Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Monday, April 23, 2018

Syria's Chemical Weapons Attacks July 2014 to Present: The US Backed Rebels Own The Hundreds of Attacks Since June 23,2014 at 100%

Question:  Have the Invaders of Syria, known falsely as the Syrian Rebel opposition (when they are de facto more than 95% foreign invaders), have the Invaders of Syria ever used Chemical Weapons in Syria, and if so, what are some of those examples and how far back do we know for sure that they have been doing so as a means of regular use in Syria against civilians in Syria?  

There is a legendary quote that Lavrentiy Beria, who at the time headed the KGB said to Stalin, who at the time was the Soviet Union's chief dictator.  Beria said to Stalin: ‘Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime!'” In regard to Syria, the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are all in lockstep agreement to that tactic regarding Syria's dictator, Assad.  The crime, whether or not they are used, always seems to be the same Mantra: "Syria used chemical weapons on children or its own people!  Shame!"  Even when the more lethal chemical weapons have for years ceased to exist, and have been verified as destroyed, here comes the bullshitters of the United States State Department piling up their manure the height of a mountain in yet another part of the world, while claiming to spread the love, rather than giving us meaningful direction and occupying their time overthrowing bad regimes in our own hemisphere.  Perhaps we should verbally jab them pointedly on their 4th Branch of Government internal belief system and ask,
"Hey State Department, if you really think you are so independent of the 3 branches of Federal Government and the U.S. Constitution, and since you want a somewhere in the world little war of your own, one of conquest with a rebuilding phase to occupy you for years, how about overthrowing Cuba and making it redeveloped into the 51st state of the United States?"  
Good grief.  Do that, and the State of Chihuahua Mexico will probably want to secede from Mexico to be joined to the United States as the 52nd State of the United States next after Cuba, never mind the riots in Puerto Rico for having still been slighted at such a time as that.  

Regarding Chemical Weapons use by the invaders of Syria, or at least for people to come to a realization it is NOT the Government of Syria post June of 2014 after all, perhaps a good place to start (for this topic) would be to look at a run-down of alleged chemical weapons use and various other chemical weapons activity in Syria that was complied by armscontrol.org.

It should be of importance to keep in mind, that as of June 2017, from July 2014 until June 2017 alone, there were at least 30 times that Al Qaeda / Islamic State invasion forces in Syria were either known or credibly alleged to have used chemical weapons in Syria alone, not counting their higher usage of  the very same types of banned chemical weapons in Iraq.  

Unfortunately, the actual number of gas attacks during the same time period (that is, from July 2014 to June 2017) by the INVASION forces of Al Qaeda / ISIS rebels and proxy allies is almost certainly at or about 231 times, roughly the same number that was accused of the Syrian Government 
(see graph at hyperlink immediately ff. : 
 which had already destroyed those very same weapons and had none of those types 

In fact, Al Qaeda forces used chemical weapons in Syria for over a year longer than they are publicly acknowledged as, because anything prior to Syria's VERIFIED destruction of chemical weapons by the United Nations, the by Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and by the United States is both literally and figuratively "hand wagged off" as another form of diplomatic "my word against your word is all that matters for credibility" diplomacy.

March 19, 2013:  Invaders into Syria used chemical weapons against the Syrians in Aleppo and a Damascus suburb called al-Atebeh.  25 killed, dozens injured. 

May 27, 2013:  Al Nusrah rebels armed with a canister with 4.4 lbs of Sarin gas smuggled out of Syria to be used against Turkish citizens, were arrested in or about the cities of Adana, Turkey and Mersin, Turkey. It was also made known that as it regarded the March 19, 2013 attack on Aleppo 2 months earlier, "UN chemical weapons expert Carla Del Ponte ... found evidence of their use by the rebels..."
And again, it was  "... use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," 

August 21, 2013: Saudi supplied Al Qaeda rebels gassed over 1,000 civilians hiding in tunnels in Ghouta alone.  

The real tally of the gassing was never made known because of the fact that  soon after, the Rebels admitted that Yes, they did use the chemical weapons that gassed the civilians.    In effect, to modern dumbed down American dumb-sh*t parlance, we can say that the rebels effectually went, “Oops! Our bad!”

Dozens of square miles were affected south, south-east, east, and east-northeast of the city of Damascus, where rebels effectually acknowledged that they gassed: Mu'addamiyah, Darayya, Jawbar, 'Ayn Tarma, Al Mulayhah, Kafr Batna, Jisrayn, Siqba, Hammurah, Irbin, Zamalka, and Duma.  

A hell of a lot of gassing, and we are talking upwards to nearly tens of thousands of victims who were health affected, as well as many more thousands killed and all covered up, because the UN and the USA and Saudi Arabia did not want to know of those crimes against humanity war crimes that were logistically given to the Al Qaeda forces for use in Syria courtesy of Saudi Arabian supplied chemical weapons, and the narrative was ever to be that Syria only was to blame by the UN and the United States...never the invasion Al Qaeda forces, never the United States nor Saudi Arabia which supplied the chemical weapons for use on Syrian civilians.  

September 12, 2013: The nation of Syria's government officially informed the United Nations Secretary General that its President, Assad,  signed a legislative decree that  it would abide by the language and obligations of the Chemical Weapons Convention, effective immediately.  

 [The result of which, by June 23, 2014, the last chemical weapons batch left Syria, and were neutralized and/or incineration destroyed by the United States (done both in part at sea on the Cape Ray and the remainder at a Texas facility), in Germany (about 400 metric tons worth), in the United Kingdom (about 150 metric tons worth) ,  and Finland (about 6,130 metric tons worth by incineration only), to which they were delivered to.  On Syria's unilateral part, destruction commenced from October 6, 2013, and regarding on the part of the United States from on or about January 7 2014  under full and total UN multi-national verification oversight, until October 2014, with 26 metric tons intentionally left undestroyed by the United States for whatever reason.   Syria by international agreement and requirement while under international and verified inspectors doing oversight, destroyed its 1300 metric tons of isopropanol only. The rest of the chemical stockpile, much of it allegedly being US supplied chemical weapons originally sold to Iraq's Saddam Hussein when he was an ally against Iran in the 1980s, and transferred to Syria prior to his demise, was finally now destroyed by the United States and its allies in 2014.]

October 31, 2013: The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) confirmed that Syria destroyed and/or rendered inoperable 21 of the 23 chemical weapons facilities for the mixing and or production of chemical weapons.  Inspectors for the sites OPCW claimed that for the remaining 2 facilities, the equipment was stripped out and destroyed.  

[These facilities, as I understand it, were the ones targeted by the US Military in April 2018 and destroyed, with no residual gas effects, no secondary explosion, and destruction of a sort that left those in the know that they merely bombed "shell buildings"; i.e., those that housed no military value personnel or material, if they even housed other personnel or civilian goods or effects at all.]  

So technically, with all the chemical weapons of Syria taken and/or destroyed by an international agreement and UN and other oversight, the "rebels" or Al Qaeda / ISIS and those who supply them OWN pretty much 100% of all future alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria unless it could be specifically (and even if so, extremely rarely or the one exception IF it happened on Syria's part) to be proven that otherwise exception on the part of Syria's army or national forces.  THAT is where we are at internationally on a truthful level were this ever tried in any fair and unbiased International Court of Law.  

It is especially important that the public know that Al Nusrah IS Al Qaeda as far as the United States is concerned, and despite being labeled as a terrorist organization by the Obama Administration in December of 2012, it is known factually and by Obama Administration admission that they materially aided and supported the very ones they named as a terrorist organization and which was part of the very Al Qaeda the US by public claim was at war with.  

The no longer existing hyperlink and text of the State Department, for more than 4 years read as thus: 



Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa'ida in Iraq

U.S. Department of State
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC

December 11, 2012

The Department of State has amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 designations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) to include the following new aliases: al-Nusrah Front, Jabhat al-Nusrah, Jabhet al-Nusra, The Victory Front, and Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant. The Department of State previously designated AQI as an FTO under the Immigration and Nationality Act and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under E.O. 13224 on October 15, 2004. The consequences of adding al-Nusrah Front as a new alias for AQI include a prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States or the control of U.S. persons.

