The 2nd Amendment, a Brief Primer.

My Recent Posts

“Modern” public discourse ignores and obfuscates the First Debates In Congress. Those debates establishes exactly what they were trying to do when they voted on what became known as the Bill of Rights.


What's even more interesting is the arguments put forth by Elbridge Gerry, from Massachusetts (we get the term “gerrymandering” from his namesake) on said Amendment and it's original wording:



From Pg 778

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

First, what become clear, they weren't debating a “collective” right but an individual right. Modern authoritarians sow deception and lies when they claim a “collective” right of the States to arm militias. States, if you recall, are not “a person” with a Scrupulosity complex.


As wiki describes it: “ characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues...” “Scrupulosity was formerly called scruples in religious contexts, but the word scruples now commonly refers to a troubling of the conscience rather than to the disorder.”


At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment it's clear they were referring to the latter. A person whom through religious teachings or personal beliefs does not believe in war or killing, ie the Amish and Quakers.


It was because of Mr. Gerry's arguments above why the First Congress deleted the last line of the 2nd Amendment.  Obviously the 2nd A wasn't granting our central/federal government authority or powers to define or “regulate” who was allowed to keep and bear arms, all had that unalienable right, if they so desired.


The next point that needs to be addressed is where and how authoritarians distract and mislead. They argue against “the purpose” of owning arms. “It's for Hunting & Sport” or “Defeatn' the bad ol gubmint”.


While Mr. Gerry stated his understanding of why they were adding a Bill of Rights:


This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed..


His arguments reveal they are there to prevent the “mal-administration” of government or government overreach. Those enumerated rights restricts our government. Our rights are not created through their addition to the Constitution, but preexist it.  It has no authority, implied or otherwise, to regulate them.


The purpose of free speech, the intent of religion or desires for firearm ownership are immaterial.


We possess these unalienable rights, to do with as we please. Government cannot dictate, as the authoritarians among us wish to believe, the reasons for how, when or why we exercise these rights.



Dino Manalis Added Mar 29, 2018 - 10:58am
The Second Amendment is fundamental, but people are different, that's why all gun buyers have to be screened first to verify their mental condition before allowing gun purchases.  We shouldn't make it easy to kill people!
Stone-Eater Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:22am
Thank "god" we don't have those problems and can concentrate on real issues.
Bill H. Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:27am
SEF - There are voters in this country who only base their vote on a single issue. Seems the top two issues these days are gun rights and abortion. Apparently nothing else matters to these voters.
Dave Volek Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:31am
Thanks for this article and history. Just by reading the actual clause, I can get different interpretations. The historical sidenotes may or may not be a moot point.
I'm still not understanding this concept of "inalienable rights," especially that the right to bear arms was somehow given to mankind.   
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:41am
Dino M-- Sounds reasonable.  Therefore, since people are different, we need to screen everyone first and verify their mental condition before practicing their religion, their free press and especially their free speech.
If safety is the goal...surely you'd agree.  After all, hasn't religion poisoned the minds of humanity for long enough?  Haven't enough people died for and against religion?  It's estimated that over 195 MILLION have been killed because of religion.
Didn't the "free press" push Americans, and the world,  into wars?  We used to call it "yellow journalism".  
OH and with the "free speeches" Colin Powell and the Bush Crime Syndicate used went on to kill millions in Afghanistan & Iraq whilst pushing millions of Americans into poverty?  Doesn't poverty kill at least 133,000 people each year here in the US? 
So, join me in "regulating" these absurd, "fundamental" privileges.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:43am
I'm still not understanding this concept of "inalienable rights," especially that the right to bear arms was somehow given to mankind.  
You don't have to understand that they were given. They aren't.
They are natural rights. Natural rights are those one has simply because one draws a breath. 
Natural rights can't be given by a state, monarch, potentate, senator, bureaucrat or piece of paper.
The DUHmerican Constitution merely enumerates these natural rights as part of it's limits upon government. 
Dave Volek Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:57am
Your analogy does not work for me. We have a "right" to air because we will quickly die if we don't breathe. I haven't fired a gun for years; I haven't died.
And yet there have been--and still are--situations where it is unhealthy to breathe the air. Where are our inalienable rights in these situations? Who enforces these rights? 
And having clean water is more important to life and liberty than firearms. Where are our inalienable rights in these situations? Who enforces these rights? 
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:07pm
Dave V-- When you read the First Debates in Congress, you'll understand what they argued over, for and against.  The historical sidenotes are the issue.  Those amendments didn't get created in a committee, they were submitted by 7 of the 13 original States, along with their ratification papers.  Yes, they were independent States, through the Articles of Confederation, just after the Revolutionary War.
As a precursor, Congress DIDN'T act for over a year after the Constitution's ratification and the States moved to amend it themselves.  A power they still retain to this day. It was in haste that the "Declaration of Rights", as listed in Virginia's State Constitution, were presented.
The newly formed Congress understood that if the States amended the constitution, they would or could lose the "central control" they so desperately desired.
It's out of this history, which isn't a sidenote, we get these debates.
Jeff G-- Exactly, we are born with them.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:07pm
Your analogy does not work for me.
Of course it doesn't Dave. You're a statist. 
Government is not the solution its the problem. 
Thomas Hobbes created a new approach when he based morality not on duty but on right, each individual’s right to preserve himself, to pursue his own good—essentially, to do as he wishes.
One characteristic of a rights theory is that it takes man to be by nature a solitary and independent creature, as in Hobbes’s “state of nature.” In Hobbes’s state of nature, men are free and independent, having a right to pursue their own self-interest, and no duties to one another. The moral logic is something like this: nature has made individuals independent; nature has left each individual to fend for himself; nature must therefore have granted each person a right to fend for himself. This right is the fundamental moral fact, rather than any duty individuals have to a law or to each other. The priority of individual right reflects our separateness, our lack of moral ties to one another. According to Hobbes, one consequence of this is that the state of nature is a “war of all against all”: human beings are naturally at war with one another. Individuals create societies and governments to escape this condition. Society is not natural to man, but is the product of a “social contract,” a contract to which each separate individual must consent. The sole purpose of the contract is to safeguard the rights of each citizen.
