Attacks On The 1st & 2nd Amendments All Evidence of Biden Admin’s Ongoing Treason

If The Pen Can Be Censored, Can “The Sword” Be Broken?
Read our complete article series on Treason here.

Noose Gallows Hangman Treason iStock-Sergei-Q 1282683829
Attacks On The 1st & 2nd Amendments All Evidence of Biden Admin’s Treason, iStock-Sergei-Q

New York – -(

“I must own, I know not what Treason is, if sapping and betraying the liberties of a people be not treason, in the eternal and original Nature of Things.” ~ John Trenchard (1662-1723) & Thomas Gordon, English Journalists and political theorists of the late 17th and early 18th Centuries, the two writing together under the nom de guerre, “Cato.”

The passage comes from “Reflections upon Libelling,” June 10, 1721. Ref: Cato’s Letters; or Essays on liberty, pg 249 (1737).

Back in 2003, several years before the epoch-making rulings of the High Court in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), the author of a law review article considered whether the protections underlying the First Amendment against censorship can also be applied to the Second Amendment?

The author of that article, David G. Browne, from whom we borrow a few apt words of the title of his article, for the subtitle of our own—“Treating the Pen and the Sword as Constitutional Equals: How and Why the Supreme Court Should Apply Its First Amendment Expertise to the Great Second Amendment Debate,”—writes, in part:

“The First and Second Amendments differ in both their construction and in the nature of the rights that they secure; it seems that the text of the Second supports a more expansive reading than that given to the First. Despite (or perhaps because of) these differences, legal scholars and philosophers have recently started to wonder what justifies giving the Second Amendment a narrow construction at the same time one gives an expansive interpretation to the First? . . . [The] text cannot help, since both amendments are equally susceptible to either narrow or broad constructions. Reliance on precedent also cannot solve the problem since the narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment is not so settled by a series of Supreme Court decisions that it could not be revisited.” ~ from the Law Review Note, “Treating the Pen and the Sword as Constitutional Equals: How and Why the Supreme Court Should Apply Its First Amendment Expertise to the Great Second Amendment Debate,” 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2287 (April 2003), by David G. Browne.

The author of the above-mentioned law review article could not know, in 2003, that the U.S. Supreme Court would, in fact, revisit the import and purport of the Second Amendment, a few short years later.

And the Court majority did rule, clearly and categorically, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia.

But let us be clear about this: The salient holding in Heller and McDonald didn’t expand the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Rather, it simply acknowledged what was always there in the language of the Second Amendment—that the Right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not an amorphous collective right. It is a right of the people to be enjoyed irrespective of one’s service in a militia. This is a critical point!

We, therefore, disagree with the author’s contention that the text of one fundamental Right can ever be construed to be more or less expansive than any other fundamental Right.

It is incongruous to give wide latitude to one Fundamental Right and less latitude to another. To conclude otherwise means the framers of the Bill of Rights intended to place limitations on the exercise of Fundamental Rights. They didn’t. And any suggestion to the contrary is both erroneous and ludicrous. Still, it is an error many academic scholars make, and dire repercussions follow from that error of reasoning.

Politicians piggyback off the error as they conceive of ever more ways to restrict and constrict exercise of Americans’ fundamental rights, with the aim of eventually eliminating all of them, to be repackaged as Government sees fit. Therein, tyranny arises.

But there is nothing in the characterization of the text of any of the Rights set forth in the Bill of Rights to suggest constraints to be attached to one or the other of them.

Thus, we do agree with the author of the 2003 article that it makes no sense to treat the Second Amendment as the poor cousin to the First, but we submit that it is altogether incongruous to infer limiting language of any sort in any of the Rights.

Tyranny of Government proceeds from its failure to heed to the dictates of the Bill of Rights as a set of inviolate, fundamental rights emanating from the will of the Divine Creator.

Tenets Of Fundamental Rights:

  • The language of the Second Amendment, as with all other fundamental, unalienable rights, exists intrinsically in Man.
  • Fundamental Rights are Primordial Rights, i.e., Natural Law Rights, preexistent in Man that precede all manmade governmental structures.
  • Fundamental Rights as Primordial Natural Law Rights aren’t privileges to be bestowed on Man by grace of Government, nor can they be taken from Man at Government’s whim.
  • Since Government did not create and cannot create Primordial Natural Law Rights, Government cannot lawfully modify, dilute, abrogate, or ignore these Rights.
  • Since Primordial Natural Law Rights are not man-made rules, they cannot be treated as mere privileges to be granted to some and denied to others by grace of Government, nor can they lawfully be rescinded at the whim or pleasure of Government.
  • Because Primordial Natural Law Rights are unalienable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal, i.e., existing for all time, such Rights are not and cannot reasonably, rationally be perceived as transitory, archaic, anachronistic, antiquated, or conditional, i.e., merely applicable to particular time periods, particular conditions of man, or to particular governmental and societal structures.
  • Primordial Natural Law Rights, as creations of the Divine Creator, are absolute, permanent, and perfect; sacred and pure, sanctified and inviolate, residing in the Divine Creator and, by the Creator’s Grace, in the Spirit of Man.
  • The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is to be perceived as the codification of a set of Primordial Natural Law Rights laid down by the Divine Creator. They are not to be construed merely as the codification of a set of higher, mutable, aspirations of man, conceived by and inspired by man, independent of God’s Hand.
  • Man is incapable of perceiving Primordial Natural Law Rights, as High Moral Precepts, but for the Divine Creator instilling these Rights in Man’s Spirit.
  • Each Primordial Natural Law Right recited in the Bill of Rights is to be perceived as part of a unified whole; no Right is to be considered irrelevant, extraneous, redundant, or noncontiguous with any other. They operate from and derive their ultimate strength and potency as a Divine whole.

Only Through Free And Absolute Exercise Of The Bill Of Rights Can Tyranny Of Government Be Forestalled And Prevented

The United States, conceived as a free Constitutional Republic, is on a collision course with Tyranny and in the most literal sense precisely because of the degradation of the Bill of Rights and because of the arrogance of those in power who have forgotten that they rule at the pleasure of the people.

The author of the afore-cited law review article, hoping for a revitalization of the Second Amendment, in line with the First Amendment, could not have foreseen the irony playing out in the Country today, with the denigration and degradation of both.

If the sanctity of the First Amendment were to help buttress the sanctity of the Second, both may ultimately be discarded if the Tyranny of Government succeeds. There is a sad irony in this.

The expansive First Amendment has been radically constricted by the power of a seditious Press and a sympathetic technology sector that exerts massive control over information content and information flow.

An Administration that won’t tolerate dissenting speech, most certainly won’t long abide an armed citizenry either.

If “the pen” can be muzzled, then, so too, can “the sword” be broken. This is the hallmark of an Authoritarian or full-bore Totalitarian Nation. Dissent is deemed intolerable and an armed citizenry, insufferable. And the United States, conceived as and constructed as a free Constitutional Republic, with a free and sovereign citizenry, is rapidly degenerating into the founders’ worst nightmare.

In the next segment of our series on treason, we dive deeply into this notion of ‘Tyranny of Government.’

We ask, and resolve to answer—

If the vast apparatus of the Federal Government devolves into Tyranny, does that not support a finding that high level officials and officers within it can be charged with and tried for “treason” and suffer the consequences if convicted of it? And, if so, cannot and ought not the American people dismantle a Government that has been irreparably damaged by their treacherous, traitorous servants? And might not the people try once again to reconstruct a Government in the form it was originally designed and meant to be, one surely serving their interests, and truly answerable to them?


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

Some of the links on this page are affiliate links, meaning at no additional cost to you, Ammoland will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

When the people fear the government, there’s tyranny. When the government fears the people, there’s liberty. — Thomas Jefferson


MaroonPB? Is that you?


There are “Jeffersons”, “Madisons”, and “Washingtons” waiting in the wings. They don’t telegraph their punches, but do stand ready to do what is needed when the time is right.


“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


All people are morally free to do any thing that does not throttle other individual’s rights. The concept that you must first clear your intentions with a government turns that on end. It puts an unnecessary burden of action on you and allows them to enhance their position. By doing so, the governments can throttle the peoples actions to the point that the people spend all of their time applying for permission to do something instead of doing the something. That leads to a lesser quality of life and warrants correction by the people. If the government must first contend… Read more »


“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


Researchers at Monticello found that the first sentence: “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,” most likely comes from a series of debates on socialism published in 1914. At one point, a man named John Basil Barnhill said, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty. Some variations of the quote begin with, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms,” as the first sentence, which comes from the first of Jefferson’s three drafts of the Virginia Constitution in 1776, although in the… Read more »


“…That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, …” I DO NOT CONSENT


Americans have deceived themselves through the decades putting too much trust into those 545 elected in washington. Our freedoms are being challenged in the twenty first century because we the people have continued to allow the behavior we see in the political arena from mayors too the president to continue. Firearms enthusiasts or as I was raised the shooting fraternity stood for more than just protecting oneself. There was and still is a fellowship in the many aspects firearms ownership some enjoy hunting while some like the competition in match shooting paper targets. Today we have long range precision rifle… Read more »


Responsive to john and to Patriot Solutions, thank you both for your comments. You both hit the nail on the head. In reference to john’s, point, “Our greatest concern should be the deep state or the shadow government a term not used so much today,” There is indeed a government within a government existing in our Country and machinating against it, orchestrating plans to destroy it. Many Americans suspected this for decades. Many more realized this, were forced to acknowledge this, after Trump took office on January 17, 2017. The Shadow Government went immediately to work to derail his Presidency.… Read more »

Henry Bowman

Nailed it!! The TREE is THIRSTY!
Also, imbecilic premises are the fruit of our disbelief that any statist could be so dumb; they hear us and take it as a challenge. They do more than double down on idiocy, they take it to the next level down!


and the fact you do need a machine gun to defend yourself against greater numbers , and or a tank


wear a mask when you say that. level 4 would be good


Natural or God given rights are also obligations. Every individual who loves liberty and the rule of law is mandated by the creator to preserve the peace. The second amendment is the weapon to accomplish that goal, but free speech is necessary to come to a consensus of the rules of proper governance. Earnest debate, free from intimidation, and propaganda, by moral individuals is necessary to establish the laws. Without the first amendment we can’t rightfully determine the values we want to protect, without the second there is no way to protect them. The two are as inseparable as man… Read more »


And those who are not believers in God need to see it as a birthright.

Wild Bill

If a Right is not promulgated by something bigger than government, then government can reduce it until the Right is meaningless.


“The government” can only reduce rights if armed government employees are willing to follow orders to enforce laws that reduce those rights. Without those armed government employees, the laws would merely be the meaningless bad ideas of totalitarians. The lure of a promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, an elitist health care program, an education paid for by civilians that leads to a second career and a second pension and the ability to buy their daughter a Mustang, are powerful motiviators to a percentage of people who are drawn to that line of work. Many of them would readily kill good, Constitution-abiding… Read more »


We are in this predicament today because we were so busy working, paying taxes, building cities and communities, and providing for our families. We failed to maintain the patriotic education of our children, teaching them the civics and rule of law we took for granted they were learning. The wokezi’s took advantage of that and have been teaching generations that America is bad and needs to “pay for it’s sins”, all the while infiltrating and taking control of our entire system of education, government, and judiciary. The fight to take back our country and keep it is ongoing. We can… Read more »


The American psychodrama continues.

Who’s on first ?

Pa John

So, the matter of our constitutionally enumerated rights has been settled. The only thing open to question is the legitimacy of any government which fails to fully respect them as written.


No, it isn’t in question. The government has obviously become illegitimate at all levels.The only thing in question is whether anyone has the balls to back up their principles.


“Only Through Free And Absolute Exercise Of The Bill Of Rights Can Tyranny Of Government Be Forestalled And Prevented”
An that is precisely why the Left (and sadly, sometimes the Right as well) seek endlessly, ceaselessly, to attack and diminish our rights. Their ultimate goal is dictatorship, which cannot be accomplished as long as the peasants are able to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.


Both parties elected are working together and have been since Bush was president and went to war in iraq claiming weapons of mass destruction. I fell for it so did a lot of folks. Republicans are no longer a political party that can be trusted same goes for the democrats. We are a one party government now Trump just prolonged the process. Read the Great Reset .org Agenda 21-2030 these are very real and those elected have sold our country out .


Your timeframe is skewed by a couple hundred years, and some change.


I knew from the start the target should not be Iraq, but Afghanistan with as many troops as truly needed. We were taken for a ride by Cheney and others.


In the Bill of Rights, the phrase “the people” is used in (5) Amendments: 1st,2nd,4th,9th, and 10th. Exclude the 2nd, and read the explicit context of “the people” in the other (4). Madison specifically used “the people” to clearly and unambiguously mean the individual – with no required connection to any government organization, entity, or clique. Does freedom of assembly dictate the need for some government association or permission to exercise it? Does freedom of speech, or any of the other Rights enumerated, require membership in a government-sanctioned group or entity? When Madison used “the people”, in every other instance… Read more »

Wild Bill

No we are not and well said!!!


While Trump was not loved while in office and Impeached, Why is it the news media Protects Biden, who has set out to destroy our Economy, our Rights, and the Constitution, WHY HASN’T HE BEEN IMPEACHED, for TREASON?????????????? He is lower than WALE DUNG in this ruling for the betterment of our lives, you can’t destroy our way of life because you think we have to try instantly do nothing to correct what has been going on for years by instantly shutting off all the things that have made this country what it is, to play with a total GREEN… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner

Our constitutional rights are, in fact, absolute. If the government can usurp the ability to curtail, abridge or deny those rights because tjey are in conflict with tje governments goals, or inconvenient to that government’s activities, then those constitutional rights are in fact priveleges to be revoked.


No right is absolute but our Constitution should not be taken lightly. It is as close to absolute as the defense of natural rights can be. Murder, slander, etc, are limits to rights.

Wild Bill

All of our Rights are absolute or they are not Rights. They would be something less than Rights. The framers understood that Rights make us the equal of government, stoping government in its tracks. Our Rights are a check on government and balance of power in our Constitutional system.


What do you do with Nazi’s?


Give them high paying US Govt jobs. lol


you kill them where you find them

Roland T. Gunner

Fire bomb them, till their rivers boil and their places flow with volcanic glass.


Waiting, Gunner. Get to it. Any Patriots out there? Anyone who took an oath, paychecks, benefits, and a pension? Or just a bunch of self-serving cowards?




Today it is the NSA FBI CIA EPA CDC who are tools of the deep state ,We Americans let this happen we have given way too much power to those elected. How do we as Americans fix what is broken this will be impossible as race gender climate change and host of other government propaganda fills the media. Those weak minded taught follow rather than lead for the past 4 decades are now welcoming socialism just as they have been taught. I have written this before you can no longer trust images shown on the television / any media outlet.… Read more »


throw them out of schools or should i say hitler youth camps, and arm up, they will never respect scotus saying guns are for protection of the people from the government. the atf is looking to double in size when it should be gone,tyrants are at the door trying to knock it down


If you KNOW they are traitors, even sniping them from a distance in the name of the good of the Republic can only be seen as a service to the law, not a breaching of it.

There you go. Argue with logic. I dare you.


Sic Semper Tyrannis. The cure to the World’s ills.