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed. Through these attacks, al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes. AQI emir Abu Du’a is in control of both AQI and al-Nusrah. Abu Du’a was designated by the State Department under E.O. 13224 on October 3, 2011, and by the United Nations under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 on October 5, 2011. Abu Du’a also issues strategic guidance to al-Nusrah’s emir, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, and tasked him to begin operations in Syria.



The UK Telegraph noted, post December 2012 and prior to the first alleged in Syria March 2013 chemical attacks used by the same rebels (while in Syria, not Iraq). that,
on February 27, 2013, that the Obama Administration willingly admitted:

“We are examining and developing ways to accelerate the transition the Syrian people seek and deserve,” Mr Kerry said in Paris, after meeting Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister.

And that the giving of $60,000,000 in body armor and night vision would knowingly end up with al-Nusra, because, as even the Free Syria Army said:  “… [T]he Jihadist Jabhat al-Nusra group was gaining the upper hand in the revolution.”

“The Americans are now more open to the idea of arming the revolution,” said Louay al-Mokdad, a spokesman for the rebel army.

On April 13, 2013, several weeks after the INVADERS of Syria conducted a chemical weapons attack at Aleppo, USA Today (among others) reported that

“Washington had been providing satellite phones, SIM cards and other such equipment already, officials acknowledged, but said the level of assistance will now be increased.”

In other words, gas Syrian civilians and get rewarded to murder more and make murdering and evasion for you lots and lots easier...courtesy of the Obama Administration, where Treason and Misprison of Treason and many various other relevant US Codes / US Law, felonies all, are just words in a book, to be treated like a joke.

According to the Los Angeles Times Internet Edition,

 the United States Military obviously under Obama's policy directive, trained Al Qaeda troops in the use of heavy weaponry in 2 week courses at an apparent rate of almost 80 to 100 a month in just 6 to 7 months time, starting no later than that of November  2012. 

Again, let us not forget, that with Turkish arrests of Al Qaeda of Syria rebels in late May 2013, it is a fact that we can say that Al Qaeda in Syria are known to having been in legally provable de facto possession of chemical weapons of mass destruction, Sarin Nerve Gas,
 which can kill tens of thousands when properly dispersed. And fortunately, these morons pretty much are clueless as to the proper use of Sarin to obtain maximum effect.   

Then we fast forward to the more deadly attack of which over 1,000 Syrian civilians in one location were known to have been killed and the Obama Administration supplied rebels took "it's our victory trophy" responsibility for, in August 2013.  What happened to the full tally of the dead?  It was blacked out and quashed from release to this day, nearly 5 years later.  The consequence was what?  In late 2013, the Special Forces of the United States joined forces with Iranian Special Forces, and jointly fought any Al Qaeda in Iraq itself as allies.  It wasn't the Russians allying and fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, it was the United States and Iran doing it.  In Syria, they would shoot each other if the need called for it.  In Iraq, they worked as allies and combat supported one another.

Debkafile's Debka Webmaster posted documentary news on Youtube to this effect:

Published on Dec 29, 2013

US troops and Iranian Al Qods officers join the Iraqi army in a major anti-al-Qaeda offensive, the biggest the Middle East has seen in six years. Their aim:  to foil Al Qaeda's plan to spread its first caliphate across the Syrian-Iraqi frontier - but also to buttress the pro-Iranian Shiite crescent arching over the region. Vladimir Putin, mindful of the impending Sochi Olympics, watches approvingly - as a suicide bomber blows up the Volgograd railway station.

Carla Ortiz, an activist, visited Syria in March and June of 2017, and actually was interviewed and showed video of her going into where the CIA relabeled as White Helmets Al Qaeda terrorists hung out.  

