The city of Chicago saw a staggering number of homicides last year, with over 760 murders in 2016. President Trump is combating the problem by following in Obama’s footsteps, and ramping up the confiscation of “illegal” guns—and he’s using the federal government for assistance.
The Chicago Crime Gun Strike Force is now made up of both Chicago police and 20 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Because the federal agents bring their technology and weapons with them, the city now has access to a van outfitted with ballistic testing equipment, specifically devoted to targeting “illegal” guns and repeat gun offenders.
During a news conference on June 30, acting U.S. Attorney Joel Levin said prosecutors are working on increasing federal gun prosecutions, and his office has prosecuted “more federal gun cases this year than in all of 2016—and in 2016, his office prosecuted more such cases than it had in a decade.”
As the homicide rate skyrocketed in summer 2016, Chicago police claim they seized nearly 6,000 guns—making the average rate one gun seizure per every 59 minutes. This practice is nothing new, as a report on the gun confiscations in Chicago revealed that in 2012, police seized 7,624 guns, which was more per capita than New York City and Los Angeles… combined.
All of the guns Chicago police are confiscating are defined as “illegal guns,” and it raises the question—what exactly is it that makes these guns, and their owners, illegal? As with many things that are prohibited in the United States, the guns are illegal because the government says they are illegal.
“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview after last year’s tragic shooting in Orlando, noting that only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns. With the thousands of gun confiscations taking place in Illinois, there are undoubtedly good people losing their means of self-defense to Trump’s gun confiscating army.
Trump has even made note that the strict gun laws in Chicago do nothing to stop gun violence as bad guys will always find ways to get guns.
The most stringent gun laws in the U.S. happen to be in Chicago – and look what is happening there!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2014
While Illinois doesn’t actually have the toughest gun laws, it is known for having some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., and it is currently ranked 8th out of all 50 states on the “Gun Law State Scorecard” created by the pro-gun control Law Center to Prevent Violence.
That ranking is largely due to the requirement for all gun owners in the state to obtain a “Firearm Owners Identification Card” or FOID card from state police. Illinois then passed a law in August 2016, making it a felony for anyone to so much as bring a gun into the state for the purpose of selling, delivering or transferring it, without a FOID card.
Based on a Tweet from President Trump on June 30, in which he said, “Crime and killings in Chicago have reached such epidemic proportions that I am sending in Federal help,” one might think that this was his plan all along.
Crime and killings in Chicago have reached such epidemic proportions that I am sending in Federal help. 1714 shootings in Chicago this year!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 30, 2017
However, as pointed out above, it should be noted that—as with many things—Trump had vastly different sentiments toward gun violence in Chicago when he was on the campaign trail. During a debate against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, on Oct. 19, 2016, Trump criticized the amount of gun violence in Chicago, despite the strict laws.
“In Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the United States, probably you could say by far, they have more gun violence than any other city. So we have the toughest laws, and you have tremendous gun violence,” Trump said. “I am a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment.”
As The Free Thought Project reported in August 2015, one group of Chicago moms combated the level of violence by taking to the streets, and helping those in need. As a result, violence began declining in one of the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods.
The current tactics used by Chicago police, including the mass confiscation of guns, have been ongoing for years, and even though thousands of guns are confiscated each year, the number of homicides continues to climb. While the addition of the federal government’s agents and their equipment will certainly increase the number of gun confiscations, it will also likely increase the death toll, raising the question of when city and state officials will start looking at the root of the problem, and stop increasing the power of the police state.
Rachel Blevins is a Texas-based journalist who aspires to break the left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.
2A is about government granted privilege, not natural rights. Show that you can conform, pay the necessary fees, and ask nicely, and hopefully you will be rewarded.
I hope that is sarcasm and not ignorance speaking. ?? If not, then this may be why;
Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)
For your information and education read on. Yes, it does take reading.
“As the homicide rate skyrocketed in summer 2016, Chicago police claim they seized nearly 6,000 guns—making the average rate one gun seizure per every 59 minutes. This practice is nothing new, as a report on the gun confiscations in Chicago revealed that in 2012, police seized 7,624 guns, which was more per capita than New York City and Los Angeles… combined.
All of the guns Chicago police are confiscating are defined as “illegal guns,” and it raises the question—what exactly is it that makes these guns, and their owners, illegal? As with many things that are prohibited in the United States, the guns are illegal because the government says they are illegal.”
Yet, Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972: “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. IT IS ONE OF THE “HIGH POWERS” DELEGATED DIRECTLY TO THE CITIZEN, AND IS ‘EXCEPTED OUT OF THE GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT.’ A LAW CANNOT BE PASSED TO INFRINGE OR IMPAIR IT, BECAUSE IT IS ABOVE THE LAW, AND INDEPENDENT OF THE LAWMAKING POWER.” (caps are mine)
Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “TO PROHIBIT A CITIZEN FROM WEARING OR CARRYING A WAR ARM … IS AN UNWARRANTED RESTRICTION upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” (caps are mine)
Americans are constitutionally REQUIRED to be armed and trained as the Congress requires the military to train, educated in the US Constitution and their own state’s Constitution. Are you trained and educated as is required of AMERICANS?
Richard Henry Lee: “Whereas, 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; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” (1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights)
George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)
Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”
Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”
Some other things you might not know of;
The PATRIOT Act’s crowning jewel is the Department of Homeland Security. What most Americans do not understand is that the DHS was modeled after Heinrich Himmler’s RSHA, where they created a system that was incorporating all Nazi police departments under the control of what they called the Department of National Security. The Department of Homeland Security was also known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt. As Hitler once said: “What luck for rulers that people do not think.”
President Andrew Johnson: “Outside of the Constitution we (those that serve within our governments) have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”
It has been well established that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to enable the people to defend against tyranny which invariably comes in the form of an overbearing and oppressive government. This right to defense is not special to Americans and is a natural right of all peoples.
In the 70s and 80’s the Afghani militia (the mujahideen) was engaged against tyranny (Soviets). In order to aid them in their fight against their oppressors, the USA sent Stinger shoulder mounted rocket launchers so they could wage an asymmetrical battle against the much better equipped Soviet forces.
Therefore our own federal government established the precedent that, in the age of a modern military, rocket launchers (Bazookas) fall within the scope of weapons necessary for citizen militias fighting against tyranny – inadvertently making the case that they should be covered under the 2nd amendment. http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin800.htm
You are completely wrong!!! The “2A” is a right, not a privilege!!! Hence the part “…shall not be infringed!!!
Look at the actions, not the words.
Explain the Constitutional stamp of approval on the 1934 National Firearms Act, 1939 US v. Miller, 1968 Gun Control Act, 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, 1989 Bush prohibition on the importation of cosmetically offensive weapons and the very existence of the BATFE.
Oh I see, so our pretend leaders pass an act and suddenly their their Constitutional Oath and their failure to abide by their fiduciary obligations to the people just vanishes because they knowingly, willingly and intentionally passed an illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional “ACT”.
Gee Whiz pal where is your honor and why do not not declare you status??!!
See my comment above. He’s confusing our inalienable rights with the behavior of govt. He’s correct that govt doesn’t obey the 2A, but he’s incorrect in thinking that their bad behavior changes our rights.
The United States, Inc. is actually a foreign corporation. Its most profitable ‘products’ are UNITED STATES CITIZENS. Because the United States is a foreign corporation (British), when one swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, one basically says an oath to defend a corporate constitution of a FOREIGN POWER.
For all practical purposes, America lost the Revolutionary War. Today, London is the seat of the financial power of the Empire and DC is the seat of its military power. The bankers and lawyers accomplished what the Redcoats could not.
I was born in CA and I am not a US citizen. I did not immigrate here, I was not born in the UNITED STATES (DC) and I was not a released slave.
I am not an entity i.e. “Person”, “Individual” or “Natural Person”, I am a Natural woman – human being. The government can only control what it created, and the government did not create a human being!
You must not have passed through the government controlled hospitals then. They wouldn’t release my kids until I had filled out all the paperwork.
You could have spared yourself so much ire if you had read what he actually said, instead of what you assumed he was saying.
The clue to Lewie Paine’s position was put forth in his very first word: “Correct”.
Gun ownership is a natural righr. The 2A simply recognizes this fact.
Unfortunately that’s not true. There’s too much hard evidence showing otherwise. 1934 National Firearms Act, 1939 US v. Miller, 1968 Gun Control Act, 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act…
Ownership is a natural right. The constitution makes no mention of protecting the property of citizens.
Nope. You’re confusing the acts of govt and courts with legality. Our 2A rights are inalienable regardless of whether or not the govt arrests you or not.
See the difference? There’s the law, on the one hand, and then the fascist reality on the other. But bad behavior by the govt doesn’t change our rights.
Correct. Individual rights are inherent, intrinsic, natural, and unalienable according to liberal Lockean philosophy.
However, according to traditional Hobbesian philosophy, ‘rights’ are granted by government and ‘rights’ that are granted by government can also be rescinded by government.
The US constitution does no reflect liberal philosophy but conservative philosophy. This explains how ‘rights’ may be revoked by misdemeanor convictions. Instead of freely exercising one’s true rights Americans have to ask permission.
That’s the difference.
But Hobbesian philosophy has no place next to our Constitution. It makes no difference what people believe or feel, inalienable rights, by definition, are ours at birth.
Once again, of course govts don’t obey the law, that’s a fact. But it doesn’t change our rights, and that’s a fact.
Therefore, there’s no point in quoting philosophies of any kind, we have a Constitution different than the rest of world’s, and that’s a fact. Your point about ‘needing to ask permission’ is exactly the point made earlier. Just because govts behave badly and reject our natural rights, doesn’t make the natural rights go away, it just makes the govt illegal.
My position is, America did not win the Revolutionary War. The liberal philosophy of the DOI was never codified. The Declaration of Independence is not binding law.
A side note regarding the Declaration:
In a 2006 article, I detail how (for those who choose to utilize it) L. Neil Smith’s Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.
Details here:
tinyurl (DOT) com/Institute-New-Government
tinyurl.com/Institute-New-Government
Those laws are unconstitutional and were passed by traitors. Rights aren’t bestowed by the constitution or any institutions. Rights re something people take for themselves. If the law happens to align with my view of the world then great. If not then so be it.
Agree. The constitution only has value to those who use it to legitimize their authority to control all others. A free man understands that natural rights came long before and will exist long after the constitution.
‘”President Trump is combating the problem by following in Obama’sfootsteps, and ramping up the confiscation of “illegal” guns—and he’s using the federal government for assistance.”
Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.
The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”
It is an unLawful action that goes against the US Constitution, the contract that all who serve within our governments are Oath bound to “support and defend” the US Constitution; with those that serve as US Presidents being held to a higher standard of “Preserving, Protecting, and Defending” the US Constitution, of which by this action makes him going against all three requirements that he is contract bound and Oath bound to obey.
That makes Trump a felon and perjurer, along with all those who enforce that UNLAWFUL order, that are “just following orders” and “just doing their jobs”. They are the ones that are assisting in the destruction of the USA from within. Yes, are at the very least the “domestic enemies” listed in every Oath required to be taken by ALL who serve within our governments – state and federal; and quite possibly treasonous in their actions against the American people.
Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
What is listed here are the three key elements are necessary for an offense by anyone to constitute treason: an obligation of allegiance to the legal order, intent, and action to violate that obligation.
Trump, nor anyone else who serves within our governments – state and federal – does not have any authority that was delegated to either the branch or to the named office within a branch that they may use to perform such actions against Americans. Go on, READ the US Constitution, LEARN what is allowed, what is forbidden, etc to those that SERVE WITHIN our governments. Read your own state’s Constitution, there is NO excuse for ignorance of our government – and it is NOT a democracy, but IS a Constitutional Republic with everything that those that serve within our governments are allowed to do, required to do, etc PUT INTO WRITING for all to know.
“While Illinois doesn’t actually have the toughest gun laws, it is known for having some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., and it is currently ranked 8th out of all 50 states on the “Gun Law State Scorecard” created by the pro-gun control Law Center to Prevent Violence.
That ranking is largely due to the requirement for all gun owners in the state to obtain a “Firearm Owners Identification Card” or FOID card from state police. Illinois then passed a law in August 2016, making it a felony for anyone to so much as bring a gun into the state for the purpose of selling, delivering or transferring it, without a FOID card.”
Yet it is in writing that those who serve within our governments do NOT have any such authority, and for good reason, those that serve within our governments can never be trusted with power and the conditions of life and death over the American people. Democide is/was the largest murder of people in the 20st century – death by those that serve within our governments. Why add to those numbers through the ignorance of history and a knowledge of what people who crave power do when they get that power and a helpless population?
Consider the words of Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992: “Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”
Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972: “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”
If Trump was truly an American President, KEEPING his Oath to PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND the US Constitution then he would required that all those who live in America be trained in the use of, and armed with weapons of defense; those that do not must then pay a fee as is required of those who refuse to do their constitutional duty as the Militia. As he should well know, that unarmed and untrained people are VICTIMS as they cannot defend themselves; but a trained and armed populace stops most crimes. But when Americans were armed and trained, there was little murder and break-ins by thugs or by “law” enforcement (who today break their Oaths – a felony and Perjury – on a daily basis).
Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5: “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and
carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
Also, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of this land, it must be observed that the only crimes assigned (in WRITING) to the federal government within the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations. The federal government has no or very little law enforcement authority, and what little it does have REQUIRED (again in writing) that it is ONLY the Militia of the several states that can be used for;
— Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of this land) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state),
— Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
Found here – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15.
Richard Henry Lee, First Senate: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…”
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people
except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
May I recommend that Trump get into contact with Dr. Edwin Vieira, jr about fixing this problem of unLawfulness on the part of the executive branch? The duties that those that serve within the federal and state governments have TO THE Militias are found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16.
Who are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60.
“Trump said. “I am a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment.”
It matters not if he supports it or not as a US President as it is a FORBIDDEN power to those that serve within our governments, it is a power/authority in all its forms that belongs to the people themselves, it was NOT delegated to either the state governments or to the federal government as the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment makes clear.
What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” does Trump and others who serve within our governments (and some ignorant others) NOT understand? Here, read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights to see who is forbidden to perform certain actions – those who serve within our governments.
Preamble to the Bill of Rights: “Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on
Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
An excellent response with great verve, yet your statement, “… Trump get into contact with Dr. Edwin Vieira, jr about fixing this problem of unLawfulness on the part of the executive
branch?” is impossible since it would require the reinforcement of Constitutional limitations on the Executive.
I concur with your sentiments and applaud you for stating thusly. However, the idea that the President would seek out ways to return to the original purpose of his office after multiple predecessors have clearly overstepped their mandate is not in keeping with the history of politics . I think Trump is a necessary response to the lawlessness of Obama, and a rebuke of what Hillary WOULD have done in the office.
President Trump is not a politician, is the obvious retort, yet I don’t believe that any door opened by the Executive Branch once ajar will EVER be willingly closed; regardless of the political affiliation of any President. Same goes for all three government branches. Each have overstepped their mandate, so why has each new iteration NOT done everything possible to return to the correct and truly legal path laid out in our Constitution? Because it would be an abdication of stolen authority from the people, with huge negative connotations on the way in which our 3 branches do business.
The state has the power provided by Executive overreach to do any number of Constitutionally illegal activities, and even President Trump, unless he is hiding a massive streak of good will toward us all, simply won’t do anything to return the Executive back inside the Constitutional box the founders created for it. It SHOULD be done, it CAN be done, but it WON’T be done, because overreach is as inevitable as the sun rise. No power will choose to limit itself if it can continue to operate in the manner it wishes when there are NO CONSEQUENCES.
p.s. The inclusion of, “putting down insurrections” in the mandate of the militia is most interesting, as any action may be deemed thus by the state should people have an adverse reaction to the furtherance of govt overreach and rights infringement.
The possibility of insurrection is only as remote as the continued uninterrupted flow of electricity, running water, and stocked grocery shelves; yet the entire system is poised on a knife’s edge if anything should disrupt that system of JIT delivery.
No, it would not rein in the President, because the CONTRACT that they are under already put the walls around the office. Enforcement of that contract is what I believe you are speaking of, correct? If so, that would be the PEOPLE as the Militia as that is in writing within the contract and lets all who serve within our government that is the Lawful answer to their unlawful actions. But if Trump did, his name would go down in history as truly an American Hero – his face well-known to all posterity as well as his actions and those actions taken against him – those people would be reviled OPENLY throughout history. Yeah, appealing to ego.
Why else do you think that they created “law enforcement” other then the existing and allowed Sheriff? Why else did they ease the burdens of the people by that creation thus “freeing” up the time of the people from their Militia duties? Why else make a governmental professional law enforcement? Every Sheriff has/had as much back-up (as can be trained in the ways that Sheriff ran/runs his area) for whatever action they may be needed from the Militia – the people who live in that area. Now you know why “gun control”; but if you read and understand the US Constitution and the writings of the framers, of that times of the debates; gun control was placed upon those who serve within our governments.
What? How? By requiring that both the state and federal governments use ONLY the Militia (the people) that takes domestic arms out of their power. By not allowing a military until it is needed and war is declared by those serving within the Congress it takes the power to attack foreign nations out of their hands also. That is why the Militia is required to be trained as the US Military is trained, so that trained and ready people are there immediately if needed as a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week military. Remember that the Congress calls forth the military, and whoever serves as the US President is the Commander in Chief of the Militia and military ONLY when “called into the actual Service of the United States”. (US Constitution, Art 2, Section 2)
Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed
men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”
“President Trump is not a politician, is the obvious retort,…”
No, but he likes power so being a politician or businessman or Etc matters little (unless one had the willpower to actually PRESERVE the US Constitution, the USA, the American people because they all cease to be when this nation is destroyed) and I do not believe that he has that Honor and Morality about him. Ron Paul was/is the last person I know of who would have/still would who lives today.
“Each have overstepped their mandate, so why has each new iteration NOT done everything possible to return to the correct and truly legal path laid out in our Constitution? Because it would be an abdication of stolen authority from the people, with huge negative connotations on the way in which our 3 branches do business.”
Agreed. Because it is the people who allowed themselves to be dumbed down, to be poisoned, to be lied to, locked up for things that the government has NO authority over, to have their natural rights be turned into registration events – driving, traveling, hunting, fishing, building and improving your property (when their mandate is to PROTECT the property of the people) to even be murdered instead of doing their duty.
Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early
age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)
But realize this last attempt to destroy our nation was a multi-generational event. Why else do what it took to take over the schools? The media? Put people into office after they were “compromised”? Etc? For the purpose of dumbing down and corrupting the people as they could NEVER be defeated otherwise. Consider the Patriot Act’s crowning jewel is the Department of Homeland Security. Why, what changes did that make? What most Americans do not understand is that the DHS was modeled after Heinrich Himmler’s RSHA. That was the system they created that incorporated all Nazi police departments under the control of what they called the Department of National Security. The Department of Homeland Security was also known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt. Deja Vu, except only here inside the USA.
Hitler: “What luck for rulers that people do not think.”
How many Americans today know that the only crimes that are assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations; and they are required to use the Militia as the enforcement arm except internationally.
So what threat does the USA offer to the rest of the world today that has never happened in the past that I am aware of? By putting our government on documents, in writing, they took the human equation out of it except as duties to be performed by those who would serve within our governments.
By the requirement of the Militia they took the sword from the hand of the government and placed it within the hands of the people – thus insuring that there could NEVER be the forbidden “martial law”, and/or the equally forbidden “emergency powers”. This made sure that all laws, actions enforced against the people were done by the people themselves making them less likely to go after and enforcing color of law, pretend laws against the people and that the Constitutions would be enforced, accountability held no matter what position or how rich, etc.
George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)
By forbidding a military until and unless those serving within the Congress declares war – remember the Militia is trained as Congress requires the military to be trained and has or has access to when needed, military arms – they stopped the spending needlessly of money and lives for power (which is why all high ranking military are traitors to our nation as they are Oath sworn to the US Constitution, but do you see them giving up the power, prestige, money, etc?
“The possibility of insurrection is only as remote as the continued uninterrupted flow of electricity, running water, and stocked grocery shelves; yet the entire system is poised on a knife’s edge if anything should disrupt that system of JIT delivery.”
But it is here that all and any Americans can make the difference. Learn to grow your own, and for others, and this can even be done in apartments, though not easily. Cannot raise chickens, etc; raise rabbits. Share farm with those you might know that have some land. Use good practices, healthy practices for the soil. Consider what warnings we hear often and figure out what might “save the day” from it. Say a volcano, sun blocked, debris, ash everywhere – greenhouse, different ways to create electricity, different ways of filtering water, etc. Plan on not just for yourself, but add others to the mix as they will be there and hopefully with skills that can assist. Know what plants, herbs make meds, etc.
I agree, you’ve stated much truth, well considered. I think at this point, for those of us who are looking ahead, we see twists in the road that our fellow citizens can’t see because they are too busy looking at their phone screens.
I agree, the founders didn’t want a standing army because the irresistible urge to use it would be exponential. The thought that the protectors of the status quo, be they the armed forces, national guards, or local law enforcement will allow voices of dissension to call for action and deliver on it, seems unlikely. They are the protectors of the status quo, a status quo that enjoys the reducing of citizens sovereignty and agency, with laws that stack crime on top of common behavior because this empire of ours is entering its terminal phase.
Perhaps the best thing is disengagement and decentralization, to seek out others of like mind and start building self-sustaining communities. Living in suburbia, trying to talk to neighbors about preparedness or even trying to broach safety topics, much less political questions is fraught with doom. Too often their heads are closed to the message that WE are the power of this land, that WE can rest it back from previous generations who gave it away.
I enjoyed your comment, it is refreshing to read an opinion that doesn’t dissolve into strawmen and invective. Thank you for your sentiments!
There would be more success by putting fathers back in homes versus taking guns out of homes.
Good post!
Back in the last place they ever wanted to be, in other words? Yeah, that’s worked so well in other areas.
In Georgia, there is a city that required everyone to get a gun…. and the crime rate dropped 300% in the first year…. So, if the same would be done in Chicago, perhaps they would see success also…. Chicago Politicians have been trying to take it’s citizen’s guns away for decades…. Maybe a new direction should be explored…. Like in Georgia…
In 1985 I lived in Goreville, IL which is about 13 miles south of Marion Federal Penitentiary and every resident was required to have a gun.
Ah Chicago – where the cops confiscate thousands of guns a year and over 10 million bucks a year from the search and seizure {steal your cash} scam. And now Trump wants his cut too. LOL
Trump the paradox.
Not happy. Donald should have let them drown in their own cesspool. If they needed help they could have called in their own national guard.
Never help a drowning libtard.
Who is “they”? Who speaks for the people of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel?
“They” are the govt of chicago.
Yes, they stupidly elected him so they’re stuck with him.
If they needed help they should have called their governor not the feds.
I agree that would be the next level of help to seek. These people are emotionally crippled after sucking at the teat of government for too many generations.
I hope at least this will make Chicago a little safer. God knows I despise the place. Disarm the gang-bangers and put them away for a long, long time. Make the guns available to the citizens of Chicago at a reasonable cost.
The difference is that the seized guns are being used in violent gang activities: lawlessness. The guns are not the problem, once again. The people using them in various lawless activities are.