**********
"The presumption is founded on a law of nature. We know of no more universal instinct than that of self-preservation, -none that so insistently urges to care against injury. It has its motives to exercise in the fear of has its motives to exercise in the fear of pain, maiming, and death. There are few presumptions based on human feelings or experience that have surer foundation than that expressed in the instruction objected to."
- Mr. Justice McKenna, delivering opinion of the U.S Supreme Court in Baltimore & P R CO v. Landrigan, 191 U.S. 461 (1903). Decided December 7, 1903.
**********
"... Indeed, this is conceded by counsel for the government, for in their brief ( after referring to certain decisions of this court) it is said: ..."
"...'Even though such right be a natural or inalienable right, the duty of protecting the citizen in the enjoyment of such right, free from individual interference, rests alone with the state...."
- Mr. Justice Brewer, delivering opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hodges v. U.S., 203 U.S. 1 (1906). May 28, 1906.
**********
"'The fundamental rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to him as a free man and a free citizen, now belong to him as a citizen of the United States, and are not dependent upon his citizenship of any state . . . . The Amendment [Fourteenth] does not attempt to confer any new privileges or immunities upon citizens, or to enumerate or define those already existing. It assumes that there are such privileges and immunities, which belong of right to citizens as such, and ordains that they shall not be abridged by state legislation. If this inhibition has no reference to privileges and immunities of this character, but only refers, as held by the majority of the court in their opinion, to such privileges and immunities as were, before its adoption, specially designated in the Constitution, or necessarily implied as belonging to citizens of the United States, it was a vain and idle enactment, which accomplished nothing, and most unnecessarily excited Congress and the people on its passage. With privileges and immunities thus designated or implied no state could ever have interfered by its laws, and no new constitutional provision was required to inhibit such interference. The supremacy of the Constitution and the laws of the United States always controlled any state legislation of that character. But, if the Amendment refers to the natural and inalienable rights which belong to all citizens, the inhibition has a profound significance and consequence.'"
- Mr. Justice Field, (concurred in by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley), U.S. Supreme Court, [Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230, (p. 95)] As quoted in Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
**********
"Who then, it is asked, will pronounce a verdict of guilty upon him if he stops reasoning and follows the first impulse of nature: self-preservation; and further, whether, while technically he is wrong in his resistance, he is not more sinned against than sinning; and yet again whether the guilt of those who voted the unnatural sacrifice is not greater than the wrong of those who now seek to escape by illadvised resistance."
- Mr. Justice [Oliver Wendell] Holmes, delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Frohwerk v. U S , 249 U.S. 204 (1919). Decided March 10, 1919.
**********
"It is asserted that the right of free speech is a natural and inherent right, and that it, and the freedom of the press, 'were regarded as among the most sacred and vital possessed by mankind when this nation was born, when its Constitution was framed and adopted.' And the contention seems necessary for the plaintiff in error to support. But without so deciding or considering the freedom asserted as guaranteed or secured either by the Constitution of the United States or by the Constitution of the state, we pass immediately to the contention, and for the purposes of this case may concede it; that is, concede that the asserted freedom is natural and inherent...."
- Mr. Justice McKENNA, delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in GILBERT v. STATE OF MINN., 254 U.S. 325 (1920).
**********
"...The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 559, 15 S. Sup. Ct. 962. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him..."
- Mr. Justice [Oliver Wendell] HOLMES, U.S. Supreme Court, BROWN v. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
**********
"...What the Court did hold was that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only protected from state invasion such rights as a person has because he is a citizen of the United States. The Court enumerated some, but refused to enumerate all of these national rights. The majority of the Court emphatically declined the invitation of counsel to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment subjected all state regulatory legislation to continuous censorship by this Court in order for it to determine whether it collided with this Court's opinion of 'natural' right and justice. In effect, the Slaughter-House cases rejected the very natural justice formula the Court today embraces. The Court did not meet the question of whether the safeguards of the Bill of Rights were protected against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment. And it specifically did not say as the Court now does, that particular provisions of the Bill of Rights could be breached by states in part, but not breached in other respects, according to this Court's notions of 'civilized standards,' 'canons of decency,' and 'fundamental justice.'
"Later, but prior to the Twining case, this Court decided that the following were not 'privileges or immunities' of national citizenship, so as to make them immune against state invasion: the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436; the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in civil cases, Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90; the Second Amendment's 'right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
"...It was aimed at restraining and checking the powers of wealth and privilege. It was to be a charter of liberty for human rights against property rights. The transformation has been rapid and complete. It operates today to protect the rights of property to the detriment of the rights of man. It has become the Magna Charta of accumulated and organized capital.'..."
- Mr. Justice [Hugo] Black, in dissent, (along with Justices Douglas and Swayne), Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 1947.
**********
""Capitalism is an economic system based on man's right to private property and on his freedom to use that property in producing goods which will earn him a just profit on his investment. Man's right to private property stems from the Natural Law implanted in him by God. It is as much a part of man's nature as the will to self-preservation." (At 560.)"
- MR. Justice Douglas, (in dissent), U.S. Supreme Court, quoting "Arthur J. Hughes' general history text, Man in Time (1964)", in Board OF Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968). Decided June 10, 1968.
**********
"Rights of the citizen declared to be --".
**********
The ONLY time a citizen of these United States can be legally disarmed, is if they are imprisoned according to valid usage of law and then government is obligated to provide protection for them. Otherwise, the citizen is in the state of nature and entitled to be able to defend themselves.
Anything else would be Repugnant to the United States Constitution, and the Laws of God, and Nature.
The perverse usurpations against our Rights, by government(s) that were formed by us. For the express purpose of protecting those very Rights, must cease immediately. All laws that have been passed, regardless of perverse precedence applied. Which are unconstitutional in their nature, must be declared Null and Void, by the TRUE rule of law. Our Freedom, our Liberty, and the very lives of ourselves and progeny absolutely depend upon it.
**********
"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
- Ben Franklin
**********
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
- Samuel Adams, letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
**********
"The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833.
Those whom allow themselves to be governed by fear,
will soon find themselves under its absolute rule.
2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com