And now, in April 2018, as foreign nationals in foreign nations are hired to off-shore censor Internet Free Speech in America by Facebook, Google, and so forth, while we are in the midst of this kind of censorship in Forums and various social Media, there was yet another Syrian gas attack by Al Qaeda (this time allegedly armed by both the CIA and British Intelligence, along with Israel attempting to False Flag strike Syria as if US Naval fighters attacking Iranian and Syrian Army positions). 

In April 2018, we came almost to the brink of a nuclear war with Russia over Syria, because of a lie by CIA and British Intelligence supplied Al Qaeda terrorist called the White Helmets, who staged an event where no one died, 
and children were used as props for the cost of giving them dates and rice and cookies to eat, an accepted price by their parents because they were starving, and after all, to the parents who were unable to provide their own children with food, the kids mostly only got wet at worst for being in a propaganda video of minor physical inconvenience.  

 The USA and a few nations attacked Syria with over 100 expensive missiles

 as if a USA exercise against North Korea, and to me, while it struck 3 locations successfully,  including the two shell buildings that used to house chemical weapons equipment 5 years ago before being removed, the USA showed its inefficiency and wastefulness on how to do a combat mission, and were like dope addicts pretending that 12 ships were like an Armada compared to the over 500 ship Navy we used to have in the 1980s.  That said, concerning false flags by Al Qaeda in Syria,  we need to step back a moment and be aware of some of the false flag history in Syria that excuses us to attack Syria while knowingly based on a lie

as if a public relations stunt with real victims,


 to teach some other nation across the globe an object lesson without casualties to themselves.  These realities are just some of those that the Media won't acknowledge because they are now Agencies that are hired to give out Public Relations News, and at times are paid to with-hold news and details, moreso than actually be a forthright news agency as much as a public relations some of the truth but not all of it series of agencies, if you will.  

I could say and document more, but the point is, we need to stop meddling in Syria for no damn real reason regarding US or Allies National Security, or any rationale other than supporting terrorists and committing war crimes in supporting them.

   It is time to get out of Syria and bring our troops home.  We have other wars, legitimate wars to train in defense for, and Syria sure isn't one of them.  

That's my input for now.  -- Brianroy

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Affirming The Presidential Prerogative As President of The United States To Send US Military Troops To The US Southern Border

10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, §332; Pub. L. 109163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440; renumbered §252, Pub. L. 114328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States,
142 U.S. 651 (1892) @ 659
"…It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in
sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions..."

The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) @ 607,609
@ 607
"In a communication in September, 1869, to Mr. Washburne, our minister to France, Mr. Fish, Secretary of State under President Grant, uses this language:
"The control of the people within its limits, and the right to expel from its territory persons who are dangerous to the peace of the state, are too clearly within the essential attributes of sovereignty to be seriously contested. Strangers visiting or sojourning in a foreign country voluntarily submit themselves to its laws and customs, and the municipal laws of France, authorizing the expulsion of strangers, are not of such recent date, nor has the exercise of the power by the government of France been so infrequent, that sojourners within her territory can claim surprise when the power is put in force."
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the Constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of anyone.
The powers of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered.
Nor can their exercise be hampered,
when needed for the public good, by any considerations of private interest."

In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891) @ 464
“By the Constitution, a government is ordained and established "for the United States of America," and not for countries outside of their limits.”
"...The Constitution can have no operation in another country."

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) @ 210   
“Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”

Then there's also: 
“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty.” United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537(1950)@ 542; see also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) @ 32.   The “power of exclusion of aliens is also inherent in the executive.” Knauff, 338 U.S. 543

The United States Constitution states in Article 4, Section 4 that:
"The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion"

and Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States clearly states that
and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution."

Even as the judiciary cannot rule that States have no right to a Republican Form of Government as stated by the Constitution, so too do judges who act beyond their Constitutional authority have no Constitutional authority to prohibit a clear mandate exclusive to the President to prohibit invasion of the States (or to in any way impose restrictions) to those aliens, which is reaffirmed in United States Federal Law by statute:

"8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation *** impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate...."

Clearly, President Trump is not dealing with an unconstitutional statute, and is affirming what the Constitution requires of him, that he NOT be derelict in his duties to protect, preserve / enforce, defend the Constitution and the provisions and language thereof, et cetera.

The United States Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 states:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION and the President of the United States in correctly acting to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution's mandate to protect us from Invasion (Article 4. Section 4.).  Whether or not you like this President, SUPPORT the President for PROPERLY following the Constitution and protecting us all on this one, and ask that whatever number of U.S. military troops he sends to the border, to double or triple that and make sure that they are armed with the ammo and resources they need, and at the ready until the day the entire wall is completed.

Monday, April 2, 2018

A Few Essential Reads For Those Wishing More Clarity Regarding The Second Amendment Giving U.S. Citizens A Supreme Law Of The Right To Keep And Bear ARMS

In having a BETTER pro-WE THE PEOPLE and pro-Second Amendment argument, I would recommend some essential reads. 

The first is something cited in Justice Scalia's D.C. v. Heller argument.

  --  Cramer, Clayton E. and Olson, Joseph Edward, 
What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment?. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2008. 

The second essential read is 
Elliot's Debates, Volume 3 pp. 410-426, which is effectually 
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
Saturday, June 14, 1788
Monday, June 16, 1788. 

On page 425 it contains the must quote of
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” 

The third and fourth essential reads are both U.S. Supreme Court cases:

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

It should also be noted that, on its presentation for Convention, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” was presented first, foremost and almost separately from the Militia clause, which followed it.

See Gale’s & Seaton’s History Of Debates in Congress p. 451

Because of the intensity and length of discussion in the Convention’s debates on the Militia with regard to the Constitution (go to debates following the reading of Article 1 Section 8), and that the right of the people being armed as a check to abuse of power using a standing army, and that firstly a well regulated (we must not disinclude anti-Indian raid, as well as anti-smuggler robber band, anti-insurrection) Militia at the local level, with officers thereto appointed by the State in which they resided --  much like the Minuteman shock troops militia was made up on average of 20 to 30 men per town, as even men of Acton and other local Massachusetts towns were among the first and foremost as well as co-heroes of Lexington, supported by others who too were able to take up and bear arms and of a conscience not blocked by religious conscience so as to keep from doing so --  the Second Amendment was rephrased after its initial introduction to the Convention, in a manner that  centered around a need for a Militia and concerns over control and abuse of power, as, 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.

It did NOT take away the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, nor infringe upon it, but carried the experience of what we obviously know was nearly a century and a half of dealing with Indian raids, as well as ocean and river arriving robber bands, insurrections from local populations and even, from time to time, out of control localized slave uprisings as well.  Even when the localized Militia fell from tight-knitted organization and mobilization to the wayside, as we saw with the War of 1812’s successful British army attack that burned down the White House, the right of the CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES / the right OF THE PEOPLE maintained the right to keep and bear arms from those days to this, regardless, because the Constitution is an unbreakable contract as the Supreme Law of the Land (as it calls itself in Article 6) with WE THE PEOPLE, the citizens of these United States of America. 

According to the Introduction of the Second Amendment well after the Constitution debates regarding the Militia a year prior, the intent of the Second Amendment was made clear with its introduction that there was first and fundamentally a right to bear arms APART from being armed by an act of Congress or of the States themselves.  It was framed as thus:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
  A well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country:  but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Gale’s & Seaton’s History Of Debates in Congress p. 451

The essence was, whether or not Congress or the States armed the militia, who at that time in history were mostly self-armed men of the town who had to supply themselves with their own up to military specifications rifle and powder and a minimum of 24 balls of lead to shoot as well as having essential gear, any United States Citizen who had or could at any time acquire their own arms had the right to keep and bear Arms.  It should be remembered with all our wars from the Civil War onward, that Arms given out by Congress or the State are pretty much ALWAYS expected to be returned BACK to the government at the end of military service.  It is a tradition still to this day.

But  the  Constitution of the United States in the Second Amendment is clear:  “The right of the people to keep and bear [their own] arms shall not be infringed”.