The Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution

Upon the formal declaration of separation between America and The British Crown in 1776 within The Declaration of Independence, in 11 years, America had come to its' own US Constitution. All the previous Colonial and pre-Colonial rules and laws were soon to be replaced with what may be called America's Laws. No longer were they expected to keep Sunday as a day to rest and no longer did the stores have to be closed on that day. No longer did the Courts and Assemblings have to have the 10 Commandments of God as their anchor and foundation. They were now free to abolish all past English rites and rules within their new America.

The right to not have their possessing of arms infringed upon was a means for a 'well ordered militia'.

"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." Amendment II.

The right for every individual to feel safe and secure in this New Land, living among persons of indigenous ancestry which they first met within the years of the Jonestown Dedication to King James of England in 1607, only gave them 169 years to make the New Land into the New America. Perhaps one or two generations came from the original settlers who remained in America since their arrival. And so the tales and stories of their interactions to such persons living within the 'wild' of America was still recalled. And so for the sake of a secure, free state, people had the right to bear arms. And noone could tell them that they were not allowed, since after all, they needed some form of protection for themselves.

However today, the roles have flipped. Today, the militia are no longer the ones who desired the US Constitution. Today's militia, the non-professional military, are those who are of age to either defend or destroy public rules and laws, even as the 'militia' of those days also either defended or destroyed public rules and laws. Today, The US is under a different sort of ethnic holding.

In those days precluding the US Constitution, the majority of citizens were of European ancestry. Today, not all of the US citizens have that same kind of mind set as the earlier Americans which came out of Europe had. And so today's 'militia', needing to be well regulated, is necessary for the safety and security of the free state.

As any free independent ruling state within the State can attest to, the keeping down of crimes committed by the 'militia' is one of the best safeguarding for the security of that state.

Every US citizen has the Constitutional right to feel safe in which ever free state he or she is travelling through and is residing in for a rest. This is a given right within the Constitution. When persons enter into another free governed state to cause a change of sorts within that self governed state, it is a violation of Rights and against such Freedoms.

Imagine what it may be like if the self governed state of New York, with its' militia, decided to enter into Oregon Washington to make it more like New York. Or imagine what it may be like if South Dakota were go walk into California with ideas of reshaping California. This can go on with many possible connections of the free independent states as there is. And so for any group of militias coming from any free governed state to enter into another free governed state to cause any forms of change while they are just visitors and or travelers is Constitutionally wrong. For them to make residency with that free governed state would make a different story. And they would then become taxpayers for that state within the State. They would also be registered as residents with the rights and offenses which that self governed state enforces and allows.

Not all free governed states have the same rules to apply to the 'indecency Laws' and the 'lewdness laws' within all the free governed states.

To make one free governed state, with their rules and regulations, be conformed into another free governed state without a coming together of Diplomats and a mutual agreement is not lawful but a form of 'slavery and forced labor.'

If there were such militias in the State to desire such change within another free governed state, they might be interested in re-developing those states where cities with high percentages of crimes within low poverty is committed. I say this because many who are in poverty are not the criminals but are being forced to remain within that crime city because of their lack of surplus. Many people in poverty would choose the 'no crime' zone rather than the 'crime zone', if they were allowed to live as free and if they were able to 'afford' their living there.

Can we get a synopsis? Because: