLEGAL!

Published January 11, 2014 - 0 Comments
My wife with her North American Arms Mini, 22LR.

My wife sondra with one of her handguns.

So you think you know gun rights?

We’ve been debating the wrong way when we argue with those who want to take away our children’s birthright. Our fundamental rights do not need to be explained with statistics. They need not be argued and they should never be open to negotiation. The 2nd amendment is not our gun permit. Are God given rights are.

#1. Simple Facts:

Why does SHALL NOT INFRINGE mean ONLY what it says?

The 2nd amendment was intended to ensure the people could be equally armed to government.  Yes, we should have local “civilian” armories to protect our communities from any treasonous rebellion of government that attempts to commit insurrection against the the people. The right to bear arms not liberty itself; rather it is key defense against the tyranny and anarchy that destroys liberty. In contrast, government permits and restrictions of arms line the halls of history with abuse.

As a self-governing people, WE must prevent representatives from twisting laws. Most of us are familiar with the 2nd amendment, but many don’t grasp how absolute it is. We have let it slip.  – “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 words are simple. A well regulated militia is needed AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed! But before we go further lets be clear on the first part. “Well regulated” in no way allows restriction of arms. It means in good order, well trained. This is affirmed by the words of the signers as you will see below. Sure if you are in an organized local group might be rules from your commander, but that in no way restricts anyone’s right to arms. See Websters 1828.

Many try and use punctuation or dating as a way to revoke your most basic rights. History will guide us on this fallacy and show us that we should disregard such despotic foolishness. That brings us to the second part which stands on it’s own. — A well regulated militia is needed AND the peoples right to arms SHALL NOT be touched. It’s important to note that we have these rights WITHOUT the Constitution. No document or law can give it, or take the away because they are natural, human rights. Keep that in mind next time a crooked liar tries to tear apart law and order.

So if we actually study the words it’s quite simple — A well organized militia is necessary; said militia being the people themselves; AND THEREFORE the right to arms shall NOT BE TOUCHED or approached.

Any reasoned person must conclude that the people’s right to arms without any infringement was not open to debate when the Constitution was written. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means only that. There is no limitation in it’s wording to our rights being limited to an authorized group or militia and there is no room for arms to be restricted in any manner by goverment. There’s another great video on this here.

But don’t just take my word for it!

#2 The History:

Some of the framers did not want the bill of rights. The reason is not that those men did not affirm those rights. To the contrary, they feared that by writing into law our fundamental rights, we would allow government to assume authority over and to twist them, just as we’re seeing today.

If this be treason, make the most of it - Peter F. Rothermel

Patrick Henry in the Brutus Speech, If this be treason, make the most of it – Painting by Peter F. Rothermel

Consider that we had just come out of a revolution that would have ended very differently had the people not had arms. In fact, leading up to the Revolution, the British begin encroaching on the right to arms. This right of self-defense was not new and it was considered inalienable in political theory from respected philosophers such as John Locke and others.

The 2nd Amendment is not merely the words of the framers, but were part of the ideal on which our liberty was founded. This was absolute natural law. Consider the words from this 1770’s South Carolina newspaper noted in this  review by Dave Kopel in “The American Revolution against British Gun Control.”

“That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.”

So gun control is nothing new – Tyranny is very repetitious and the 2nd amendment is further affirmed by the resistance of the framers to that control. England in 1774 instituted a permit requirement on the importing arms and powder from England (an effective ban). Imagine if patriots had said — “Well that’s the law, we have to obey it!” They did not, because they knew was not legitimate law. In fact Benjamin Franklin responded by finding a means to smuggle in guns from France and other nations that were not approved. — Go on home British solders!

Patrick Henry in his famous Give me liberty, or give me death speech, from March 23, 1775, affirmed that the loss of arms would end our hope of liberty. The fact that millions of Americans were armed was cornerstone to our revolution.

“But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.” – Patrick Henry, Liberty or Death, 1775

Patrick is saying. WE MUST STAND! To further the literal meaning of the 2nd, we also consider the words of the men that were there at the beginning. There is no need for false texts as the originals are quite clear. I have vetted each of these citations myself, but I welcome you to do the same.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.” – Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, Nov 1772

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;” — Samuel Adams

“..to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them”George Mason, June, 1788, referencing the words of Sir William Keith.

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers”George Mason, June, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves” – Richard Henry Lee, 1788

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government …In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28, 1787

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” — Alexander Hamilton

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them”Zachariah Johnson, during the ratification debates.

“..the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”Trench Coxe, reporting on the bill of rights, Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

“to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”Richard Henry Lee, 1788

Battle of Guilford Courthouse - Charles McBarron#3 Absolute Law!

We must not allow words to be stolen. There is no question whatsoever that the right to arms was natural. Anyone capable of honest analysis of history must conclude that “shall not be infringed” means just what it says. Furthermore the word “arms” is intentionally open. At the time it was written, arms were not merely muskets and but all weapons and there was no misunderstanding of what these words meant.

Some will ask. What if my neighbor has a rocket. A machine gun, a tank? – Well, what if they do? If they wanted to commit a crime with such a weapon and had the money to get it, a law against it would mean nothing at all. If they do not want to commit a crime, no law needed. Historically speaking it’s not your neighbor you have to fear, but your government. The framers knew this when they wrote the 2nd and the arms they spoke were equal in power to those held by governments.

Some say the 2nd amendment is outdated and that the framers could not envision the more powerful guns we have today. This is of course a ridiculous argument. Should our free speech be restricted since we have much more powerful tools of communication today?  — No, our rights are not granted or formed by the Constitution. They are natural, God given and belong to all men, no matter what any lawless legislation might say.

What of the mentally ill, the felons? Ask yourself, where in our Constitution does it say that absolute “rights” can be revoked by an arbitrary line drawn by government? Who gets to decide if you are mentally ill? Did you know that DSM5 lists Sleep Apnea as a mental illness? Who defines a felon? It a sliding scale that follows the whims of government.  As soon as we allow government to decide who can and cannot have rights, they can take liberty at will. But in fact a right cannot be revoked by the pen of government, such an act would be lawless and the people are duty bound to oppose it.

Historically a felony was capital crime. Murder, rape and the like. Today the word felony has become nothing more than a tool for goverment to make the unformed collectively gasp in fear and tolerate the violation of another’s rights.

A well regulated militia is not regulated by government. It means the people; organized and armed in their communities. That is the militia. The fact that a well regulated militia is referenced in no way negates our right to arms. It enforces it.

NO permits, NO restrictions, NO background checks, NO exceptions!

Shall NOT be infringed means; you absolutely shall not touch this liberty! What part of that is confusing?

These rules and regulations are all lawless, including your concealed weapons permits and federal purchase papers. The government has no authority to grant such permission and they never have. Do not tolerate a public official who dares to tread on liberty or enforce any restrictions on our rights.

I am also reminded that the Constitution gives us nothing. We already have these rights and they cannot be granted or taken away by the pen. We will always have them, yet when they fall under attack we must step up with firm resolve and preserve them.

In closing I will include a video from a recent event where I spoke about this, while we took on the practical aspects of defying lawless law. We did this in Oregon similar to the way we did it in Washington on 12/13/14. It’s time to stand up on principle and take back liberty.

Let us not look around the room and ask, “who will stand.” Rather let us shout, “I WILL STAND”.

— Gav

No comments yet

Leave a Reply: