WHAT MAKES PUBLIC OFFICIALS THINK
THAT THEY CAN VIOLATE THE LAW?
Second Amendment Committee
What makes public officials think that they have the right to violate the law? What makes anti-gun public officials think that the Supreme Court hasn’t yet interpreted the meaning of the Second Amendment and that they are safe writing anti-gun laws as long as the court has not acted? Who needs it?
From 1788 on, Patrick Henry caused the meaning and the purpose of the Second Amendment to be very clearly established in recorded American history, open for all to know. The meaning of the Second Amendment has been well defined for over 218 years! Where have all these anti-gun public officials been? What sort of schools did they attend? Or if they just failed to do their homework, and they don’t understand the Constitution, how can they swear to abide by the oath of office “to support and defend the Constitution” when they obviously know nothing of its essentials?
Being anti-gun is grounds for disqualification for holding public office. Swearing on a Bible under oath, promising “to support and defend the Constitution” as a requisite to hold public office, professing to know all about the Constitution, which they keep violating, qualifies today as some sort of terrorism, political in nature.
Back in 1788 when Patrick Henry first saw the Constitution, he exclaimed: “Whatever happened to ‘We, the States’?” which was how the first American government began -- the Articles of Confederation.
Henry strenuously objected to the Constitution for many reasons and because it was a grant of powers without necessary restrictions. In other words, it was not yet attended by a “Bill of Rights”, “It will trample on your fallen liberty,” he said. It was being circulated for ratification, "Your laws on treason are a sham and a mockery......When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people in utter ignorance, and steal their liberty by ambuscade", he warned. He also predicted: “The president will lead in the treason”.
James Madison, who had been the secretary at the Constitutional Convention that drafted the document, thought it was perfect with all those “remarkable features” as he described it. But there was no provision to restrict interference with the private arms belonging to the citizens.
Henry said: "Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse”. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force and whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined!"
Madison insisted that there was no such authority given to public officials by this new Constitution that could allow them to exercise any power that was not specifically granted or “authorized” therein. Madison went as far as to say that even this delegation of power was not power surrendered by the people. There it was -- George Washington's signature was laid on it -- but Henry was going to stop the adoption of it! Something important was lacking!
George Washington had pleaded with Henry not to oppose the signed document. He had written a letter to Henry on September 24, 1788 saying:
“In the first moment after my return, I take the liberty of sending to you a copy of the Constitution, which the federal convention has submitted to the people of the States. I accompany it with no observations. Your own judgment will at once discover the good and the exceptionable parts of it, and your experience of the difficulties, which have ever arisen when attempts have been made to reconcile such a variety of interests, and local prejudices, as pervade the several States, will render explanation unnecessary.
I wish the Constitution, which is offered, had been more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time. And, as a constitutional door is open for amendments hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable. From a variety of concurring accounts, it appears to me that the political concerns of this country are in a manner suspended by a thread, and that the convention has been looked up to, by the reflecting part of the community, with a solicitude that is hardly to be conceived; and if nothing has been agreed on by that body, anarchy could have soon ensued, the seeds being deeply sown in every soil.” George Washington signed the letter.
Washington could foresee that all they had achieved in the struggle during the Revolution was going to be lost. They were going to lose all the benefits of the victory that was made because of the Revolution. For as good as the Articles of Confederation for a perpetual union seemed to be at one time, that system had serious shortcomings and the bickering between the states threatened the existence of the union and their achievements. Washington knew that miracles held him together to become the victorious commander that freed the people from the cruelties suffered under the rule of kings.
Henry’s thinking ran differently. He foresaw a monarchy on the horizon. He foresaw that all power would be consolidated in the executive branch of the proposed system. He foresaw that this consolidation would lead to the elimination of their states and once again would subject them to a massive and oppressive government over them. He politely responded to Washington, declining to give support to the new constitution by saying:
“I have to lament that I cannot bring my mind to accord with the proposed Constitution. The concern I feel on this account is really greater than I am able to express. Perhaps mature reflections may furnish me reasons to change my present sentiments into a conformity with the opinions of those personages for whom I have the highest reverence. Be that as it may, I beg you will be persuaded of the unalterable regard and attachment with which I ever shall be, dear sir, your obliged and very humble servant. ” ………Patrick Henry
Patrick Henry was so opposed to the Constitution when it came around for ratification in his state of Virginia; he led the fight against it. He held up the ratification in what was the largest state in the Union at that time, and he wasn't going to let it go any farther unless he got a commitment that the natural rights of the people would be guarded -- in writing -- with a "Bill of Rights" -- especially to protect the keystone right: the right to keep and bear arms.
Henry knew that the purpose of a “Bill of Rights” was to withdraw essential subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. He knew that the right to arms had to be placed (and kept) beyond the reach of public officials and any future majorities. He knew that a “Bill of Rights” was not subject to repeal or nullification. He spoke for 20 days on the floor of the Virginia state legislature, demanding that there be a “Bill of Rights" included as a component of this new constitution. He told them it was the very least they could do!
James Madison at first didn't think there would be any problem with anyone trying to take away such a natural right as the people’s right to arms. But he had to be taught a lesson. Other states were lining up behind Patrick Henry's efforts.
Madison had intended to be a part of the first Senate, but they blocked him from gaining a seat. By the time Henry got through with his 20 days of lecturing, pointing out the vulnerabilities with this constitution, Madison finally became convinced of the need for a “Bill of Rights”. He came to the realization that some day evil people could gain office, and could intentionally deny exercise of the right of the people to use arms -- they might even be perverted enough to write bills that would ban guns entirely! Madison agreed to champion such a “Bill of Rights” through the House of Representatives if he would be allowed to take a seat in that House without a repeat of the previous blocking.
The ratifications of the Constitution had resumed on the basis of that agreement. Consequently, with this agreement settled, and since they had already blocked him from his first choice, a seat in the new Senate, they now allowed him a seat in the first House of Representatives. Madison kept his word and carried through with his commitment.
Three years later the “Bill of Rights” was finalized on December 15, 1791, and just like the Constitution, was ratified by the people. Because of ratification by the people, both documents became the property of the people, just as you read it today as it begins: “We the people”. This change away from “We the states” came about during the Constitutional Convention when Madison took the view that the Constitution would be given more security and more protection with a more broad beginning, so with Resolution #15 on the 9th day of the Convention, he altered it to “We the people”. Neither document can now be altered or repealed without the consent of the people of the United States. These two documents are the property of the people. They qualify with Cicero’s definition of true law:
“True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting….It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely….Unjust laws are not true laws; therefore, unjust laws should not be called laws at all….likewise we cannot call that the true law of a people of whatever kind it may be if it enjoins what is injurious.”
There has never been the proper amount of attention given by the American people to the importance of the 2-year interim that followed the close of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It not only contains the solution to their current problems, it makes possible a more clear understanding of their true government system. It was a tremendous period in human progress.
Why aren't people using Patrick Henry’s speeches as the source for their right to keep and bear arms? Why haven’t they put an end to all the anti-gun legislation that is so hypocritically being enacted? The speeches Henry made concerning the need to have guns are the proof that public officials are in violation of true law when they infringe or otherwise interfere with the people’s right to arms by issuing anti-gun bills, or allowing the presidents to adhere to treaties requiring general and complete disarmament of the United States.
Back then our founding fathers knew what they were doing. They knew what they were writing, and they knew what would be coming when evil men took office. They knew the right to arms to be a natural right from God. If the courts of our era t-h-i-n-k that they need the Supreme Court to "interpret" the Second Amendment, or if the anti-gun legislators t-h-i-n-k that they can do what they please, by writing anti-gun laws to infringe and take away the people's guns and ammunition, "because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled upon the Second Amendment", they are either trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their own people, or they need to step down from office and go back to school.
In drafting the Second Amendment into the “Bill of Rights”, the founding fathers CONFIRMED that the ‘right' was indeed a natural right to man from God, and it was necessary that law be written so that it should never be infringed. They entered that provision into this palladium, a sacred storehouse where things cannot be repealed. They meant for the right to arms to continue as a perpetual right.
The founding fathers did not write sentences without having a reason behind it. They didn't write to protect rights that didn't already exist. Madison did not bind words on a paper that were in violation of the arguments and lectures that Patrick Henry delivered for 20 days. Madison did not violate the trust they had for a clear cut Second Amendment which is now very clearly understood by the people. So what makes anti-gun public officials t-h-i-n-k that they can violate the law?
Behind the two parties lies a multitude of tax-free exempt foundations that do the planning and the legwork to alter our system of government and transform us into a global management system. Our people have to pay the taxes, which the foundations really owe; while the foundations are allowed to keep and use their funds to finance their foreign world management system that is now being built over the United States. This is the reason they want to disarm our nation. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are under the control of these tax-free exempt foundations.
If we lose our guns, we will lose our Constitution. The Constitution was enacted for the purpose of protecting our freedom, liberty, justice, and the rights of the people, but who will protect the Constitution? Who will be its guardian? It must owe its security to the same power to which it owes its origin: the people. We cannot look to political parties to save it or to save our guns. This responsibility falls upon us: the whole people. If we hold onto our guns, we will retain the ability to restore right reason and to abolish and rescind all the unjust and pretended laws that have already been written under the new world order globalists administrations. If we allow anti-gun public officials to continue writing anti-gun legislation, or calling for the enactment of martial law, we will end up permanently losing both our Constitution and our precious “Bill of Rights”.
In 1802 Daniel Webster said:
“We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in 6000 years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government once gone, might leave a void to be filled for ages with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”
Webster also said:
“Other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. If disastrous wars should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still, under a new cultivation, they will grow green again, and ripen to future harvests.
It were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these may be rebuilt.
But who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear again the well-proportioned columns of constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skillful architecture which unites national sovereignty with States Rights, individual security, and Public prosperity?
No, if these columns fall, they will not be raised again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful and a melancholy immortality. Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them than were ever shed over the monuments of Roman or Grecian art; for they will be the monuments of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw, the edifices of Constitutional American liberty.”
Second Amendment Committee P.O. Box 1776 Hanford, Calif. 93232