Posted on 01/14/2013 2:16:10 PM PST by LucianOfSamasota
Any effort to disarm the American people is unlawful. That is clear according to the "laws of nature and of nature's God" and the clear, plain language of the Constitution. Moves to disarm the people are unequivocally the benchmark of a design "to reduce them under absolute despotism."
Despotism is Barack Obama's purpose and the purpose of any and all forces in our society who support his bid to render Americans defenseless. Some of his less astute supporters are already sighing aloud about the need for dictatorship. Others, less imprudent, slyly promote the notion that to secure ourselves against madmen and terrorists, we have no choice but to surrender to government all means of defending ourselves against either. Their policy is "Disarm and trust the government." But when those in government become, or make use of madmen and terrorists (as the totalitarian Communists and Nazis of the 20th century did), what then?
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
I love Alan Keyes, a true conservative.
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves ... and include... all men capable of bearing arms. ... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” —Richard Lee, Federal Farmer LIII
While I can easily find “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” in the Constitution, I can find no such rights given to any LEOs. Perhaps its time to turn the argument around, and start demanding that LEOs need to give up their arms...
I was completely unaware of this event that took place in Athens, TN. in 1946. I did not know an armed revolt by WWII veterans ever took place. A very sobering video to say the least.
Now the second amendment is a little clearer.
http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html
The gangs are today’s militias, unfortunately. They have organization, weapons, fear-enforced discipline, and organizational (but not patriotic) loyalty. Any emergent traditional militia faces government suppression, though.
All Rights come from our Creator: YHvH
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I would add that it’s flatly immoral.
Isn’t putting an ineligible politician in the WH also unlawful?
And yet it has been done and no congresscritter seems to be concerned.
You think there are still politicians left who care about the law?
B
Ohh you betcher bippy! They care about the laws that apply to you, and you only!
Laws that apply to them?
Whhaaattt?, in the words of Dingbat Pelosi: "You can't be serious?!"
The list seems to be endless...
The founders were terrified of standing armies. They did not want a standing army. The “militia” was anybody who could shoot a gun, and they were expected to show up when it was time to fight.
Unlawful? Laws of Nature? Where were you back in 2009 as the GOP stood silent while Obama was illegally installed as president? What a joke.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Their policy is “Disarm and trust the government.” But when those in government become, or make use of madmen and terrorists (as the totalitarian Communists and Nazis of the 20th century did), what then?
____
—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.