Shedding Light On Humanity And Exposing Corruption Within Our Leadership


Gun Control And The Design Of The Second Amendment To Replace Bad Government

October 13th, 2018 6:00am

Gun Control And The Design Of The Second Amendment To Replace Bad Government

The author has compiled the following information from case files, congressional notes, and the great American documents that make up the founding of our nation.

Our 2nd Amendment rights are under direct attack. The only way to gain complete control of the American population is to recall the 2nd Amendment. This one act would ultimately lead to our subjugation to those who conspire for the One World Order.

The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were specifically worded to encapsulate our G-d given right to personal freedom without the meddling of big government. The 2nd Amendment was created to give the population the ability to not only defend themselves but to also throw off bad government.

The Constitution recognizes the supreme power of the States and those who vote the officials into office using the democratic method, "we the people". Today it's a far cry that can be heard from the people who's government, belonging to them, led astray due to bribery and blackmail of the highest order by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. Today, the federal government has grown in such magnitude as to render the States and the People defenseless.   

Today, American school children, the UN and the Vatican are calling for the abolition of firearms. Some elements of federal government want strict gun laws and to abolish all semi-automatic firearms.

Enter the Bill of Rights

Amendment II

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.

The terminology used in the amendment itself has been scrutinized in the courtrooms for decades.

It has been put to rest and here are the results for those of you wondering.

What is the definition of "arms"?

In one instance the term is applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and laborers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays and not bear other arms. Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”

Some have made the argument that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communication. The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claims the right to bear arms as a pre-political, natural right. He describes a lawful weapon in Heller vs District of Columbia in 2008; "it is the right to own, carry and use a weapon of the same technological proficiency as those owned by the bad guys and government officials".

There is no limit to the quantity of arms one can own.

It's pretty straightforward. Arms are guns of any sort.

What is the definition of "keep" and "bear", referring to arms?

 We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “to retain; not to lose,” and “to have in custody.” Webster defined it as “to hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose, confrontation. In the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’

An interesting note.

The Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment simplicity recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As is said in United States v. Cruikshank92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it "shall not be infringed". According to the Constitution, it is a natural right, a G-d given right, to own a firearm.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry firearms up to the same technology as the government, in case of confrontation and to throw off tyranny. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

The US Constitution was created by "Federalists" (as they were labeled) which were some of the friends of the founders and known to be British loyalists, along with many true British loyalists who were British Crown lovers to the core.

The true founders refused to sign the US Constitution and it was only ratified after the Bill of Rights was adopted by the Federalists and agreed to. The founders knew that eventually, the British loyalists would push the boundaries of the US Constitution and try to enforce their rule over the States in violation of their jurisdiction. So the Bill of

Rights was created to specifically point out what the new federal government would never have any jurisdiction over.

This is a great point. Even though the Federalist John Adams and the Anti-Federalist (Democratic Republican) Thomas Jefferson were staunch enemies, as they corresponded in their retirement, they both agreed that one day the federal government would grow so massive that it would eventually overcome the States' jurisdiction through corruption of the Constitution.

The threat that the new federal government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason the 2nd Amendment right was codified in the US Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

Understand one thing, our founders were trying to protect us from the conspirators of the  One World Order. They knew the day would come when they would reach our shores. And they did, and you never knew it.

Our federal government today is exactly what Jefferson and Adams spoke of.  The federal government is not working for us. We work for them. The whole definition of American freedom described in our founding documents has been turned upside down, inverted, a complete reversal. As the federal government grows, we lose more and more freedom.

Why, how, when? Ask the conspirators.

Now I'll just throw this in here to add a little excitement.

Enter The Dick Act

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, "a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes". The other purposes are believed to be that it invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.

There is discussion regarding the term "militia" and how it could be reference to unpaid citizens of a local community who gather with firearms to protect their city.

I've done much research on this and I can not find any definite support for this claim of invalidating gun control. However, there are many people who believe this to be the case. At this point I am not in judgment but it's something to discuss. Read the Dick Act and decide for yourself if there is a good argument or not.  

As some are aware, in today's justice system, the law rests in the interpretation of the judge. They call it in the corporate US Inc courtroom, "the color of law". The judge will decide what the law is. This is the law of admiralty/maritime. There honestly is no Constitutional right owed to any person whatsoever. Sadly, this is the truth and for another discussion.

If the Dick Act is truly an abolition of gun control laws, then we should be able to fight the UN, the Vatican and any US Inc bully tactic that comes our way, in a court of law, or maybe not.

Either way, it is spelled out clearly what the founders were articulating with this amendment. There is no question about it. Each and every American has the G-d given right to own a firearm and as many as they want, up to the same technical proficiency as the government in order to protect themselves and to throw of bad government.

In America there are over 300 million firearms in circulation. That's nearly one per person. However, these guns are owned by only 25% of the population.

Stay vigilant patriots.

Believe nothing, believe everything.

Stay mad!











Location: Blog >> Gun Control And The Design Of The Second Amendment To Replace Bad Government

New World Order
The Vatican



Return to Top