Stone-Eater Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:14pm
OH and with the "free speeches" Colin Powell and the Bush Crime Syndicate used went on to kill target="_blank">millions in Afghanistan & Iraq whilst pushing millions of Americans into poverty?  Doesn't poverty kill at least 133,000 people each year here in the US? 
Wow. Thanks for that. But it won't change anything. Reflected people are no wanted people. They might get the idea that Snapchat or Instagram are not the center of existence LOL
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:29pm
Dave-- They are not "inalienable" rather "UNalienable" rights, as referred to in our Declaration of Independence.
As Jeff, so expertly explains above, we create a society.  Society is not the natural state for/of humans.  If you were on your own in the wild, you would have to defend yourself against nature and beast.  You would do so instinctually , like all species on this planet do.  You would fashion flint into knives and spears would "keep and bear arms".  Those "arms" can be whatever you can create. You would bear them as desired.  If it's to kill fish, defend yourself, for sport or whatever.
We Americans created a society to make that process easier.  The protection of the individual on his/her pursuit of life, liberty & happiness. 
We agreed that society could not abrogate specifically enumerated things.  The tyranny of democracy, as Alexis De Tocqueville warned against, could be subverted to the destruction of the individual.  Our founders understood this long before he did.  History is replete with Democracies devolving into tyranny.
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:34pm
Stone EF--- I do not understand this:
"...But it won't change anything. Reflected people are no wanted people..."
If you mean rational people, I still don't understand. The masses are easily led, especially to the slaughterhouse.
Stone-Eater Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:44pm
Sorry, as being not anglophone I often get misinterpreted. I mean that any ruling class in any time in history tried to keep the mass dumb, or at least uninformed. And that worked, before by using another language (French was at one time an upper class language which the "proletariat" wasn't supposed to understand), now by keeping people stupid (occupied) using digital techniques. Trump and his 160 letter tweets encourages people to think no further than 160 letters ... ;-)
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:50pm
Stone EF--- Thanks for the clarification.  I agree and now understand better.
Latin being spoken in Church, you weren't supposed to know what they were saying, just mindless agree.
Stone-Eater Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:55pm
You're right by saying government is the problem. Example, in Cameroon, before colonization, they had about 200 small kingdoms with chiefs and advisors - older people who advised the young. And because these kingdoms were so small they were comprehensible. Of course quarrels existed, that's human.
But there was no "state" that encompassed 20 million people of 200 ethnicities and languages into one artificial thing.
That's also why small countries like Switzerland, Holland, Danmark, Bhutan, Singapore, Malawi or Guyana function without major problems. 
Big ones like the US, China, India or Russia are bound to fail because they're centralized. A guy from Moscow can't identify with an Inuit from Archangelsk LOL
Mustafa Kemal Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:58pm
 Gerrilea, To be honest, Im a little dissappointed in our forfathers that they left this so ambiguous. 
""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It doesnt really sound like english.
One might wonder if the same type of struggles,  as between states rights and federal rights, were raging in such a way that they agreed to leave it ambiguous because they couldnt agree.
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 3:54pm
Mustafa Kemal-- It wasn't ambiguous then.  "regulated" meant, functioning well, not controlled or restricted, as people try to claim today.
Besides, the amendments do not stand alone, the constitution puts the responsibility of raising armies.  It's in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12:
“The people of the states empower the Congress to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.”
That said, there was a huge dichotomy between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  The anti-federalists are the ones that pushed for the inclusion of a bill of rights.  The federalists, like Hamilton, argued against them. His Federalist #84 reveals the depth to which he believed them to be a dangerous move:

"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince"
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States,..."
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.”
I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.”
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. “
And if we review the last 100 yrs of American policies and laws, they've done exactly what Hamilton warned could happen BUT was never granted.
Today, "historical scholars" do not teach actual history to students any longer.  They ignore, belittle, lie and obfuscate what the constitution is.  A rule book to create and run our government.
As Hamilton points out, We The People, surrender nothing by the creation of a central government.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 29, 2018 - 6:00pm
The Bill of Rights was a condition by many colonies for approval of the Constitution.  The colonies provided drafts of amendments to Congress and instructed there representative to get it done.  Madison pick up the torch to lead the effort.  The Revolution happened because the citizens were armed.  And history told them that governments take arms away from citizens when they fear a revolt.  and in the funny history of England one government believe the citizens were with them and their were nobles against them.  They armed the citizens.  This was all known by the founders.
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 6:18pm
Thomas S--- You need to correct one point, they were not Colonies...They were independent Nations and/or States. The Articles of Confederation lasted almost 8 yrs after the Revolutionary War.  The current constitution wasn't fully ratified until 1790 with Rhode Island finally agreeing.
The States were full fledged independent nations at the time the current constitution was written.
Mustafa Kemal Added Mar 29, 2018 - 8:22pm
Gerrilea, thank you for the response. I think I unerstand much better now. 
Thanks for doing this.
Gerrilea Added Mar 30, 2018 - 12:57am
Mustafa K-- History is so much more than what they teach us.  Hopefully my stand for constitutional law makes a little more sense.
Dave Volek Added Mar 30, 2018 - 8:52am
I would say coal miners of the 1800s should have had inalienable rights to air, but instead often died before 40 years of age to the black lung disease. But not granting this right kept the American dream alive for others, right? 
Mike Haluska Added Mar 30, 2018 - 10:41am
Bill H - terrific comment!
I am all for preventing criminals, kids, the insane or just the mentally unstable from getting their hands on guns or anything dangerous.  There is a big problem with this - how do we know for sure who is "mentally unstable"?  The other issue is the actual effectiveness (not the "intentions") of gun regulations.  There are 60 million gun owners in the US and even more guns - the "toothpaste is out of the tube" and there is no putting it back in.  In addition, criminals don't use legal channels to acquire weapons, so more legislation just makes the Black Market for weapons even more profitable!
As far as abortion goes, no taxpayer dollars should be going to support Planned Parenthood.  All of their supposed "non-abortion services" are readily available and covered by Obama Care or Medicaid.  If Congress gave $510 million (the amount given to PP last year) to the NRA for "gun safety classes", you can bet the hypocritical left would have a kiniption fit.  
Bill H. Added Mar 30, 2018 - 11:23am
Mike - You will probably be surprised to know that I am a gun owner (3 rifles and a shotgun), and I certainly am not a fan of abortion. I am also all for shutting down ALL immigration into the US. But there are many other important issues that help decide my vote.
I have and will vote for the right person from any party if I feel they are the one.
Gerrilea Added Mar 30, 2018 - 8:08pm
Dave V-- Americans, new and old, believed if you worked hard you could and would become successful.  That work ethic defined who we are, as a nation. Were the conditions of employment brutal 100+ yrs ago? Absolutely.  We organized, we protested and many resorted to violence, eventually those working conditions changed. How did they change? Through the force of the State.  Force we granted it.
Today, it's not the people pushing this agenda to disarm us.  The globalists and political elite want us just like you, dependent upon them for everything.  We've come very close to losing all the unalienable rights we've fought so hard to protect. 
I posed a question to Robin, the red-breasted songster, here today.  I'll present you with the same question.  What rights do you enjoy? You live in Canada, as I understand.  Can you speak freely? Do you have a free press?
I think not, to quote the last link above:
     "In 1982, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said:
     "When the media do not discipline themselves,
      the state steps in""
Your libel laws are truly medieval, from my perspective.  You have "prohibited viewpoints".  Who knew?
Can you defend yourself in your own home?  Obviously not!
Dave, I'm seriously curious, what freedoms do you believe you have that are superior to ours?
Gerrilea Added Mar 31, 2018 - 5:23am
Flying J- You make this personal despicable.  The truth, as our founders stated, is now NRA propaganda?  You're desperate to change the meaning of our 2nd A without actually doing the leg work required to amend that damn piece of paper.
The problem with your "we can think for ourselves" is we define words differently today.  We write differently today. "Regulated" meant functioning well...if you can't accept that...Boo Hoo.  I didn't write the words of Mr. Gerry, I didn't speak his words, I simply presented them to you.  History is such a wonderful thing, isn't it?
As for the false arguments of the early 1900's, clearly the authoritarians in our government knew the American People would throw another party with their heads on sticks if they tried to repeal or change the 2nd A.  Besides, they were truly afraid of communism, like what happened in Czarist Russia, they knew we were going in that same direction and they've been desperate ever since to take the guns.
Go for it if you think you're man enough.  I'll recommend you for the position to go door-to-door, honest.
And hon, I'm a paid member of the NRA and the ACLU...two separate private organizations that defend our Bill of Rights.
Whom do you support?  Oh, you told us already, criminals.
Flying Junior Added Mar 31, 2018 - 5:30am
Damn right, you fucking idiot.  Criminals are less of a threat to our children in our schools than wild card gun nuts and their sneaky ways.
Just document for me one mass shooting that was ever perpetrated by a career criminal?
You're stupid among your other character flaws.
Gerrilea Added Mar 31, 2018 - 8:14am
Flying J---You're I'm stupid as well.
You're just mad that actual history doesn't support your agenda to abrogate our unalienable rights.
Riley Brown Added Mar 31, 2018 - 10:09am
Dino, the second amendment prevents the government from taking steps to disarm the public so the government can oppress them without fear of a rebellion.  but doesn't address common sense safety.   I believe we can keep lists of people who are not allowed to possess things like guns, such as the insane and convicted felons, without violating that amendment.
However any list that conversely could be used by the government to seize weapons from people who are not considered unfit, does violate the second amendment because it could be used to confiscate those guns. 
The context of the second amendment, and in fact the entire constitution can not be understood without remembering what the people who wrote it went though and feared a few years earlier when they succeeded in rejecting European rule after England tried to subdue them by violating most of the amendments before they were written.
Riley Brown Added Mar 31, 2018 - 10:27am
David V, the right to bear arms is not an inalienable right it's a constitutional protection that theoretically supersedes any laws that might be made made to negate it.  It is not a permanent promise of protection, there is an amendment process by which it and any other parts of the constitution can be changed, but doing so requires a consensus that can not be created by an oppressive ruler.
The Declaration of Independence written a few years earlier defines inalienable rights as God given:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The frequent arguments about the second amendment come in a few forms.  First, that the constitution is outdated and should be changed, but not nearly enough people agree to get it amended. 
Next anti gun people try to claim the second amendment is really just stating the right of the people to join government controlled militias.  It's popular among anti gun folks but makes no sense in context with the decoration of independence, or even if you compare what it does with all the other individual liberties the Constitution enumerates.
The third is that the courts can redefine the amendments by legally reinterpreting the meanings any way they want.  That tact clearly violates the constitution.
Gerrilea Added Mar 31, 2018 - 4:46pm
Flying J---  Really, must I provide evidence of your false logic? I missed this earlier:
     "Criminals are less of a threat to our children in our
      schools than wild card gun nuts and their sneaky ways.."
As a former, progressive liberal democrat, the criminals in our government pose the greatest threat to our children and our collective futures.
Let's count the ways, shall we?
1.  Nixon's fake war on drugs has destroyed the black family.  It was intended to target blacks and was a resounding success.  Black children clearly don't factor into your argument, do they?
2.  That same criminal behavior bled over into the CIA's drug running that brought crack-cocaine into this nation, AGAIN, targeting black families.  In turn, mothers & fathers would prostitute their own children out to get another hit!
3.  That drug war is why 38,000+ children die from drug overdoses each year! More than car accidents, more than guns AND suicides!
4.  That fake drug war has led to 311 drug arrests every day for a children under 18 yrs old AND 912 babies born into extreme poverty. 
5.  POVERTY kills 133.000 Americans each year. That poverty was brought about by those criminals in our government. 
     a.  Reagan's trickle down "theories" destroyed the social safety nets like....WAIT for HEALTH SERVICES!
     b.  GHW Bush, your hero-- He let 5,000 illegal aliens die during Hurricane Andrew. IN 1991, he burned alive over 4,000 Panamanians to cover up his drug running whilst in the CIA.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg! His pedophilia was well known!
     c.  William Clinton--  Arkancide---is the unfortunate habit of potential witnesses to the Clintons' dirty dealings in Arkansas suddenly deciding to shoot themselves twice in the back of the head.
     d.  POTUS Clinton-- As president he colluded with the Republicans to pass Agenda 21, deregulate banks, deregulate media WHICH led directly to the 2008 collapse!
    e.  Bush II-- His wars in Iraq alone killed 210,000 with 39% of them being CHILDREN!  This doesn't include the war crime's with depleted uranium and white phosphorous.  3000 TONNES of depleted uranium are in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
     Don't think this is over, either.  The half-life of depleted uranium is 4.5 BILLION YEARS!
OH, did I forget to mention the trillions those wars cost us?  PLUS his tax cuts for the elite that cost a cool trillion every 10 yrs? Did I forget to mention the criminal BAILOUT of the banksters?
HIS presidency alone, destroyed the future for all American children.  They will be forced into perpetual poverty and slavery because of his crimes!
    f.  Obama-- Shit, his 2 terms were actually the 3rd & 4th terms of Bush II.  He codified the treasonous acts Bush established.  His targeted al...have reduced the constitution "mere recommendations & suggestions".  Obama, the conservative, sums up all his crimes pretty well.
His "obamacare" for the first time in our history requires we buy a for-profit-private-product!  NEVER before in our history were Americans required to pay just for being born here!
YOU'RE empty and false arguments mean nothing against the r
Gerrilea Added Mar 31, 2018 - 4:47pm
My final thoughts got cut off:


YOU'RE empty and false arguments mean nothing against the reality I've lived through!

You don't give two shits about children, all you care about is your "precious" gun control...

John Minehan Added Mar 31, 2018 - 7:46pm
"Just document for me one mass shooting that was ever perpetrated by a career criminal?"
How about this one (two career criminals, actually).
One of the events that inspired the film Heat (1995), the other was a more one sided gunfight between cops and career criminals in 1964.
John Minehan Added Mar 31, 2018 - 7:56pm
The English Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms as a function of the events that lead to the Glorious Revolution.  (Very much the kind of document Hamilton talked about in the passage cited above, but clearly something the English felt was important.)
The Bill of Rights, at its ratification, ONLY bound the Federal Government.  The States had/have the power to regulate the militia, for example, by passing things like the NYS Safe Act.   
Gerrilea Added Mar 31, 2018 - 10:14pm
John M--- Yep, the NYS SAFE Act equates mental illness and lawful prescription drug use with an unalienable right.  We NYers never had many rights to begin with, so this is on par for our glorious political masters.
Hamilton in his Federalist #84 argues against said Bill of Rights. Coincidentally, it was written to the People of the State of New York. Our constitution is not an agreement with our lords and masters, our unalienable rights preexist said document.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 1, 2018 - 6:07am
Dave re "I'm still not understanding this concept of "inalienable rights," especially that the right to bear arms was somehow given to mankind."
Dave, the governments purpose is to protect the rights of the people. They are below the people and have a duty to protect common law rights. Inalienable rights is part of common law. You have a right to your own life, hopes, dreams and aspirations independently of government. You have a basic right to defend your life. The government cannot make you a slave no matter what. They put you in debtors prison if you have incurred a debt by breaking the law. All prisons are debtor prisons.
Government tricked us into dealing with international banks and its under our contract with them that we lose these rights. The banks and their statutes don't have any authority over you unless you are engaged in commercial activity. Then they have an obligation to protect the currency, and you have an obligation to follow their laws while operating in commerce.
You can learn about these rights from almost any standard textbook on jurisprudence, I would suggest John Salmond's book, Theoretical Jurisprudence. You can also listen to Irwin Schiff or any of the IRS agents that have come out about the behaviour of the IRS. Just type in "Sherry Jackson" on youtube and start listening to her and all her friends, like Joe Bannister, and many others.
All laws in the West are premised on inalienable rights and common law. This is Christianity for those who understand it. It is not Judaism or Islam. Under those systems you have the rights that the Imam's or Rabbi's give you and no more. They speak for God. This is why they hate Christianity and why they want multiculturalism, bring people over that are accustomed to living in shit and taking shit all the time to wash away the idea of common law, or just bury it under all the shit. Then they take your rights away, before you know it you are standing in line waiting to be shot because your skin is the wrong color.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 1, 2018 - 6:12am
re "Hamilton in his target="_blank">Federalist #84 argues against said Bill of Rights. Coincidentally, it was written to the People of the State of New York. Our constitution is not an agreement with our lords and masters, our unalienable rights preexist said document."
Law is reason and reason requires precepts. The precept from which to write legislation is these inalienable rights, just as 1+1=2 is a precept from which to develop mathematics. 1+1=2 is a necessary condition for math laws to be written. Inalienable rights are a necessary precondition to have law. Statutes are written under common law in Canada, they must not violate common law.
The income tax violates common law, its being challenged, but it hasn't been challenged by anyone that has a really good foundation in understanding the philosophy of laws. I'm going to do that. I've been studying this for many years, more than ten. I study this for hours every day. I've listened to almost all the gurus and have read most of the famous books on jurisprudence and natural right philosophy.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 1, 2018 - 6:19am
Bastiats "The Law" is a good place to start. Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Morals is a 60 page book that prepares you for his bigger Metaphysics of Morals, which is the rational foundation for a state and how it should be constructed under the law. Kant is hard, but nothing else comes close for true understanding. The writers of books on Jurisprudence assume you have this kind of knowledge from school. Now they just teach about how to give blow jobs and about global warming so most people don't have the background to understand what law even is.
homer Added Apr 1, 2018 - 12:11pm
Aren't you a human with a mind of your own?  It is not natural to have to obey other people.
 But living in the modern world people trade off work with others and share responsiblies in a society. Do you feel everything is equitable? For everyone?
  Of course the political class has it's own motives and as we have seen foriegn government's lobby the Congress and the corporate unlimited political corruption held as constitutional, it is not a stretch to imagine a conflict between citizens and the government. Looking at the FBI and BLM  recent fiasco how can anyone accept any government denial of the right to bear arms.
It is not possible to have someone other than ones self to make decisions about your life and force you to accept whatever they have in mind for you.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 1, 2018 - 1:28pm
