What do you suppose would happen if it became common  knowledge that there was a cure for cancer? There have been reports of cancer being curable from natural sources. So let's say for the sake of argument that cancer is curable from natural sources. What would happen to the multi billion dollar industry that reaps huge amounts of money from cancer treatment and cancer research? It would dry up, would it not? That is one of the real reasons that anything claimed to be a cure has to be man made and requires government approval. So what do you suppose the odds are that the Food and Drug Administration will approve a naturally occurring supplement as a cure for cancer even if it could be cured? Probably slim to none. Billion dollar pharmaceutical companies would cut off the money going to the politicians in a heart beat if they threaten to expose any kind of cure that would shut off this money stream.

So what does cancer have to do with the National Rifle Association? It, too, would be out of business if it became common knowledge that people are sovereigns not subject to any statute passed by any level of government.

I just read an article in the January 2015 issue of National Rifleman on page 18 titled "Your Self-Defense Rights In The Crosshairs Again". When reading this article written by Chris W. Cox, one has to wonder whether he is purposefully keeping the wool pulled over the membership's eyes or if he is truly ignorant about American people's sovereignty. Here is what makes it so confusing.

He is talking about the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and its recent hearing. He states in the second paragraph,

The right of people to defend themselves is backed up by common law, the laws of every state, and multiple Supreme Court decisions over the last century".

So he points out the common law. Under common law there are no statutes. Also, state "law" is not law at all. They are statutes. Statutes are called statutes, because they are not law. The terminology "statutory law" was coined by government attorneys to further fool the people. Also this commission  has no authority over people. As the very title of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights indicates, it has to do with "civil rights" which are not rights at all. People have natural rights and only people on an individual basis can proclaim what those rights are. As sovereigns, we individually determine what our rights are. I cannot tell you what your rights are and you cannot tell me what my rights are.

"Civil Rights" are actually privileges granted by government to citizens. Citizens are people who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, a corporation. People in these united states are not subject to the jurisdiction, so their rights cannot be hampered by any act of any legislative branch of government. The 2nd  amendment does not apply to citizens. It applies to people. The word citizen appears nowhere in any of the amendments, which are part of a legal document. Every word has a legal meaning. One cannot presume that a simily applies. As a matter of fact, the 14th Amendment defines what a citizen is. That definition is contrary to the sovereignty of people. The very meaning of sovereignty means there is no higher authority, so it is physically impossible to be a sovereign and "subject to the jurisdiction" of another. So obviously, people are not citizens unless they so choose to be. After all, as a sovereign, you have the right to subject yourself to another's jurisdiction. But if you are going to do so, you cannot be unhappy with the results.

How do you suppose this information would affect the NRA's revenue flow if this information were to become common knowledge? If the NRA were really interested in protecting the right to keep and bear arms, why don't they simply expose the truth, that statutes passed by government do not affect people in these unite  states?