TAKE AMERICA BACK
(TAB)
Spokesperson Phil Merletti
willowbee.traveler@hotmail.com
www.takeamericabackofmaine.vpweb.com
01/18/13
TREASON? #30
As the Progressive radicals and Anti-gun factions raise the debate to a fever pitch, it is essential to not let anyone distract us away from the real facts and issues at hand. We hope that what follows will clarify the real dispute that needs to be understood and how to put the debate to bed forever. This editorial may be considered lengthy, but it was reduced to the least amount to still be considered educational.
Less than a hundred years before the Declaration of Independence was presented to the British Monarchy, John Locke a British historian of law and philosopher, set the stage as to what law is; his definition was: “The law of nature…is the law of reason.”
In 1760 a British legal Scholar Sir William Blackstone wrote, “The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it.” He said that it was the “State of Nature” and all functions were fundamental and that the natural rights of all mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; “the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property.” Because these rights were viewed as common, natural, proven and by nature itself, what could be more accurate and evident then nature and balance? These rights were viewed as natural rights that were based on nature’s balanced laws, or given by nature or better yet given by GOD. Because these rights were GOD given, these rights were considered and assumed to be untouchable, unchangeable, immutable and therefore unalienable.
Blackstone also theorized that if man had the GOD given right to life, liberty and property, he therefore had the right to the preservation of these rights. He said: “All men are free and equal, and all men must respect the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.” Seven years before the Declaration of Independence was signed, in 1769 Samuel Adams quoted Blackstone’s theory that individuals are free to take up arms “to protect and maintain the three great primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property.” Three years later, Sam Adams and Ben Franklin wrote “Among the natural right of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, liberty; thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can”.
It is correct to assume that people organize into larger numbers and societies for mutual interest and to protect each other. Thomas Paine believed that “government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worse state an intolerable one.” He also stated that the “great and chief end of men (willfully) organizing under government institutions is the preservation of the property.”
In 1772, Samuel Adams and Ben Franklin also wrote “When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions……”
Our founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these natural 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.”
Our founding fathers also wrote in the second amendment:
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.
In the Maine Constitution, Article I, section 2 it reads:
All power is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit; that they have therefore an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it.
In the Maine Constitution, Article I, section 16 it reads:
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
When the founders authored the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the Maine Constitution, these documents were not conceived in a vacuum. Every word, sentence, paragraph and chapter was scrutinized to obtain the maximum goals to secure the freedom and liberty granted forever by ensuring the unalienable rights given by their creator. (Reference the “Federalist / J” papers)
Every conceivable piece of information ever recorded in history was critically collected, searched, investigated, restudied and reformed to forge a fluid transaction from tyranny to independent freedoms and liberty under a government that was responsible and accountable to its people. The primary intent was that the power of the government would be forever recognized as emanating from the individual, to the local municipality, to the county and to the state. The states in combination with their full rights would form a united government that was only responsible to the states decree, directed and controlled by the people.
Knowing the potential evil of governmental and political power is a fail-safe and last resort which was skillfully inserted into both the U.S. and Maine Constitutions. Short of a full blown insurrection, the U.S. Constitution says that it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it (the government), and to institute new government.” And the Maine Constitution is written to say “the Maine People have an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it.” This language is indisputable as to who has the power and what the responsibility of the people is. Both Constitutions give the (untouchable, unchangeable, immutable and unalienable) right to the people to “keep and bear Arms” and the Maine constitution goes one-step further and it reads: And that right “shall not be questioned.”
These two sections have for years become controversial because those that fear guns or believe in gun confiscation have unknowingly been fooled and used. They have been distracted and manipulated by political professionals to change the argument away from the universal, natural right and GOD-given right to preservation of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property. Schools no longer teach these two passages have helped keep this country from tyrannical people from taking over our government and destroying our state and U.S. Constitutions. Also gun ownership and the use for home, property and personal and family protection is the first line of defense against criminal actions. Every incident involving the use of firearms is recorded in every municipality and the incidence of appropriate gun use is preponderant to the illegal use of firearms by criminals and the mentally unstable. Police departments will admit they cannot perceive a crime before it is perpetrated; therefore they cannot protect the potential victims, but to only respond after the incident.
Since the sixties, there has been a slow, methodical process from the progressive movement who wish to destroy our Constitutions and the rights that are protected in them. They have infiltrated all levels of state and federal governments and this movement has accelerated since 1991. The progressives have found that the average child or parent responds to extremely well with sympathy for innocent victims and that if all other factors of truth could be diverted, the people could be trained and inclined to despise firearms and blame gun ownership as the problem. .
In order to stop the lies and the progressive movement the argument needs to change back to the intent of the constitutions when they were conceived and written. The Second Amendment of the Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Maine Constitution needs to be brought back into the forefront of the conversation and the truth needs to be revealed again. These two sections not only protect the hunter, the collector and target shooters; it covers the individual that wishes to preserve life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property with deadly force. These two sections allow individuals to join in compact to protect their homes, their community and their country from foreign and domestic terrorists that wish to violate our GOD given rights.
The intent of the Constitution was to provide the civilian populous with a force that could equally counter the enemies of the people. When the state and federal constitutions were written to allow the bearing of arms, it was common knowledge that the population had to have the same type of armament for protection. The founders put no limits as to what the firearms were or how many arms could owned, how big they were or how many rounds the firearm could have.
Those who are using public pressure and the sympathy from the public by using the death of innocent people and children are distracting honest people. The devious plan is to force an unconstitutional mandate to begin the process to hinder, handicap and obstruct and eventually remove the ownership of firearms from honest, law-abiding citizens by creating unlawful Executive Orders and unlawful laws that will eventually demand confiscation of firearms, ammunition and accessories. It is despicable and immoral that the progressives hide behind innocent children’s murder and to use the fear of children (and parents) to continue to misconstrue the real facts.
There is not one law that can be created that would have stopped any violent actions that had involved guns. To target a style of gun or the way it looks is foolish; it does absolutely nothing to stop a criminal offense. To limit the firearm capacity or feed mechanism does absolutely nothing for stopping the criminal from killing. Does this mean that the acceptance of a firearm that does not look like a military rifle and only has 10 rounds, it is ok for the criminal to kill only ten kids with it? The mandates, executive orders and bills offered today have no relationship to preventing gun violence. It appears that the people who suggest these ideas and suggestions to stop gun violence know absolutely nothing about firearms, the positive use and Constitutional law. The politicians are trying everything to overwhelm the public, but they are affecting good people and violating the law.
Cigarettes, alcohol, cars and hammers (individually) have killed more people than any type or combination of guns, but yet we live with these horrible events the best we can. Criminals will kill no matter what laws are created or how restrictive they are. Why are the progressives targeting guns and our constitutions? Why are these elected officials following these despicable plans to usurp the people and the powers of the Constitution? Firearms, ammunition and accessories are private property; they are considered part of the estate. Therefore the government has no constitutional right to restrict or confiscate (steal) any firearm away from law-biding people! Are they violating their sacred Oaths and, if so, they try to enforce their unconstitutional laws against the lawful American citizens, are they essentially “Enemy Combatants & Domestic Terrorists” by forcing us to stand our ground, protect our constitutional law and our own unalienable rights?
The President or Congress was given no legislative power other than those powers explicitly found or implied in the Constitution. All powers not delegated to congress in the constitution were reserved to the states or the People! (Reference 10th Amendment)
Lastly, a word to the wise, a word of caution to the reader and the criminal progressives: The Maine and U.S. Constitutions are ours. The sections and amendments are ours. This country is ours and the government is supposed to be ours. If some of the elected legislators (appointees and other state or local officials) want to violate our Maine and U.S. Constitutions, they are violating us! Either they know what they are doing against us and the Constitution, which makes them the domestic terrorist! Or if the elected leaders that we have trusted to protect us do not understand Constitutional law and what they are doing, why than, are they allowed to remain as political leaders? They will soon have their choice if they continue: either they remain and stand charged with treason, or they stand down and resign; there is no other choice for they have chosen this path of stupidity or deception!
Spokesperson Phil Merletti