Doug P.,  the Declaration of Independence states that the government serves the people.  The reason for the Revolution is that it stopped serving the people and served the interest of the upper class in England.    It is logical to say that the people need to have arms to threaten the government since history has shown that government drifts away from serving the people.  About 99% of governments found in history say the people serve the interest of the government.   Guns is a reminder that it made a promise.  The Declaration is that promise and the Constitution is written with ~ every statement within the Declaration addressed.  The Declaration is the outline for the Constitution.  
I am aware of the "Law"  and that it and I believe Black's law book follows states morals as the foundation of law.   The history of government is the history of MAN MADE LAW.  Socialist believe that some man is capable due to expert knowledge of social engineering.  Again this is not much different that saying the King is by God has special capacity to create laws.  Pick you leader of government and they all have special knowledge to create laws, man's laws that seem to always have some that go against those moral base.
The second amendment recognizes the reality of government and is an attempt a balancing the power of government with the spontaneous set of morals a society creates when no class exist and no person has an advantage by law over another.   You see in a free trade economic system that exist.  Trade exist between waring populations because of the nature of free trade, spontaneous order. 
Flying Junior Added Apr 2, 2018 - 2:51am
Gee whiz, Gerrilea.  I was only talking about normal criminals who burgle homes and jack people's cars and shit like that.  Petty larceny guys.  Armed robbers.  Most of those guys get sent to prison four or five times but never are guilty of an actual murder.  Of course, some people are murdered by thieves and gangs.  But a typical criminal doesn't just go out and start killing people.
Two words.  Las Vegas.  That's what I was talking about.  A quiet guy who somehow amassed a huge collection of AR-15s and an equal number of bump stocks and shot five hundred people from a hotel that were at a country music concert.  Imagine, if you will, how many trips the sneaky fuck took to his car to carry up cases full of guns.  I don't know if he brought them up surreptitiously or if he tipped bellhops to do so.
Less spectacular example would be the Aurora Colorad theater shooter.
Ordinary criminals are quite a bit less dangerous than the loose screws that are doing the mass shootings and mass shootings at schools for that matter.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear.  I guess your thing is that Obama and Nancy Pelosi are criminals.
What the fuck is wrong with you?  I am so goddam tired of talking to you.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 2, 2018 - 4:15am
A quiet guy who somehow amassed a huge collection of AR-15s and an equal number of bump stocks and shot five hundred people from a hotel 
Anyone who believes that fairytale has no reasonable expectation of being taken seriously.
Flying Junior Added Apr 2, 2018 - 5:32am
Wow.  Always something new from you.
Gerrilea Added Apr 2, 2018 - 9:48am
Flying J-- Your post where you praised & worshiped GWH Bush for his assault weapons ban is gone, I didn't delete it.  Either there's a glitch here or you deleted it.  That was the posting I was replying to.  How you can think my reply was a statement against Pelosi & Obama only shows your inability to see beyond your little bubble reality of "d' vs "r".  Not one POTUS since Nixon has done anything to help We The People, save Jimmy Carter.
"Ordinary Criminals" are okay in your relativistic moral system, how pathetic.  It was our criminal elite, better known as politicians, that created this environment we now exist in and through some twisted logic you think they can save us. 
As more and more evidence comes out, these "mass shootings" are the work of the government and Jeffrey Gilbert is correct in saying anyone believing the narrative presented shouldn't be taken seriously.  Sure, believe whatever you like but don't think I'll buy into it, not for one second.
Mike Haluska Added Apr 3, 2018 - 3:12pm
Bill H -
You may be surprised to learn I don't own a gun.  I used to have a Remington 12 gauge pump shotgun for hunting, but I don't hunt anymore.  
I think if you and I could sit down and agree with what the proper function of the Federal Government should be, our differences wouldn't amount to much.  My major constraint on the Federal Government would be to stop using the Treasury as a charity. 
Despite any initial good intentions, politicians will pervert it into a means to "buy votes" and turn the general population into a permanent government dependency class.  There should also be no government subsidies of businesses and no taxes on businesses.  Let's be realistic - businesses don't pay taxes, they pass them on to the customer.  Let the business owners pay taxes on the dividends and sale of stock.
Mike Haluska Added Apr 3, 2018 - 3:18pm
Doug - your comment:
"The income tax violates common law, its being challenged, but it hasn't been challenged by anyone that has a really good foundation in understanding the philosophy of laws."
is spot on!  The single greatest thing that would benefit the average working man (and unemployed man) would be the elimination of the Income Tax.  If it was announced that "effective January 1st 2019 ALL Income Taxes in the USA would be abolished, the resulting economic boom would be unlike anything ever seen.  Foreign corporations would be falling over themselves to build factories and warehouses in America.  The resulting demand for labor would make the Welfare State obsolete in months.  
Bill H. Added Apr 3, 2018 - 9:53pm
Mike - You may be right, but we would have nothing to argue about.
Mike Haluska Added Apr 4, 2018 - 12:22pm
Bill H -
There will always be stuff like:
Bears vs Giants
Cubs vs Mets
