Good morning, people of the most High God Pray for your
nation unity
Today and every day, I am asking sincere Christians, to pray
for our nation; that amendment two will be move from the constitutions. We as a
people to the people MUST understand that slaver-ism is no longer a treat to
anyone in our nation, because of that; we should learn to live together in
peace and unity. In addition, fear is the most destructive piece of element to humankind.
It is this fear that is causing the bloodhound
angels to be killing our children in schools and on the Streets. We need to
pray against the wicked angels who are seeking human’s blood, in the name of
Jesus. We need to pray that our citizens will take the time to analyze the
truth about God; he is the only security guard and gun bullets- realizing that
he has the power to close every gun mouth if you trust and obey his law.
We must understand, as God told Peter, one of his apostles,
he who lives by the sword, die by the sword. Reflecting in Jesus own words “Then
said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)
Jesus is saying to
the effect that if you use violence, or other harsh means, against other
people, you can expect to have those same means used against you; "You can
expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want. We
can live together as one if we learn to do so. It does not matter what kind of
device you have to protect yourself, learn that people who practice evil, do
not care about that-they will still do what pleases them. Therefore, my
friends, our answer to what going on in our nation about amendment two, is in
the hands of God. In fact, when any nation turns from God, they accumulate
problem- since we are one nation under God, we do not need the second Amendment-
what we need is prayer. On the other hand, we are an independent nation under
God- we are no longer colononized by anyone. We should learn how to forgive and
how to get along. Slavery is over-my
friends, drop your weapon and use prayer as your weapon.
In all these practices, think about someone open fire on
you, how would you feel? if you would not be happy about it, then do not
practice to use evil devise to destroy a soul- everyone’s life is valuable in
the sight of God , and it should be the same with men.
Please read briefly about amendment second, as follows:
Second
Amendment
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
reads:
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 subject matter and unusual phrasing
of this amendment led to much controversy and analysis, especially in the last half
of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the meaning and scope of the amendment have
long been decided by the Supreme Court.
Firearms played an important part in
the colonization of America. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European
colonists relied heavily on firearms to take land away from Native Americans and
repel attacks by Native Americans and Europeans. Around the time of the Revolutionary
War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British
forces. Firearms were also used in hunting.
In June 1776, one month before the signing
of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a
state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that
"a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms,
is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." After the colonies
declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right
to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that
the people have a right to bear arms
for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time
of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military
should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The wording of clauses about bearing
arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted
that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called
it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.
Pennsylvania was not alone in its express
discouragement of a standing (professional) army. Many of the Framers of the U.S.
Constitution rejected standing armies, preferring instead the model of a citizen
army, equipped with weapons and prepared for defense. According to Framers such
as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George
Mason of Virginia a standing army was susceptible to tyrannical use by a power-hungry
government.
At the first session of Congress in March
1789, the Second Amendment was submitted as a counterweight to the federal powers
of Congress and the president. According to constitutional theorists, the Framers
who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those
in favor of centralized authority over the states. The Revolutionary War had, after
all, been fought in large part by a citizen army against the standing armies of
England.
The precise wording of the amendment
was changed two times before the U.S. Senate finally cast it in its present form.
As with many of the amendments, the exact wording proved critical to its interpretation.
In 1791 a majority of states ratified
the Bill
of Rights, which included the Second Amendment. In its final form, the amendment
presented a challenge to interpreters. It was the only amendment with an opening
clause that appeared to state its purpose. The amendment even had defective punctuation;
the comma before shall seemed grammatically unnecessary.
Legal scholars do not agree about this
comma. Some have argued that it was intentional and that it was intended to make
militia the subject of the sentence. According to these theorists, the operative
words of the amendment are "[a] well regulated Militia … shall not be infringed."
Others have argued that the comma was a mistake, and that the operative words
of the sentence are "the right of the people to … bear arms … shall not be
infringed." Under this reading, the first part of the sentence is the rationale
for the absolute, personal right of the people to own firearms. Indeed, the historical
backdrop—highlighted by a general disdain for professional armies—would seem to
support this theory.
Some observers argue further that the
Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists,
the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government.
Thomas
Jefferson is quoted as saying that "a little rebellion every now and then
is a good thing."
The Supreme Court makes the ultimate
determination of the Constitution's meaning, and it has defined the amendment
as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally
controlled militias. This interpretation first came in United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875). In Cruikshank, approximately one hundred
persons were tried jointly in a Louisiana federal court with felonies in connection
with an April 13, 1873, assault on two African–American men. One of the criminal
counts charged that the mob intended to hinder the right of the two men to bear
arms. The defendants were convicted by a jury, but the circuit court arrested the
judgment, effectively overturning the verdict. In affirming that decision, the Supreme
Court declared that "the second amendment means no more than that [the right
to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than
to restrict the powers of the national government."
In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S.
252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886), Herman Presser was charged in Illinois
state court with parading and drilling an unauthorized militia in the streets
of Chicago in December 1879, in violation of certain sections of the Illinois Military
Code. One of the sections in question prohibited the organization, drilling, operation,
and parading of militias other than U.S. troops or the regular organized volunteer
militia of the state. Presser was tried by the judge, convicted, and ordered to
pay a fine of $10. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Presser argued, in part,
that the charges violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court disagreed
and upheld Presser's conviction. The Court cited Cruikshank for the proposition
that the Second Amendment means only that the federal government may not infringe
on the right of states to form their own militias. This meant that the Illinois
state law forbidding citizen militias was not unconstitutional. However, in its
opinion, the Court in Presser delivered a reading of the Second Amendment
that seemed to suggest an absolute right of persons to bear arms: "It is undoubtedly
true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military
force or reserve militia of the United States," and "states cannot … prohibit
the people from keeping and bearing arms."
Despite this generous language, the Court
refused to incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth
Amendment. Under the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868,
states may not abridge the Privileges
and Immunities of citizens of the United States. The privileges and immunities
of citizens are listed in the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is part.
Presser had argued that states may not, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, abridge
the right to bear arms. The Court refused to accept the argument that the right
to bear arms is a personal right of the people. According to the Court, "The
right to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress
or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship."
The Presser opinion is best understood
in its historical context. The Northern states and the federal government had just
fought the Civil War against Southern militias unauthorized by the federal government.
After this ordeal, the Supreme Court was in no mood to accept an expansive right
to bear arms. At the same time, the Court was sensitive to the subject of federal
encroachment on States'
Rights.
Private Militias
Private militias are armed military groups
that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments.
Private militias have been formed by individuals in America since the colonial period.
In fact, the Revolutionary War against England was fought in part by armies comprising
not professional soldiers but ordinary male citizens.
Approximately half the states maintain
laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and
exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation
of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation
of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body
of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United
States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization,
or parade in public with arms without license of the governor." The Wyoming
law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating
the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment
of six months, or both, for each offense.
In states that do not outlaw them, private
militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus,
if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members
will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace,
firearms, or even riot statutes.
Many private militias are driven by the
insurrection theory of the Second Amendment. Under this view, the Second Amendment
grants an unconditional right to bear arms for Self-Defense
and for rebellion against a tyrannical government—when a government turns oppressive,
private citizens have a duty to "insurrect," or take up arms against it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified
rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United
States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever
theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion
against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure
of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have
interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections
and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.
Some people have disagreed with the Supreme
Court's definition of tyranny. Many of these people label the state and federal
governments as tyrannical based on issues such as taxes and government regulations.
Others cite governments ponsored racial and ethnic Integration
as driving forces in their campaign against the federal and state governments. Many
of these critics have formed private militias designed to resist perceived government
oppression.
Some private militias have formed their
own government. The legal problems of these private militias are generally unrelated
to military activities. Instead, any criminal charges usually arise from activities
associated with their political beliefs. The Freemen of Montana is one such militia.
This group denied the legitimacy of the federal government and created its own township
called Justus. The Freemen established its own court system, posted bounties for
the arrest of police officers and judges, and held seminars on how to challenge
laws its members viewed as beyond the scope of the Constitution. According to neighbors,
the group also established its own common-law court system and built its own jail
for the imprisonment of trespassers and government workers, or "public hirelings."
Now make a change. Put God before
you and fear no one. God is your weapon. God bless and keep all of you Amen.
