-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
FROM THE OP'S POST ON THE OTHER THREAD:

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.

Your honor...

"In and for the public record I accept your oath of office, bind you to it and remind you of your fiduciary duty to me."

PRESTO - Verbal contract created on the record!

This would be for the benefit of the

Defendant?

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Yes however I would recommend

if you are FORCED to be in that court that you change your "defendant" status into a "counter-plaintiff" - otherwise you can choose to simply rebut all their presumptions that you have contracted into SERVITUDE simply because you signed a voter REGISTRATION form.

You can do this kind of stuff FROM YOUR MAILBOX as long as you DEAL with the PAPERWORK as soon as it gets to you.

Silence is acquiescence (agreement) to whatever presumptions of contract they assert.

Let me add one more thing.

Let me add one more thing. The reason the Constitution isnt allowed in courts is because residents of States are aliens to the State. They are Federal persons residing in the State of the Union.

In California for example:

    An alien has no right to raise the question whether a statute is violative of Const. U.S. art. 4. Sec 2. declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.
    In re Johnson's Estate, 73 P 424 (1903).

Seems simple, but what is an "alien"?

    California Government Code section 242.

    Persons in the State not its citizens are either:

    (a) Citizens of other States; or
    (b) Aliens.

You see? A citizen of the United States is NOT a Citizen of another State, and is therefore an "alien" merely "resident" in the States.

This is why I always declare my status, and my special appearance. Here is my opening of a current suit:

    Plaintiff, My Name, Sui Juris, flesh and blood man, appearing specially, hereby files this complaint as a free white Citizen of the Republic state of Michigan, and therefore a Citizen of the Republic state of California pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the united States of America.

    Plaintiff is specifically not a “citizen of the United States” (Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (1874) and Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)) and specifically not a “resident” of any State. (Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 143)(“Of course the terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important” [252 U.S. 60, 79] (La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465, 470 , 39 S. Sup. Ct. 160)...TRAVIS v. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. , 252 U.S. 60 (1920)).

    Plaintiff hereby seeks justice from this Constitutional Court of Record. This action arises from a NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM from the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW for a claim made by Plaintiff for a deprivation of Plaintiffs unalienable fundamental human rights; and from violations of fundamental rights protected by the California Constitution of 1849; to acquire, protect and possess property (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 1); to due process (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 8); to be free from a Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 16), to be secure in his effects against unreasonable seizure (Cal Const Art I, Sec. 19); to be compensated for the taking of private property by the State (Cal Const Art I, Sec. 8); to be guaranteed a trial by jury (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 3); to confront witnesses at trial (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 21 supported by the 6th Amendment to the Organic Federal Constitution for the united States).

    Plaintiff declares that he is not a party to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because he is an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” with an upper case “C” as found in the organic Constitution for the united States of America, and therefore requests no protection from the 14th Amendment. (“No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent [13th and 14th] amendments to the Federal Constitution.” VAN VALKENBURG V. BROWN, 43 CAL. 43 (1872)).

I also ONLY cite State Constitutional deprivations whenever possible, and in California I cite the 1849 rather than the 1879 Constitution. you see the United States Constitution has been interpreted to only be for the free white founders:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

    The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 7 Pet. 243 243 (1833)

Although the Federal Constitution is the law of the land and states are not supposed make any law in violation of the Federal Constitution, I still try to stay in the State.

Please understand

this post is NOT about you giving up your guns. This is only about showing you how the BARflies use legal terminology to skirt the constitution. Please leave your emotions at the door. In battle you should know that anger will cloud your judgement.

If you cannot control that anger and think logically right now... then this post is good practice for you if - God forbid... you are facing a real situation as many believe is inevitable.

Take a deep breath - re-read the entire post and try to take the position of "he might be telling the truth." Denial of facts - also in battle is not going to win you a war.

Control your mind - or someone else will.

Now to point by point show you what the BARFLY is trying to do to you I'll re-paste that paragraph:

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.

1) I did not say anything about "giving up" your rights. I said you traded your rights for privileges.
2) The contract is VOID on it's face... but it must be "avoided" meaning you must speak up and say "I had no knowledge this is FRAUD!!!"
3) You cannot "give up" an unalienable right... he is correct. You can however temporarily WAIVE you're right. That means they are sitting here on the side just waiting for you if you want them back.

In court they are always trying to get you to WAIVE your rights not GIVE UP your rights. Right? Now please... go show that BARFLY that you're not going to be his PUPPET and put that thing in negative territory. I BELIEVE IN YOU - that is WHY I AM HERE.

Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson regarding the FEDERAL RESERVE and the INCOME TAX as well as SOCIALIST SECURITY:

'[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.

By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency.

Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.

Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.

They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.

This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call 'Social Insurance.'

'Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly.

The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the *President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.'”

The Right to Self Defense/Bear Arms is Inalienable

The Bill of Rights was added to reinforce the concept of Limited Gov't. Note that the 10 Amendments speak of the Feds not being authorized to infringe upon these Rights, our Inalienable Rights.

The Brits were notorious for denying those they Ruled the ability to resist their Tyranny. Equal Station assumes my Right, and yours, to throw off the burdens that Central Planners place upon those they see as Serfs.

While the Constitution does not guarantee the Right to Bear Arms, it does recognize it. If you want to really know your Rights, the 9th is the best place to start using the others recognized as reference points. Rights are Inalienable, Privileges are not. The State has no Rights, it only has Privilege bestowed upon it via consent (Just Power) or coercion (Unjust Power).

It's Unalienable

Just saying. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Both are correct, but glad you pointed this word out

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unalienable?s=t

Agree that the DoI uses Unalienable, but I think it is useful to know that both mean the same thing. It is the Definition that is important.

Hayek, and many others, have pointed out that Central Planners almost always target Language for modification to dumb down those they assume control over. The smaller a person's vocabulary, the smaller the mind, the less likely they can figure out that Rights come from Independence and Privilege comes from Dependence. Rights are not transferable, but they can be lost by becoming Dependent.

Rights are actions/behaviors that do not require the permission of another to act/behave.

Privileges are actions/behaviors that Require permission to act/behave.

Dependents Require Permission from those that they are dependent upon.

Bottom Line; Always question what others mean, all too often people are not on the same page.

No they don't mean the exact same thing..

Check out vince's post on why. You're looking at today's definition.. Yesteryear's definition makes a slight but very important distinction between the two.

Here's another take on it.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalien...

Edit: This is the final draft, the one everyone signed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Us_declar...

It says "unalienable".. Why do you think so many politicians use inalienable instead of what our history shows. In my opinion, they have an understanding of the difference. Gingrat is very fond of it's use. It boils my blood every time I hear that scheming fat fuck use "inalienable"...

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

are you kidding me

Its the 2nd amendment , there are reasons it's #2, the top 3 amendments are the ultimate amendments for the citizen, they didn't make it #21 for a reason.

Second, the SCOTUS already almost unanimously, including ultra liberals, said citizens have a right to bear arms and not a musket either, the most modern arms of the day. It's settled law, it has starry Decises.

no state, no President, no congress can write or make a law to change that. It would take a Constitutional Amendment and then 2/3 of the States to support the amendment. Never going to happen.

Case closed, only thing they can try to do is outlaw ammo and specific models, but they can try to make people register which is ultra dangerous and that hopefully will never happen or gets shot down with SCOTUS

If the government tries to

If the government tries to ban certain specific models couldnt the gun manufacturer just change the name of the gun? that would be hilarious!

They don't ban specific

They don't ban specific models. They ban features, such as: all weapons with; a certain handle grip type, all weapons with a magazine capacity exceeding "x" rounds, all weapons with a firing capability of "x" rounds per minute or more...all weapons capable of emitting a projectile that could result in bodily harm....

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

You are missing the forest

thru the trees.

i give myself the constitutional right!

.

yep...I've given myself the

yep...I've given myself the right as well...I don't need to wait for permission.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

I guess u2 are atheists...

It's none of your damn

It's none of your damn business what I am.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

You're right.

That's why I was making an observation. Not a demand for you to provide information. I actually wasn't even asking it as a question.

Militia, State, and Arms are capitalized to reference somethin

previously defined.

Legalese

The ATTORNEYS are running EVERYTHING brother!

I'm trying to communicate that to both the FEDs watching this site and the people here who have unknowingly entered into contracts that are voidable - yet they must be a void ed.

Take a hint!

now @ -24

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Idiot.

Idiot.

I forgive you

for your knee-jerk conditioned reaction whereby you are so indoctrinated, poisoned etc etc etc... that you can't even articulate more than one word of ad hominem attack in response.

I think we need to get back to Natural Law

If you believe that your rights come from men who write constitutions, then you have to believe your rights can be taken away by men in those same positions of power, whereas if you believe (as you should) that your rights come from God, then only God can take them away.

http://jahtruth.net/plan.htm

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

That's a really great site and page.

I highly recommend it.

One of our guys studying with Rob Ryder for like two weeks before his sentencing hearing... CRAMMING and had already been through hell with this particular judge... came time for "allocution" and the judge asked him "Do you have anything to say?"

Our buddy drew a COMPLETE BLANK, then paused... and said "Yeah your honor I do have something to say." Then he bowed his head and started saying the Lord's prayer.

The judge got up and ran out of the court room. To my knowledge he hasn't heard from the court since.

I commend you

On your efforts here. That link came to me on 12/21/12 when I was looking for answers. I see now we can not hope to win in their courts with their judges on their terms.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

I respectfully disagree.

Let me articulate for you if I may:
http://www.dailypaul.com/268723/want-liberty-introducing-a-n...

Check those two out hopefully they will be quite revealing. It's the people's job to hold the courts accountable. With my current level of knowledge I assure you I could walk into any court in this country IF I HAD THE BACKUP OF A COUPLE DOZEN WITNESSES and beat ANY BARFLY - ANYWHERE ANYTIME. The judges are not the problem. We the people are the problem... and the pro se cutors are the problem because they take advantage of the people's - please excuse - ignorance of the law.

The judge is ONLY a referee.. yet we go into that court and completely ignore who it was that dragged us in there (the pro se cutor). The judge is the GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ and we are completely oblivious of the man behind the curtain (the pro se cutor).

It really is not what you

It really is not what you "believe" but what you actually practice. If you "believe" your rights come from God, but you have made oaths with Men, then your "rights" will come from those Men with which you have pledged, not from God.

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

First I don't give a rats ass about that mumbo jumbo bullshit

Secondly:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of that do you not understand? (Rhetorical)

I am sovereign.. my rights are natural and UNALIENABLE, meaning they cannot be traded, sold, given away or mumbo jumbo-ed out of existence. They cannot in any form be taken.. People can try to usurp them but then it is my duty to per the original contract that supersedes all other contracts to do away with those trying it, which is also my natural right.

If you don't understand that..move out of the way and the rest of us will fight your fight for you.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Thank you...

I don't get it either, had some friends try to tell me the same BS and said the same thing, our rights are unalienable and inherent in our existence.

How do people get to all of this craziness and just blow right by one of the most important fundamentals of it all? Reminds me of how some really intelligent people out there, engineers, doctors or whatever, can be so smart to know their trade, but miss some fundamentals that basically allows them to accept the brainwashing.

I don't know how to describe it, but I see some similarity. Just like how a mechanic might now how to fix a bunch a stuff on a car, but have no idea how it works in theory.

Anyways, that's some BS...talking about we can 'give up' our rights, that's what they want us to think that we've done. Now the whole 'straw man' idea and the all capital letters on certain legal papers, those things might still hold a little water, but idk the details.