-9 votes

US Citizens Have No Constitutionally Guaranteed Right To Bear Arms (but people do!)

This is my last DP post for a while... good luck.
Edit 1-7 9:37 AM
Please check out this post first to be better able to comprehend exactly why I feel knowledge of these deceptions is so critically important to the R∃VO↵UTION.
Edit 1-6 8:30 PM
This post has fought it's way back from -39 votes. People are starting to dig deeper and expose the INTENTIONAL LIES of the Attorney who posted the other thread.
Edit 1-6 9:56 AM

I saw the post about "giving up" your right to bear arms when you enter into a "contract" to drive. I have to respectfully disagree. Your RIGHT is an absolute right which (1) you do not have to power to "give up" as it is granted from your Creator, and (2) any "contract" has to have the terms fully disclosed and you have to UNDERSTAND those terms in order for the contract to legally stand.

HE IS CLAIMING TO DIRECTLY QUOTE ME. WHERE DO I WRITE "GIVING UP" below? Please stop letting people FEED on your EMOTIONS! Look how the paragraph above was so cleverly CRAFTED. The VERY BEST LIES are 99% truth.
Edit 1-6 8:41 AM
"It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." ~ Bill Clinton during impeachment proceedings

The precise definitions of words DO MATTER! Please do not buy into the "semantics" argument! The BARflies want you to ignore the subtle differences and just keep going along minding your "own business" so they can maintain their MONOPOLY on the interpretation of Law!

Scroll down to section 15 to find out what "United States" means:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Do you really wanna be a citizen of (created by) the United States?

FYI - I really hope nobody here is clueless enough to think that I'm trying to convince them to give their guns away. If you had an option to keep them without having to die or kill would you take it?
End Edit

When you went for a DRIVER LICENSE you saw a question which asked:

Are you a US citizen? [ ] Yes [ ] No

You agreed by private contract to operate in the status of a United States citizen. You traded your right to bear arms for a state granted privilege. The constitution protects your unlimited right to contract, as well as your right to WAIVE ANY RIGHT.

The BARflies don't care if it's LOOKS right... smells right... feels right etc... they only care about if they can get away with it through LEGAL LOOPHOLES or not.

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.

It does not state:

... the right of persons ....

... the right of government agents ...

... the right of United States citizens ...

... the right of citizens ...

... the right of Citizens of the United States ...

I hate to break it to all persons but their individual government franchises will be disarmed because they have no right to bear arms guaranteed or protected in any constitution.

Legally speaking anyway...

Now PLEASE - Calm down... and think rationally for a minute. You are right now being LAUGHED at because you can't grasp this simple concept - by a bunch of BARFLIES. PLEASE - I know you are CAPABLE of following what I'm saying... I have FAITH in YOU.

This is SIMPLE STUFF... wanna hear how simple it is?

Don't let these BARFLIES drive us to killing each other while they sit on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

News flash: citizens are

News flash: citizens are people too.

Therefore, the phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;"

also applies to citizens.


When speaking common english,

When speaking common english, yes citizens are people. But when speaking legalese, citizens are persons, not people. In the legal system, citizens are NOT people but instead they are persons, which is a legal entity akin to a corporation, non profit organization, trust, ect.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Mind your Ps and Qs

Citizens are ALWAYS people. People are not always citizens. Citezens are a subset under the larger group of "persons".

BTW, the definitions are the same whether you capitalize it or not( go ahead and bust that theory while I'm here, lol.)

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.
2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.
3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.
4. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183 Metc. & Perk. Dig. h.t.; vide 3 Story's Const. Sec. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, Sec. 212; Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

"Citizens are ALWAYS people.

"Citizens are ALWAYS people. People are not always citizens."

Absolutely true, except that once you become a citizen the legal system does not deal with the man, with people. They deal with persons not people.

A citizen is BOTH a legal entity (citizen) and a flesh and blood man. It is the example of acting as one thing while being another:

Persona: A persona (plural personae or personas), in the word's everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The Latin word probably derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", with the same meaning, and that from the Greek πρόσωπον (prosōpon). Its meaning in the latter Roman period changed to indicate a "character" of a theatrical performance or court of law, when it became apparent that different individuals could assume the same role, and legal attributes such as rights, powers, and duties followed the role. The same individuals as actors could play different roles, each with its own legal attributes, sometimes even in the same court appearance.

It is from the latin word "persona" that we get the word "person". In the legal sense, this is a man acting in the capacity of legal entity, and, just as in Roman law, does not have the same rights as a man. Instead persons have legal rights, civil rights. The man still retains his natural rights, but in the court room they are not addressing the man, they address the person, the citizen. The man has merely tagged along out of necessity...

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Thank you

for your opinion. Perhaps you should research the facts.

Sovereign citizens are

Sovereign citizens are nutbags....

I wish that were true.

From my research, sovereign citizens are just Anarchists and freeloaders who think they've found the tool they need to destroy what they hate, government.

They aren't stupid or nutbags, but they do ultimately get exposed for what they are; Anarchists and worthless to liberty, in fact, a detriment to it. They pretend not to know what threatens their liberty and reject anything which defends liberty.

Talk about divide and conquer. Imagine a whole world filled with Sovereign Anarchists who can't rule or defend anything, least of all their own lives or liberty. The world would be ripe for the taking. It's brilliant, just not brilliant enough..

Sovereign citizens aren't nutbags. They're NWO shills and useful followers trying to destroy and break up the US.

Nothing they say can steer me from my course:

"Freedom, liberty, and their common defense."


I like anarchism. I just don't think it is sustainable. Therefore strict limitations on government is the way to go, in my opinion.

Essentially isn't that what we are after in creating greater liberty? Minimizing government as much as possible while leaving it capable enough to fight off tyranny? IS it even possible? Essentially the founders failed to do it, or we wouldn't be talking about it today.

It might ultimately be a losing battle but we can at least continue the fight to provide for periods of time that have relatively great amounts of liberty. Perhaps minimal government is just as unstable as any government or no government at all.

If you want as much liberty as possible then you are advocating for anarchy in certain parts of your life. Don't forget that when you go to ridicule an anarchist.

But you are right about these people who think they've found legal loopholes concerning citizenship and people, etc. They are blind to the truth.

Whether the government we have is legitimate or not, it does not prevent that entity from taking our rights away.

I'm not interested in ridiculing Anarchists

"Don't forget that when you go to ridicule an anarchist."

I'm not interested in ridiculing Anarchists, but I will use them to make my points.

Like I said, Anarchists aren't nutbags or stupid. I find most Anarchists to be highly intelligent people who see the people around them as retarded nutbags, imbeciles and sheep. I would never tell them to try and opt out and live like a freeloader. They'll just end up facing justice.

It really is a kindness to tell an Anarchist to 'get out' rather than 'opt out'. They subscribe to voluntarism, but won't live by their own words, and they won't because there's nowhere in the world for them. (at least nowhere they'd want to live) There aren't any Anarchistic societies for a reason, and the reason is their solution is to opt out rather than in.

I wish they'd use their intelligence to make the case for justice rather than injustice, but they just can't get over thinking they'll fall into power through chaos and destruction. All they'll do is use their intelligence to spread more injustice rather than intelligently imposing a negation on those who want what injustice offers.

Can you please tell me

how one can be a sovereign and a citizen at the same time?

WOW -8: The Daily Paul membership is threatening to go against the grain of main stream society here and actually prove a majority here do their homework. I appreciate those of you who have re-evaluated this post and changed your minds based on new information that was previously not in your purview.

(This was posted during probably one of the most tense days in the 2nd amendment/gun control national debate in order to ATTEMPT to demonstrate how these politicians could be passing gun control without actually violating the 2nd amendment - which would obviously be treason.)

It was initially knee-jerked all the way down to -39. I'm real proud of everyone here that has "crossed the Rubicon" from Ron Paul libertarian politics to studying the foundations of law.

So the Constitution isn't

the law of the land it's the contract with the citizens (or rather employees)?

Wow...we have been duped.

James Madison - what were his motives?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...


In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Supreme Court ruled on several occasions that the amendment did not bar state regulation of firearms, considering the amendment to be “a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government and not upon that of the States.”


In 2008 and 2010, the Court issued two landmark decisions to officially establish an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

I see an attempt above at less government intrusion regarding the 2nd Ammendment - yet, today, we are being assaulted with just the opposite. Are they messing with our heads? I, for one, am confused.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

The gentleman is correct.

Standing as one of the People vs. a statutory citizen is something that 99.9% of Americans do not understand; even the ones who have an idea or two about it.

Keep in mind that in order to be accepted into Law School one must know and speak fluently Greek & Latin or else they would not be able to comprehend the language at Law.

Kudos to you. +1

I reserve the right to govern myself.


Ha! Haven't heard that one too often :-P

Thanks just the same though ;-)

It is comical this post has

It is comical this post has maintained a negative vote status when the constitution plainly uses the word people and not Citizen or citizen in the second amendment but those terms do appear elsewhere in the document.

It is also plainly obvious that "We The People" established and ordained government whereas citizens serve it.

Pointing out the obvious plain truth of the actual text gets a negative vote ...

Oh boy

Looks like it's time of the year for more "UNITED STATES" means a for profit corporation that is treated just like McDonalds under the law and your birth certificate has you in capital letters so you've given up your rights under contract with a corporate entity and the courts are running under admiralty law and something about the queen of England and mercantilism and knights of Malta post.


Eric Hoffer

Full disclosure?

I don't think you've ever responded when I've asked if you were a BAR member aka Attorney AT Law meaning you have a vested interest in American people not becoming Lawyers and doing so without being under the thumb of the BAR which is running an illegal closed union shop under threat of kidnapping, assault, extortion and even in some cases possible death (just read anything off the SPLC website - a BAR association affiliate).

Are you a BAR member aka Esquire sir?


I thought I recognized your phrasing. Must have changed names or something as I don't recognize the handle.

There is no such thing as a "BAR" membership. There is no acronym BAR for anything legal. There is a Bar, which refers to the bar in the court room. The physical piece of wood and the metaphorical legal right to come and pass the bar in the room and represent another person.

So, because what you're referring to doesn't actually exist, it's rather difficult for me to belong to it.

Of course, we've been over this about 1000 times in previous threads, but you insist, even after being proven time and again to be wrong, to use the defunct terminology, so I think this may be my sisyphean task.

As for being a lawyer, no, I'm a business owner. That means I have to know law to protect my rights as a business.

Eric Hoffer

Then what exactly

is the "Texas State Bar" or another state BAR association for that matter? What is "getting dis-bared" all about?


I'm noticing you used "Texas State Bar" and left Bar in the correct form and usage without capitalizing every letter. At least you did the first time.

There are obviously state bar organizations. They're the people who say, "Yes this person has passed the Bar exam and has legal standing to represent others. He can therefore cross the Bar in the courtroom."

When you pass the Bar however you don't become a member of a group called a bar member or anything like that. To be disbarred is to have your right to pass the bar in the courtroom revoked.

Eric Hoffer


The right to bear arms is an unalienable human right.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee anything whatsoever. It might if it were followed...

Anything you get by permission is a priveledge.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Please start re-phrasing this argument...

The Constitution doesn't guarantee anything

The constitution cannot get up, sit down, guarantee anything, void anything, protect you from anything or DO ANYTHING because it is JUST a piece of paper.

Public officials take an oath to follow those rules. It's up to the people who granted these public officials those powers to file a criminal complaint (I'm still not positive exactly which works better) against them when they violate the constitution and file a claim against their bond.

We the people ARE the enforcement mechanism in the trust agreement. We trust you to manage our affairs as long as you agree to follow these rules. I can help anyone with the basics on this. It's NOT SCARY when you're going into court as a plaintiff or a claimant because YOU are the boss and the court plays by YOUR rules (as long as you lay them down articulately).

I think people generally have the right to bear arms

But the founders forgot to mention the poor bear's feet.

That right is guaranteed

by our constitution. It's guaranteed for people. They knew they couldn't legally violate the rights of the people so they created a corporation... tricked everyone into becoming "employees" without their knowledge (as US citizens - obviously UNPAID employees) and then created corporate statutory rules to regulate their activity.

They make you believe you are REQUIRED to do it while on paper you are legally volunteering to be in servitude for free. The nice thing about volunteer work however is you can freely choose when to be ON DUTY (and therefore bound by statutes) or not.

I agree with you analogy, that

we have been brainwashed into following the US corporate system, but with only an extremely small amount of people claiming sovereign citizenship, it only makes an easy target for the Corporation's athoritarian agencies. I used to love to watch the Youtubes of the great Bill Foust from the Republic of Arizona. But look what happened to him, murdered by a athoritarian local agent police officer for refusing to reliquish his 4th Amendment rights to an illegal pat down search in his own driveway. The legal system is way to rigged to play this game. I believe it's a good practice to expose the system, but it's also a good idea to learn how to 'play' the same system, much the same reason Dr Paul chose to stay in the GOP rather than becoming a Libertarian candidate. For example, if you ask Dr Paul if income tax is legal, he will say no, it's unconstitutional, but if you try to challenge this system, it will cost you even more money and more problems from the system. Good info to educate people on the corupt corporate system, anyway!

Only one way to fix this:

but with only an extremely small amount of people claiming sovereign citizenship, it only makes an easy target for the Corporation's athoritarian agencies.

You gotta stand up... even if it means spending a few days in jail. Man just look at what Gandhi and all those people in India put up with to throw off the British occupation?

The more you learn about the law the less likely you will have to spend a few days behind bars to protect your rights, but everyone's gotta draw the line NOW. We can't afford to let them get ONE MORE DIME out of us!

Unfortunately, I believe

Unfortunately, I believe that India is still a member of the British Commonwealth of Nnations like Canada and Australia, among many others. I don't know what that truly means, but I believe that the Queen still holds some jurisdiction over the land.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Ok I changed my vote.. +2 for you.


Thank you.

Holy cow the last time I checked this post it was at -23.

We're almost back into positive territory. I almost see this post as a a "great awakening" gauge for all humanity. If the folks at the Daily Paul can "get this" then those roots will spout branches of liberty all over the place!

Thank you all for your PERSEVERANCE on this MOST IMPORTANT issue of our time!

Bump for a very

thought provoking thread. Thank you.

Liberty is on the march, tyranny is on the run!


I hope you take the time to listen to at least the two intros (16 and 11 mins) to the "Revelations In Law" talk shoe we just started from the "hear me out" link.

Real solutions an individual can do to restore their liberty are available with a little bit of education. You can benefit from decades of research from a lot of really knowledgeable folks.