Seriously though - I have done a lot of introspection the past few months and have started to really question what the hell is going on in America the past few years?  I was a Democrat early in my adult life but when my Dad left the Democrat party because "when he joined the Democrat Party it was the party for working people - now it's the party for people who don't want to work".
That was in the late 70's!  We (cons & lib) used to debate things like how much we should budget for this department, should we go to war in the middle east, etc.  Today the debates are asinine and the animosity is continuous.  I keep wondering if there is some insidious agent/group that is playing all of us by supporting the polar opposite fringe groups of each party?
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 4, 2018 - 3:48pm
It is safer to live in America then Russia by an order of four times.  The USSR collected all the guns and had 80 years to complete the task.  So the higher homicide rate is due to knifes.
It is safer to live in New York City then in London with are similar size cities, comparable.  England has restricted gun ownership for centuries and the result is that knives are the weapon of choice for homicides.   And we are aware that in New York City a large portion of guns due to laws restricting ownership are illegal.  But with significant effort citizens do have guns.  
The bearing of arms, the second amendment reaches back into history: "The feudal system presupposed that the vast bulk of fighting duties would fall to a small warrior caste, composed primarily of the mounted knight. These individuals held the primary political and military power. Thus peasant armament was a threat to the political status quo. In England, on the other hand, a system evolved whereby peasant armament became the great underpinning of the status quo and individual armament became viewed as a right rather than a threat. This actually only happened in a short period of time.  William Rufus, second Norman king of England, was driven to appeal to the citizenry to put down a rebellion of feudal barons. ...  When rebellious barons forced John I to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, they inserted in its prohibitions a requirement that he "expel from the kingdom all foreign knights, crossbowmen, sergeants, and mercenaries, who have come with horses and weapons to the harm of the realm."... While the common law sought to force all commoners to possess what was then the most deadly military weapon, it also imposed only the most minimal restraints upon use of that weapon. These focused purely upon criminal misuse of the weapon or its transportation into certain highly protected areas. ...
[In 1662] Charles also by proclamation ordered gunsmiths to produce records of all firearms sold; importation of firearms from overseas was banned; and carriers throughout the realm were forbidden to transport firearms without first obtaining a license. (The resemblance between these measures and the American 1968 Gun Control Act is astonishing).
In 1671 this was followed with an amendment to the Hunting Act. Hunting was restricted to those who owned lands worth 100 pounds and, most importantly, those who could not hunt (who formed the vast bulk of the kingdom) were "declared to be persons by the laws of this realm, not allowed to have or keep for themselves, or any other person or persons, any guns, bows, greyhounds...."name="fnb37" id="fnb37">[37] "Guns" were an addition to the list: all but the wealthiest land-owners could be disarmed."
Gerrilea Added Apr 5, 2018 - 11:22am
Thomas S-- Thank you for the history lesson, I knew most of what you've presented, but it's a good refresher.
The English Bill of Rights, guaranteed any land owner could possess a firearm ONLY if you were of the Protestant faith.  A concept foreign to most Americans, 400+ years later.
The historical evidence shows us how they've disarmed the masses, step-by-step.  They coat their agenda with colorful labels, "modern", "civil" and "Western" to emotionally manipulate the populous into believing the lie they are "evolved" and not like the barbarians of the past.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 5, 2018 - 3:31pm
Gerrilea, History was not the point paragraph two is:
It is safer to live in New York City then in London with are similar size cities, comparable.  England has restricted gun ownership for centuries and the result is that knives are the weapon of choice for homicides.   And we are aware that in New York City a large portion of guns due to laws restricting ownership are illegal.  But with significant effort citizens do have guns. 
People adjust so there are always alternatives.  Guns, weapons of war of like means to a government, is the only way to  clearly re-enforce 'consent of the governed.'  When guns are removed we get Tentomon Square.  Armored personnel carriers run down at 40 mph the people protesting, and continue running over them till there mush to be burned and the blood flushed down the drain, 10,000 people.
Gerrilea Added Apr 5, 2018 - 10:49pm
Thomas S-- Okay then...your point is that an armed populous can keep their government in check...Yep...knew that for...ever.  And when they are disarmed, they are summarily executed, at the whim of said government. 
I thought I presented a link here, once upon a time, to Democide.  In the past century alone, governments have killed over 292 million of their citizens.
In some pretty gruesome ways too.
Riley Brown Added Apr 17, 2018 - 10:52am
The only way to oppress people is with an occupying force tasked with making them comply with the taxes and rules. 
The best protection against that is an armed citizenry.  They don't need nuclear bombs to resist, only small arms so they can threaten and resist the people tasked to oversee them.  If tax collectors tasked with collecting an unfair tax get held up and beaten often enough, none will want that job.  Sending out a small regiment to enforce every action is much too expensive so that is why occupying forces even today usually eventually give up and go home even if they are only resisted with small arms and improvised explosives.
Gerrilea Added Apr 19, 2018 - 8:16pm
Riley B-- Thank you, that's exactly what I know and history has taught.

Recent Articles by Writers Gerrilea follows.