The RKBA Cannot Be Lawfully Commandeered By The State; & It Isn’t For Sale!


Bill Of Rights Suspended National Defense Authorization Act
The RKBA Cannot Be Lawfully Commandeered By The State; & It Isn’t For Sale!

New York – -( The Bill of Rights cannot be easily supplanted, ignored, dismissed out-of-hand, as the fundamental rights and liberties are engrained deep in the psyche of most American citizens and they are loathed to surrender their sacred God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, knowing that, to do so, means the loss not only of their Country but of their own Soul.

One especial natural, God-given right, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, codified in the Bill of Rights as “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,” is Divine Law that has been codified into law by man. More to the point, this Divine Law is written into man’s Spirit. That is what makes the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Divine Law, and not mere man-made law.

This Divine Law serves to prevent the takeover of the Nation’s Country by tyrants. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, isn’t for sale!

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, is subsumed in a more elemental Divine law: The Right of Personal Self-Defense, against a predatory animal, whether that predatory animal hops on two legs or runs on four, and against a predatory, tyrannical Government. Further, the Natural God-bestowed Right of Personal Self-Defense is itself subsumed in the God-bestowed Right of Personal Autonomy, for it is through Self-Defense that man is able to preserve and has the solemn duty and cardinal responsibility to preserve and secure from harm not only his physical well-being but his psychological and spiritual well-being; his individuality; the sanctity of Self-hood; the inviolability of his Soul, sanctified by the Divine Creator.

If unable to exercise the God-bestowed Right of Self-Defense, of which the firearm is the most efficient means of Self-Defense, man cannot effectively persevere against those forces that would dare crush his will and spirit into submission; would not be able to effectively defend against those forces at work in society today that compel uniformity and conformity in all thought and conduct; would not be able to resist evil forces that insist on transforming a Nation of individual Souls into a collection of mindless, senseless drones, an obsequious, obedient, formless glob—a monstrosity, a thing created by evil forces in clear defiance to the Creator’s will. For the Creator intended for man to be noble, that he might, through his individual Soul, be a demi-Creator in his own right, set out on his own path, realize his full potential as an independent creative Spirit; for he is made in God’s Image.

Yet, it is a thing strange that, given the plain meaning of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in clear, precise, concise words in the U.S. Constitution, it would come to pass that an American citizen would find it necessary to petition the Judiciary to secure for him a God-given Right.

A right that Government or private enterprise interests—artificial constructs of man—would dare deny him. Yet for decades, before the seminal Second Amendment Heller case was heard, ignoble forces were at work to subvert the plain meaning of the Divine Law, arguing that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was not an Individual Right at all, and certainly was not to be perceived as a Natural Right, but one bound up in service to a collective, a militia. This idea is false on its face, and, when one realizes that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in the Second Amendment, isn’t a man-made law at all, but Natural Law, of Divine Origin, pertaining to the Individual Self, to the Individual Soul, to one’s personal autonomy, then any notion that the Right is to be understood as, to be taken as, something that applies to and has meaning only in the context of groups, to a collective, falls apart of its own weight as a matter of logic, as well as of law.

One comes to realize that the mistake of law and logic that arises from the conclusion that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms has meaning and purport in the context of one’s service in a militia, in the context, then, of one’s service in a group, is due to problematic, false assumptions.

The mistake of law and logic that some academic scholars as well as the lay public fall prey to commences from an assumption, taken as axiomatic, as self-evident, that the Bill of Rights, is simply a creation of man, an artificial construction of the government, an arbitrary formulation by State actors in Government, not unlike the Articles of the Constitution, or later procedural amendments to it, and not unlike other man-made common or codified law. In that case, grounded on acceptance of false assumption and illogical reasoning, one draws the illogical conclusion that fundamental rights are no more than privileges to be bestowed onto this one or that one, or to this group or to that group by the grace of the State, and, just as readily, rescinded by the State, as the sole creator of the Right. Through acceptance of the false assumption that the Bill of Rights is really a set of State created privileges, all sorts of inanities arise therefrom, such as the idea that the Ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights can readily be amended no less so than the Articles of the Constitution or the procedural amendments subsequently ratified and added to the Constitution or just as readily repealed.

But, the Bill of Rights is no mere collection of Rights and Liberties, for they were not created by man. They are codifications of Divine Law.

As such, they existed prior to any artificial governmental construct of man. As Divine Law, not man-made law the Bill of Rights cannot be lawfully amended, modified, abrogated, or ignored. The Rights codified in the Bill of Rights exist internally and eternal in man. They aren’t creations of the State, of Government, of man. This fact, the Neoliberal Globalist and Neo-Marxist Counterrevolutionaries both inside Government and outside it, will not accept—indeed cannot accept—for the idea that some Rights exist beyond the lawful power of the Government to whittle away at, to reinterpret the import and purport of, or to nullify outright, frustrates these evil forces to no end, as that idea makes impossible the realization of their goal of a one-world transnational governmental regime in which man is subjugated to the dictates of Government, as the State, alone, to these Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists, is to be perceived as god, having the power of life or death over the men they rule.


About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

Arbalest Quarrel

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Right exists, no question. However, the citizens have allowed the various levels of government to infringe upon that right on a regular basis, and they continue to allow it. Some citizens even go so far as wanting their rights removed for their personal “safety”. Benjamin Franklin rightly said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Too many Americans today are deserving of neither and deserve to be deprived of both.


Seems to me that this simple and understandable statement easily covers any state infringement on the right to defend ones self…

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


I’m not a cunning linguist, so… honest question: is that an affirmation of State authority or of Federal predominance?


The latter.


Why the negatives? This quotes the Constitution directly.


And why the negatives for asking a question?


My only negative is the repeated use of the work “Divine”. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” An inalienable right can and does exist without the backing or direction of religion.

Wild Bill

@Grim, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” does not mean what you want it to mean. What it does mean, in our modern use of the English language, is that Congress shall not make a law concerning the preference of one denomination of the Christian faith over any of the others or set up its own church (like Henry VIII did.) The states, however, were free to pick a diminution of the Christian faith as the official state Christian denomination. Massachusetts had one until 1834. Hugo Black deliberately misinterpreted that part of the First Amendment because… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Wild Bill

“When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.” Ron Paul Today we see more and more Americans willing to give up the freedoms fought so hard for buy others. Americans are falling for the propaganda from those 545 elected to serve in both houses in Washington. On the local level government, governors ,mayors have begun to test the federal laws that protect all Americans under the constitution. The pandemic has opened up my eyes on how hard it is to remove these governors and mayors from… Read more »