Lower courts are perplexed over “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


If Supreme Court does not endorse the individual right to possess, we all will know the jig is up.
 At that point, it may be time to take things into our own hands. of course and sadly,
 the Police State is totally ready to implemented total control of all that we know.
 Is it just what the powers that be want, .will the terrorists win? Time of the NWO?
Bush and companys martial law? Stay tuned.


    “In a decision that could affect gun control laws across the nation,
the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment
 protects an individual’s right to carry a gun,” reports ABC News.

    Carry? Or possess?

 The constitution of the United States of America was not created to limit personal rights.
It was created to limit the GOVERNMENT and protect the people’s rights.

 The entire document, written to secure your rights as a citizen of the United States
wouldn’t have an amendment securing the rights of the state. The way it was written
in 1787, the term "well regulated" simply meant well trained. The second amendment
 of the Constitution of the United States was written to protect the individual’s right
 to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 Limiting what types of arms we as individuals are "allowed" to bear is infringement of that right.
 
    “It has been 70 years since the high court has focused on the meaning of the words
‘right to keep and bear arms’ in the Second Amendment
and the case is sure to ignite cultural battles across the country.”

    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.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me.




The Founders clearly mistrusted Government more than other dangers,
 and did more to fend it off than anything else.

 In the words of Madison (Federalist #51)
 “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”
MONOPOLY of power is the Anti-Freedom.



"When governments fear the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
 The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is,
as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined
 to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
 they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater confidence than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
--Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun.
 While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind.
 Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character
on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15 year-old nephew

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty,
thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
--Samuel Adams

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty
of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people
 of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Number 46

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms
 and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,
 which would include their own government."
--George Washington



If you read these quotes, there is no need for Supreme Court to decide what the 2nd amendment means!!!




I am going prove to you that the right to bear arms is an individual right … AND collective right:

The Federalist Papers: No. 84. Written by Hamilton …

“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. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which
would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious
zeal for bills of rights.”





Now note that Hamilton says:
 “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?”

Hamilton could have very well said:
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be restrained,
when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Or … Religion. And etc.

Again: “…when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Where do you find delegated authority and restrictions?
In the constitution.
Where in the constitution does anyone read where power is given by which restrictions
may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Hamilton was not really “anti-Bill of Rights”. His argument was that,
 if the Bill of Rights were added to the constitution, it would:
 “…furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
That 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.”

“Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty shall not be restrained,
when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

If it is NOT RESTRICTED BY THE CONSTITUTION … nor delegated by the same …
 there is absolutely no power.

Unfortunately, Hamiltons worst fears concerning a Bill of Rights have come to light.