The Fraud of the 2nd Amendment

2nd amendment

Look it up, as the 2nd Amendment came from the States

In the NEW Colonies!

Article I, § 13 of the Virginia Constitution states:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

In the 1988 case Stallings v. Wall, the Supreme Court of Virginia, citing Va. Code Ann. § 15.1-839 (enumerating municipal powers, and subsequently recodified as Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1102), ruled that an ordinance requiring a permit to buy a handgun was not “expressly prohibited by the [Virginia] Constitution and the general laws of the Commonwealth.”1

  • “…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?”
    — Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)
  • “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
    –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
  • “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. 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.”
    — Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
  • Pennsylvania Convention: “… as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.”
  • U.S. State Department website: “Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth.”

This is where the 2nd Amendment came from!

Consider the time.  For Decades, England had become and administered a “Global Power” and they did so by keeping the citizens armed.

The concept survived the Norman invasion, as all William I won at Hastings was the Crown—the right to be recognized as successor to Edward the Confessor. That came with all the legislative baggage of the kingdom. The victorious knights who came with William to enforce his claim to the throne became a tier of government, and the obligation to turn out as necessary followed the top-down style of Norman-French governance. The king called the barons, and they called out their retainers.

The phrase ‘common law’ comes from Henry II (1133–89)’s drive to improve the judiciary in the 1160s. He sent out judges from his own court to the counties to hear matters, so that there was one law common to all the people, reflecting the fairness principle in Leviticus and becoming the proto–quarter sessions and circuits. The common law principles came out of cases being recorded, and judges regarding each other’s decisions as binding in similar cases—the principle known as stare devices.

This wasn’t, in Henry II’s time, the common law as we know it. There were still alternatives to the courts in the form of trial by ordeal and trial by combat, and court hearings did not necessarily trouble to hear evidence. Trial by ordeal was still in use in the witch hunts of the 1640s, and the right to silence that defendants had until Michael Howard’s tenure at the Home Office was actually an obligation until fairly recently.

King John’s Magna Carta in 1215 is sometimes regarded as the first Human Rights Act, although Alfred would probably want his Doom Book regarded as such. King John had a go at revoking Magna Carta the following year, and it was King Edward I who issued a statute reconfirming it in 1297.

So, the common law obligation has been there since before the Norman Conquest: it is a requirement for each man to arm himself as best he could afford (“suitable to his condition”) and to train in preparation for the call-out should it ever come. The time and effort weren’t wasted because, if the realm wasn’t in peril, there could and would be threats to the peace closer at hand.

Also, nobody should set out to take on the Vikings without having trained with the weapons beforehand. The obligation to train is best remembered from a recently repealed archaic law that made it a requirement for yeomen to practice archery on the village green on Sundays. The archers who went to France with Henry V put some 42 tons of arrows on the advancing French in less than fifteen minutes at Agincourt. Their descendants will repeat the performance at the 600th-anniversary re-enactment next year.

The individual right to arms was legislated against by King James II (who used the militia to enforce his laws or more particularly to solve his tax-gathering problems). James’s abuses led to his gentle overthrow, and the Bill of Rights in 1689 restated the common law—among other things restoring to Protestants various rights that James had sought to curtail while not denying them to his fellow-Catholics.

The Pilgrim Fathers carried the Bill of Rights to America as the founding principles of their legislation. Their successors had run-ins with George III (1738–1820), who sought to curtail their rights and had a go at collecting their weapons up in lieu of taxes. His local agents failed on both counts because they were up against men who knew their Bible and their rights. And who was, of course, armed.

The United States Constitution was hastily drafted in the 1770s. Hence the need for the rather more leisurely series of amendments promulgated in 1791; and it’s their Second Amendment that muddles thinking somewhat by seemingly tying the individual right to arms inextricably to the militia concept. There are variations of the wording, depending on the source, but the US National Archive has it as: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Real Reason For The 2nd Amendment Part 1

Real Reason For The 2nd Amendment Part 2

What is the point in discussing something you are

Ignorant Of

Before we begin?

The Second Amendment was not about Guns!

  • It was not “Declared” but referenced.  What was DECLARED was the Militia!
  • It was meant to PREVENT WAR rather than have Citizens train for it.
  • It was destroyed by the “Dick Act”.

    The Militia Act of 1903 was benchmark legislation that repealed the antiquated Militia Act of 1792 and converted the volunteer militia into the National Guard. In simplest terms, Guard units received increased funding and equipment, and in return, they were to conform to federal standards for training and organization within five years. The law recognized two classes of militia; the Organized Militia (National Guard) under joint federal-State control and the Reserve Militia, the mass of 18-45 year old males otherwise available for military service. The Dick Act required Guardsmen to attend twenty-four drill periods per year and five days of summer camp. For the first time, Guardsmen received pay for summer camp but not for drill periods. The law called for Guard units to conduct maneuvers with the Army and to receive training assistance and formal inspections from Regulars. The Guard was subject to federal callups for nine months, though its service was restricted to within U.S. borders. The participation of Guard members in national callups was no longer discretionary; any soldier not reporting to his armory during a federal mobilization was subject to court martial.

    It is hard to overstate the significance of the Dick Act for the National Guard. The practices of the volunteer militia as a self-supporting and largely independent entity gave way to a new military force with significant federal funding and subject to the
    administrative controls of the War Department.

    Most everything stated about the Dick Act in the example quoted above is erroneous, however:

    • It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities … the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia, and the regular army.

    Under the current public law, the militia of the United States comprises two classes, not three: the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of those who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The “regular army” (i.e., the U.S. Army) is not a class of militia.

    • All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

    Nothing in the Dick Act or any other item of U.S. legislation states that all members of the unorganized militia have an “absolute personal right to keep and bear arms of any type.” The term “unorganized militia” simply refers to a subset of private individuals (i.e., men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia), and those persons are subject to the same legislative limitations on firearm ownership and possession as any other private individuals. The existence and enforcement of modern laws limiting the ownership of certain types of firearms is prima facie evidence that those laws have not been “invalidated” by a piece of legislation enacted back in 1903. (And even if such a claim were true, then the unfettered right to keep and bear arms would not apply to men over the age of 45 or to any women, as neither of those groups falls within the legal definition of “unorganized militia.”)

    • The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex-post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    No legislation is immune from being repealed, and in fact, much of the content of the Dick Act has effectively been repealed through the passage of subsequent modifying legislation such as the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, and the National Defense Act of 1920.

    Moreover, “bills of attainder” and “ex post facto laws” are legal terms that have nothing to do with a supposed prohibition on the repeal of legislation: the former is a legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime without trial, and the latter refers to laws that retroactively impose punishments for actions that were legal prior to the passage of those laws.

    • The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

    Although it was true at one time, it is not now the case that “the President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their state borders.”

    The Dick Act authorized the federal call-up of National Guard units for nine months (with the restriction that they serve within U.S. borders), and a 1908 amendment to the Dick Act eliminated both the nine-month call-up limit and the restriction on National Guard units serving outside the United States. However, U.S. Attorney General George W. Wickersham declared in 1912 that authorizing the use of the National Guard for overseas service was unconstitutional. As noted in I Am the Guard, though, that 1912 restriction was lifted by legislation enacted in 1933 that provided that those who enlisted in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States and thereby became deployable assets of the U.S. Army.

The “Hoodwink” turned the 2nd Amendment into a tool

Before the Dick Act, the Militia was irrelevant (as it was meant to be) and it did not have any power to really attack (as it was designed) and little ability to defend (as it was not necessary), but it prevented the Elite (the 2nd Amendment) from reproducing what the British did, expanding their “Colonial Empire”.

The Dick Act was not “ratified by all the States” as was the 2nd Amendment.  It was simply instituted.  Before the Dick Act, Gun Crime was at such a low level, it was indistinguishable from other Countries Gun Crime.  Suicide Rates were as low as in most other Countries.

Yet with the Dick Act, we also saw the EXPLOSION of the N.R.A. and the training in Schools that the 2nd Amendment was all about the British Bill of Rights (but silent on that title) of the “Right to Bear Arms”, which enabled the British to force their populations to fight, as being well armed and trained citizens.  Losing their homes and families, they fought for “King and Country”.

The only difference between how Britain did it, and how it is done today in the USA is to not only “hoodwink” the populace into believing that they needed to have guns to fight crime in their neighborhood and making it a crime not to participate, but the NEW system simply promotes HATE and runs a few FALSE FLAGS to bring the question up, about whether you have a right or not to be armed, even if it detrimental to all of society to be armed.

If someone asks you what the 2nd Amendment means, and your reply is the “Right to Bear Arms”, then you Grasshopper are…






One thought on “The Fraud of the 2nd Amendment”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.