Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

A regime that abuses its power and attempts to deprive its citizens of their basic human rights undermines its claim to lawful authority.

The Second Amendment Primer


By —— Bio and Archives--March 3, 2016

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Let’s ask this of you who continue to insist after the District of Columbia v Heller ruling that the 2nd Amendment did not mean an individual right to bear arms…that it meant a “collective right” attached to a militia:

Which amendment in the Bill of Rights grants any civil or human right not pre-existing the constitution itself?

Do you believe that without a piece of paper—any piece of paper - you never had civil and human rights?

Human rights are moral principles or norms,[1] that describe certain standards of human behavior… regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights “to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,”[4] ... “inherent in all human beings”[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.[3 - WIKIPEDIA

“In addition to the Declaration of Independence, which reflects the Framers’ philosophical premises but does not have the force of law, the Constitution itself repeatedly refers to pre-existing rights.

The First Amendment does not say, “The people shall have a right to freedom of speech.” It says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Likewise with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

These are not rights the government creates; they are pre-existing rights the government is bound to respect.

There is no other way to make sense of the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” - Daniel LarisonJuly 7, 2010

Do you believe that government grants rights and without the “consent” of government you have no rights?

And if you can exercise your rights to begin with, can government take away rights it did not grant?

Do you believe that it is The People who grant government authority to govern, or it is government that rules without the People’s consent?

Which specific amendment in the Bill of Rights provides for collective rights? Or rights to a group or a “militia?”

And which specific rights are collective and which are not?

“Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.

Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members.

A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob ...

The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.” - Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness

If you believe that the 2nd does not convey a right, while the others do, then explain why the Bill of Rights uses the wording “The People” for some other amendments too?

Do rights mean that there’s a collective right of groups to speak freely, publish freely, worship a religion freely, assemble freely, or petition government freely, and individuals do not have th ese same right s ? And if you do, please explain why groups and nations have the right of self-defense and individuals should not?

“If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property—to defend it by violence against violent invasion.” - Mises Institute

If you believe that the 2nd meant not The People referencing individuals, but rather The National Guard, than explain how it can be that the Constitution ratified in 1789 actually meant the National Guard established in 1903?

The dissenting judges in Heller, all politically-motivated ideologues and liberals, neglected their duty to rule on the constitutionality of Heller as well as their oath of office, and discarded for mere political reasons and expediency the supreme law of the land which they were obligated to interpret under strict scrutiny using the plainest meaning of the words. Ref: Federalist

Incidentally, the word, THE PEOPLE, has not changed to THE MILITIA during the history of this nation or the evolution of the English language. Is it possible then, to interpret one to actually mean the other ?

Is it possible that the militia meant The People - or they are one and the same ; or it meant the uniformed standing army “controlled” by government?

Where do you find within the Bill of Rights or the Constitution a provision where the government controls “rights,” or The People, or the “militia?”

Or that the Founding Document and the human rights it is meant to defend, should become a “Living Document” to be interpreted by the fashion of the times?

The liberal judges failed to , courtesy of Justice Antonin Scalia, to re-write the meaning of words and the meaning of “is”; and to restrict natural human and civil right s from The People - you. The liberal jurists disregarded pre-existing law, principles of law, common and other, and the universal understanding of human and civil rights we naturally have as human beings without the consent of any authority.

The very same principles and thinking can be applied to the licensing of firearms.

Which human and civil right needs the consent of, and the licensing by, government?

It should be clear under strict scrutiny and plain language that the requirement for licensing the possession of conventional common-in-use firearms under the coercive penalty of law is constitutionally illegitimate and violates the freedom of all Americans.

A regime that abuses its power and attempts to deprive its citizens of their basic human rights undermines its claim to lawful authority.

That is why the progressive left is an existential, tyrannical enemy among us, as it has proven itself to be an existential threat within all nations. A hundred years of failure has never stopped it from giving the world another hundred.

It is why the Progressive Democrats and Liberal Left must be decimated politically and culturally—and this may be your last chance - to save these United States from a potential civil war that the y would surely lose. It is so, because, as discomfiting as these facts may sound, Americans have over 300 million firearms in their possession they will not give up, and most of the military, police, sheriffs, and the militias on their side.


Andrew G. Benjamin -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Andrew G. Benjamin is a real estate and tax specialist, equities trader, a former economic advisor to New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani; serving on the transition team’s Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. Benjamin also wrote extensively about intelligence, economic issues, the Mideast, terrorism, technology, high end audio and transnational politics.


Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: