— Q: “@CurtDoolittle, if you are to start a common lawsuit against the promoters of the recent gun-ban laws, how would you structure your arguments?”—
1) From the Declaration, Constitution: The people are sovereign, not the government. This is not only a Natural Law, but the Natural Law. All inalienable rights and obligations derive from it. This means that no constitution may violate this law, nor any government, without the threat of violence from the people.
2) The sovereignty of the people, especially against the government, is and can only be, insured by the force of arms, held by every individual willing and capable of bearing them.
3) Therefore attempt to disarm the people is to deprive them of sovereignty by enemies foreign or domestic, and the people have the inalienable right and obligation to overthrow and replace that government.
4) That the government has failed to provide training for all, has been a long-standing policy failure due to budgetary limitations.
5) As such, until the mid-20th marxist invasion and undermining, the people relied on family, school, and other organizations to provide minimum training in arms for those willing and able to bear them.
6) Involuntary diversity of the population combined with marxist sedition against education, institutions, law, and constitution, largely by the capture of the academy, then media, then education, then lawfare, then immigration, and bureaucracy, combined with the overproduction of ‘elites’ (dependents) was an organized sedition and treason against the people, just as much as the Christianization of Rome was an organized sedition and treason against the people. (The only difference is the methodology: supernatural Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vs pseudoscientific marxist series through race Marxism (woke)).
7) The empirical evidence of the difference between the combination of federal employee ambitions, financial sector ambitions, and special interest ambitions against the people is incontrovertible.
8) Ergo the state may not claim it represents the interests of the people, but that the rise of 19th century clientelism persists – and the people are no longer even metaphorically sovereign.
As such (a) debate has failed (b) legislation has failed (c) we are in the present decade testing whether the court has failed, (d) and lacking a monarch as judge of last resort, that is, as in our previous monarchy, above the law in the restoration of rule of natural law, we have only two possible means of redress of grievances against a hostile government available to us:
… i) A repetition of the founders’ common law suit against the state in the form of a declaration and constitutional reforms. Or;
… ii) A revolt that would make the French Revolution pale by comparison, given the breadth of the corruption between the state, academy, education, media, and finance.
9) Therefore, the necessity of restoring the sovereignty to the people to themselves can only be achieved through force of arms, and as such, the inalienable right and obligation to bear arms such that every able-bodied person may insure the self-determination of every other, against the universal, inescapable, and deterministic tendency of all government monopolies, to pursue self-interest at the expense of the people.
10) As such, under the science of cooperation: the natural law, the law of man, nature, and nature’s god (if there is one), or the laws of the universe if not, the inalienable right and obligation to bear arms to ensure and insure the sovereignty of one another against usurpation by any individual or organization other than the people, is the first natural, necessary, inalienable right and obligation upon which all other rights and obligations depend.
Ergo these actions of sedition require (restitution, punishment, prevention).
I won’t go into the means of restitution, punishment, or prevention, because this kind of restitution is largely impossible without bloodshed. And the purpose of our organization is to produce restorations of the constitution of natural, concurrent, common, law – the science of cooperation which is the greatest inheritance of man.
That’s the Short Version. I would have to make a much longer argument to preclude all the nonsensical objections. There are no arguments that can possibly defeat it that do not result in justification for revolt and if necessary revolutionary war.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Human Cooperation.
