Media Matters Founder Wants Armed Protection … just not for you!

Glock

The founder of Media Matters, David Brock, recently accepted more than $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation.  This money was specifically earmarked to promote a $600,000 initiative on “gun and public safety issues” which is simply liberal double-speak for “more gun ban efforts.”  However, it seems David Brock walks the streets of Washington protected by a Glock toting personal assistant/bodyguard!  If it weren’t for the hypocrisy of most liberals, this might make it a little awkward for the group the next time it seeks a donation from a gun control advocacy group.

It is also typical that the liberal champion, David Brock, feels his life is certainly worthy of protection under the Second Amendment (hence, the bodyguard armed with a Glock).   It is just you and I whose lives, it seems, Brock deems are not worthy of the very same protection!  I remember comedian Rosie O’Donnell having the same view.  She also felt that the Second Amendment should go away … just as long as she got to travel around with her armed bodyguards.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/brock-and-glock-armed-men-guarded-media-matters-boss-as-took-400000-gun-control/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz1nKMRS200

U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp takes aim at Obama

U.S Rep. Zach Wamp, who is seeking the GOP nomination for governor in 2010, spoke at a town hall meeting held at Gunny’s Indoor Shooting Range in Maryville.  The town hall meeting was sponsored by a local Knoxville radio station.  Flanked by Phil Williams (of Knoxville News Talk Radio) and David “Gunny” Perry (owner of Gunny’s Indoor Shooting Range), Wamp told the crowd who had gathered for the meeting that if President Obama ever issued an executive order “taking up guns” that, as governor, “We will meet him at the state line.”

All I can say to that is HOOYAH! 

Now …. I may not agree with Zach Wamp on every issue, but … if he means what he says when it comes to supporting honest, law-abiding Tennessean’s Second Amendment Rights against the soon to be renewed attacks by the most conniving, anti-gun administration the U.S. has ever seen … then he will probably get  my vote as governor in 2010.  Unless … of course  … he screws up!

A Two Party System?

In the past, I have always considered myself an independent voter who most often leaned toward the Republican side of political issues.   That was back when the Republican Party’s platform was built on certain conservative values such as fiscal responsibility and limited government.  However, it seems that over the last decade … or maybe since Ronald Reagan … the Republican Party has losts its focus and has simply become just another version of the same incompetent politicians who currently make up the the leftist leadership of the democratic party.  Both party’s political leadership  simply push their own agendas and self-interests … rather than doing the job we elected them to.

Have you ever noticed that the only real difference between the last Bush administration and the current Obama administration is scale!   Do you remember that popular liberal mantra, “Bush Lied, People Died.”  

Try “Obama Lied, America died” on for size. 

Now … I am neither a Bush fan or a Bush basher.  President Bush did some good things while in office and he kept this country safe for almost 8 years.  He also made some mistakes … all presidents do.  Bush was a moderate Republican and did spend way too much money.  That being said, he did love his country and, though we can argue over his methods in hindsight, he did his best to keep it safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism!

However our new Messiah, Obama, is an altogether different story.  Obama detests what America stands for and is doing his best to change America into a socialist state modeled on his own peculiar vision of  utopia  … a two class society with a benevolent, super-rich, liberal elite running things and everyone else living a useful, lower-middle class life according to the  dictates of the benevolent left-wing elitists. 

That Obama is a product of the radical leftist Chicago machine is nothing new.  Have you read his books?  Do you remember his chosen friends and/or mentors like Bill Ayers (Terrorist), the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation Theology),  Frank Marshall Davis (Marxist), Alice Palmer (Leftist Illinois Senator),  Gregory Galluzzo (Saul Alinsky Protege #1), Mike Kruglik (Saul Alinksy Protege #2), and John L McKnight (Saul Alinsky Protege #3). 

In fact, Obama said that being tutored by McKnight, Galluzzo and Kruglik was “the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School. 

The truth is that behind his charming good looks, winning smile, and charismatic manner; Obama is actually a product of the Chicago political machine; a  power-hungry politician well-schooled in the Saul Alinsky method of community organization. 

Saul Alinsky (a communist) was known as the Godfather of modern community organizing.  He taught his followers to manipulate an individual’s self-interest as a lever to seduce people to support their cause. 

The beginnings of Saul Alinsky’s modern approach to effective community organizing can be traced to the slums of Chicago’s South Side in the 1930s. Alinsky organized the people who lived in the Back of the Yards, a rough neighborhood Upton Sinclair made famous in his book, The Jungle.  It was, as Alinsky stated  later in a interview for Playboy Magazine in 1972,

a cesspool of hate: the Poles, Slovaks, Germans, Negroes, Mexicans and Lithuanians all hated each other and all of them hated the Irish, who returned the sentiment in spades.

That was just what Alinsky needed.  His goal was not to get the people he organized to love each other, just to work together to help him achieve his goals.  Alinsky was once quoted as saying, “to [expletive] your enemies, you’ve first got to seduce your allies.” 

Obama learned this lesson very well and used it to win the 2008 Presidential Election.

Do you ever wonder why, despite the growing mountain of evidence of voter fraud and other criminal activities by ACORN, Obama’s administration officials refuse to invistigate this organization’s activities?  Did you ever stop to wonder how an idiot like Al Franken got elected a U.S. Senator in the state of Minnesota?

So … the Federal Government simply goes on conducting business as usual … bashing the last administration, making itself bigger, voting itself more power, wastefully spending more and more taxpayer money … then coming after still more of our hard-earned money.  They are intruding more and more into our private lives, slowly eroding our Constitutional Rights, and riding roughshod over States Rights.  Nothing has really changed except the scope … and the  speed at which it is being done. 

Liberals used to screech, rant, rave, and yank out their hair when raging about the evils of George Bush … the money spent by the Bush administration. the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, etc. 

However, the Bush administration’s spending is dwarfed when compared to the money spent by Obama in just his first year as president.  And …we are still in Iraq and getting deeper into Afghanistan.  The War on Terror is still on going … we just now call it “The War on Man-Caused Disasters.” 

Where is the screech, ranting, raving and yanking of hair now? 

President Bush passed Stimulus I which achieved nothing … giving each American family about $600 (or a car payment).  Obama passed Stimulus II which,  as it turns out, nobody bothered to read … and incidently, while costing us $1 trillion, has failed to stimulate anything except government growth.  That’s because it was actually a pork spending bill and not a stimulus bill at all. 

The American people might have discovered that truth had this bill actually been read … and not rushed through at breakneck speed (Hey wait … isn’t that happening again … can you say “public healthcare”).

So … we now also have the National Bank of Obama, Obama Motors, … and soon ObamaCare; because,  despite the concerns and questions of the majority of the American people, Obama arrogantly stands at the podium and vows that health care reform will pass this year. 

I guess this is so that nobody will have a chance to read  this legislation either … and discover how bad it actually is!

Patients in countries with socialized medicine already have unbearable tax burders, long waits for routine doctor visits, rationed care, and treatments that are not available because the government can’t afford them.  Why do you think Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment when they have serious health issues?  Why do you think that people in the U.K. who can afford it purchase private health  insurance even though they have “free” healthcare?

So …. what does this have to do with a two party system?

Well, let me tell you!  It is like this … To me there is little difference between the leftist Democratic Party and the current Republican Party.  They have become slightly different flavors of the same political mess.  They have essentially now formed a Democratic/Republican Party.  Thats why I am a member of the Independent Party. 

Just the other evening I was talking on the phone with Mark DeVol.  I had written about Mark in an earlier post on the blog.  Mark is running for the U.S. House of Representatives, Third District, Tennessee in the November, 2010 election.  Mark and I were discussing this very same topic when Mark stated that he strongly believes in the two party system.  He went on to explain saying that he belonged to “the political party that respects the Constitution, the limited role of the Federal Government, the rule of law, and the rights of the individual.”   It is because of this belief that Mark is running as an Independent.  It seems Mark too, is a member of the Independent Party.

In truth, the Democrat/Republican Party has has simply failed to produce any elected officials with the guts and integrity to fight for a return to a constitutionally-based government; or other important issues such as  Securing Our Borders, States Rights, Term Limits, the Fair Tax, Balanced Budget, or Tort Reform.

Mark DeVol is not a politician.  He is a local businessman.  He is an honest, traditional, conservative American.  Like me, Mark believes in the America that was founded on the ideals of  individual rights, individual responsibility, the Rule of Law, and Religious Freedom … the America that we are in real danger of losing if Obama gets his way. 

Unlike Barack Obama, Mark is the kind of man who will try to do what he says he will do if elected.   However, Mark is also a realist … and knows he can’t work miracles.  One man cannot change the government!  However, if we did get Mark DeVol elected … and … if there are other men like Mark DeVol in other states as well;   men who love this country as it was founded;  men not bent on transforming our Country into just  another failing socialist state like France or Sweden. 

What if, using a grassroots approach, we could get some of these other true conservative Americans elected . .. perhaps we could stop this liberal madness … perhaps we could save our Nation from extinction.

For more information about Mark DeVol, please visit www.devol2010.com

The True Source Of the Second Amendment

 

Second Amendment

It amazes me just how many Americans do not understand the concept of Second Amendment Rights and where  this American right originates.  Even American’s who support the Second Amendment, own firearms, join the NRA, and exercise their rights under the Second Amendment daily often misunderstand its origins.  

What is scary to me, however, is that the left-wing liberals certainly seem to, at least on one level, understand the reason that the Founding Fathers  wrote Second Amendment and included it in the Bill of Rights.  That is why they are so intent on eliminating the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Of  course, you have to understand that most liberals in this country are not liberals at all … at least not in the true sense of the liberal ideology.  True liberals, as a general rule, would not support gun control because it is a violation of a personal freedom ….  and all liberals certainly claim to strongly support individual freedom.  This is the root of their support for the gay movement, women’s rights to murder 1.37 million American babies each year, legalizing drugs, PETA, terrorist’s rights, and the drive-by media’s right to commit libel and slander against conservatives with impunity while openly supporting their chosen liberal politicians during elections.  

In this country, the term liberal is most often used to hide the true identity of anti-American movements.  The ACLU, for example, originated as a communist organization dedicated to bringing about a peaceful transition  to a communist American state.  When the ACLU’s founding members discovered that the term communist was working against them because of the stigma attached to it, they simply changed their name.  

Many other “liberals” in this country are simply socialists; but because this term also still has a stigma attached to it, they choose to hide behind the term “liberal.”  

Then we also have the liberal “fascists”  … like Barack Obama quickly seems to be turning out to be.  What kind of government allows private ownership of business, but tells you how to run them …..   look it up!

So, what does this have to do with gun control.  Despite the fact that many cool-aid drinking liberal followers live in a dream world where we all sit around the global campfire singing Kumbaya,  their leaders (the movers and shakers of the liberal elitist movement) are actually very intelligent.  They understand that, with the exception of California and the New England states, the backbone of real America is still made up of bitter common folk who cling to their Bibles and their Guns;  and … that these bitter (or shall we say Freedom Loving Rugged Individualists) simply do not want to live in a socialist (or a fascist) nanny state.  Their solution, then, is to lie, cheat, misinterpret, play on fears, elect any and all rabid anti Second Amendment politicians (or  judges) they can find, use their control of the mass media, and otherwise work to dissolve our Second Amendment rights.

 

America's 1st Freedom

 

Because of this on-going assault on the Second Amendment, we often hear some really odd soundbites such as

its people like you who will hand the White House over to some COMMI DEMOCRAT, who will elect some liberal Supreme Court Justices … and they will destroy the Second Amendment  

or even such nonsense as …  

the jack-booted feds will roll you up like an old carpet.  If you think you can resist them then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge.  All the good sheeple will fall in line … or die.  

Rhetoric such as this is silly and misses the point entirely.

Implicit in comments such as these is the idea that our rights, including those validated under the Second Amendment, are somehow granted to us by the 9 old men and women on the Supreme Court; or from our legislature; or from our president.  Implicit in these comments is the idea that the right to Keep And Bear Arms actually comes from the Second Amendment itself.  This is a fallacy.  The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, the legislature, and the presidency are all thing created by men, and thus, they can be taken away by other men.

 

Liberty

 

The truth is that the Second Amendment (and the other rights listed in the bill of Rights) simply acknowledges and allows us to protect our Inalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty, and  the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Depending on your personal belief system, these rights would be granted to us as either Natural Rights based on our condition of being Human Beings …. or as Divine Rights granted to us by God.  

Such rights are yours from the moment of your birth and cannot be taken away by other men … unless you allow that to happen.

Of course we can write our congressmen, join the NRA or the GOA, write letters to the editor, argue cases in court, and work hard to elect pro-gun legislators … and we should certainly be doing all these things.  However, our Second Amendment rights are not based on the outcome of these mechanisms.  Those “liberals” currently in power like Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano, Sarah Bradey, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor among others, would certainly want to have you believe that it does; and will certainly work to convince you that it does … but, in truth …. it does not.

Our Right To Bear Arms rests entirely upon our willingness to stop, by whatever means necessary, anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms do is simply postpone any coming day of reckoning … which is certainly worth doing as long as it is feasibly possible.  

However, any political or governmental entity acting to confiscate or deny an honest, law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms is acting in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a legitimate government agency.

 

God given. Not negotiable.

 

And for those of you who will certainly, without thinking or doing any research, chime in and exclaim … “but that’s not what the Second Amendment means” …  ”its about militias, not individuals” … ” it is outdated because it was written 200 years ago” …  you should remember that your precious Freedom of Speech was acknowledged and guaranteed at precisely the same time

… and take the time to look at and actually read some of the historical quotes listed below.  You might gain some “intelligence.”

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) 

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) 

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) 

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) 

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) 

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)) 

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) 

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) 

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) 

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) 

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) 

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..) 

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) 

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) 

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) 

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939) 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) 

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) 

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]) 

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,) 

“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]) 

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]) 

“Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755]) 

“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New-England) 

“What country can preserve it’s 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 to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) 

(The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)] 

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823] 

“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46″) 

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]) 

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979]) 

“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.] 

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] 

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)] 

” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] 

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)] 

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] 

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] 

TEA TIME!

Have you sent a tea bag to your representatives yet?  I was watching Fox News coverage of the Tea Parties across America and was thrilled.  It is about time conservative Americans got angry and spoke out.  It is time to “Draw A Line In The Sand!” 

We simply cannot borrow our way out of debt!  Nor can we spend our way to economic security!  How many households or businesses would survive on that model?  Our government is gleefully mortgaging the future of our great, great grandchildren and busily saddling them with a debt they can never hope to pay.  The government is simply put … out of control! 

And we … my fellow Americans … have lost sight of the fact that they work for US!   We actually are the WE THE PEOPLE!

This is not a Republican issue!  This is not a Democratic issue!   This is a “we want America back” issue.  I am sorry but this country was not founded by socialists, communists, left-wing radicals, or liberal egalitarians.  It was founded by individualists who believed in and fought for the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

A few other observations and pet peeves:

Obama Lies, America Cries

The simple truth is that  Obama’s  presidency, while still in its infancy, has already failed in keeping its campaign promises.  I seem to remember Obama’s eloquent campaign speeches in which he stated clearly that there would be no pork in his adminstration and that he would go through each bill “line by line” if needed to cut wasteful spending …. but surprise … surprise;   he supported and helped push through the largest single piece of pork legislation in the nation’s history … one not so cleverly disguised as a “stimulus” bill. 

I have read that  Obama has already committed to spend more tax dollars than all the Presidents from George Washington to George W put together.   But … surely the new liberal democratic leadership should have known that  … if only they had they had time to read the legislation they so swiftly passed … or maybe they just don’t care!

Second Amendment Supporter?

For a president who respects Second Amendment rights, Obama has a strange way of showing it.  After pledging support for the Second Amendment during his campaign, Obama quickly appoints fanatical gun-ban supporter Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.  Next, he selects former Clintonite and rabid anti-gunner Eric Holder as his attorney general. 

And … we all know where his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stands.  She should fit in well with the members of the U.N. working hard to take away American’s Second Amendment rights. 

Obama-Speak For Terrorism?

What the heck is this liberal crap?  A terrorist act is no-longer a terrorist act.  It is now a man-caused disaster?  While President Obama makes speeches that compare bankers to suicide bombers, his new Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, claims that the T-word, terrorism, is just too inflammatory and representative of the old-fashioned “politics of fear.”   She prefers a new term: “man-caused disaster.”    I’m sorry!  But … I have to ask … what if the suicide bomber is a female?  Isn’t it sexist to use “man-caused disaster”?

Oh Yeah … and …. the war on terror is now an “overseas contingency operation.”   Sounds like a load of Bravo Sierra to me!!

In addition, according to the recently released report by her Department of Homeland Security, Ms. Napolitano is very concerned about the vast right wing conspiracy to overturn her Messiah’s new govenment of Hope and Change.  You know the one  made up of:  (a) law-abiding American gun owners,  (b) any American veterans returning from the War on Terror (ooops … overseas contingency operation …. my bad), (c) anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers had the right idea, and  (d) everyone and anyone who did not vote for Barack Obama in the last election.

God Bless Australia Again

Wow!   Is there an American version of Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard hiding in the background somewhere?  Please step up!   

Prime Minister Howard says “IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.”  He is sick and tired of his country worrying about whether they are offending some individual or their culture … especially when that culture harbors and supports terrorists and pirates.   According to John Howard, fundamentalist Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should simply leave Australia and move to an Islamic state;  or … if they want to stay and live in Australia … they must do so under Australian law.  Wow!   What a concept!

I like it!

Wal-Mart Joins Michael Bloomberg’s War On Law-Abiding Gun Owners!

Wally World To Police Gun Owners!

Walmart & Bloomberg

I have always disliked shopping at Wal-Mart for several reasons: First, because they put local retailers out of business. Second, because they are so big they can dictate to their distributors the prices they will pay for the merchandise they sell …. often causing their distributors to go out of business. Now I have another reason … and I will no longer shop at Walmart …. period!

Wal-Mart recently joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s war on law abiding gun-owners by attending a gathering of Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, to announce a series of changes to the way in which Wal-Mart will handle future firearm transactions. At the gathering, J.P. Suarez, chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., stated: “The costs are, we think, part of what it takes to be responsible.” Suarez also added, “This is not a signal that we’re getting out of firearms.” Well, I think they may as well be … I hope their firearms sales fall through the floor.

Once these changes have been instituted, firearm purchases at Wal-Mart will involve getting a video record of the sale, which the chain will then keep on file . It seems Wally World is now getting into the law enforcement market and effectively creating its own video database of gun purchasers. Wal-Mart also is giving its employees the discretion to deny the sale of a firearm to anyone who has ever had a firearm traced by BATFE for any reason …. including those who have had a firearm stolen that was later used by a criminal in the commission of a crime.

I say anyone who gets video taped buying a firearm at Wal-Mart deserves what they get!

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President, said, “I view it as a public relations stunt that stigmatizes law-abiding firearms purchasers exercising their constitutional freedoms. I honestly think it’s a corporation trying to curry favor with politicians as opposed to doing anything meaningful about stopping crime.”

I agree with Wayne LaPierre’s comment.

And … I think all American gun owners should boycott Wal-Mart permanently!

I, personally, will never give Wal-Mart another dime of my money. It is time for the 80 million law-abiding gun owners in this country to start making a stand against these consistent, and unconstitutional attacks on our Second Amendment Rights by liberal elitists whatever stripe they choose to hide behind.

Clinton and Obama Now Support The Second Amendment?

As Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled each other at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia last week, the debate moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened the debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual’s right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar to you? It does me!) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”

Hillary answered with her typical stream of generic generalizations, but manage to be clear on at least one position stating, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”

Gibson then asked Obama about the Heller case which is now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether he thinks the D.C. gun ban is somehow “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” Obama’s response was, “ I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

Mr. Gibson again asked, “But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”, while Barack Obama was very evasive and never really gave a straight answer, causing the moderator to comment, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”

Senator Clinton was then asked, “Do you support the D.C. ban?” Hillary, too, was very evasive but did state that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. Again Gibson pressed her about the D.C. Gun Ban, “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”

“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.

“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the Charlie Gibson.

“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don’t know the facts,” Clinton concluded.

At least Hillary Clinton was right about that.

The fact is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, without doubt, that they’re both radically anti-gun. For either of them to now even attempt to convince Americans they support gun-owner’s rights is absurd. If neither one of them can plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs contrary to the Second Amendment, one can have little doubt that either candidate believes any gun law would.

America Has Lost A True Hero!

\

Charlton Heston, the actor who played such memorable roles as Moses in “The Ten Commandments” and who met Jesus Christ face-to-face as a Jewish slave in the 1959 film, “Ben Hur,” a role which earned him an Oscar for best actor, died Saturday night at his Beverly Hills home. He was 84-years-old.

Heston “was seen by the world as larger than life,” his family said in a statement.

The actor is also remembered for his political activism, including his involvement in the civil-rights movement and his stand for the right to bear arms. He was at one time a Democrat (before the democratic party took a hard left turn) having campaigned for John F. Kennedy. During the 1972 American presidential election, Heston declared his support for Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate … and later, became a strong Reagan Republican. Charlton Heston marched with civil rights leader Martin Luther King against segregation. And, like Ronald Reagan, served as president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Charlton Heston had a prolific second career as a strong gun-rights activist, and helped to legitimize gun issues in the national conscience.

“He put a good, honest, legitimate face on the great majority of legal gun owners in this country,” said Bob Baumann, a Long Island regional director of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Heston led the National Rifle Association from 1998 to 2003. In one speech, Heston famously would say that the only way his gun would be taken away is “from my cold, dead hands.

“It put it in those simple terms, ‘You’re not taking this from me,’” said Brian Pemberton, president of the Matinecock Gun Club in Glen Cove. “It put a lot of weight into that feeling. His legacy is that; that he’s a man that stood firm.”

Heston often defended the NRA against attacks from gun control advocates.

Senator John McCain stated that, “Off-the-screen, Charlton Heston was also a real-life leader. He served his country and proudly gave his voice in support of some of our most basic rights.”

Frank Sinatra once remarked that Charlton Heston had better watch out … if he’s not careful, he’ll give actors a good name.

Heston stood opposed to abortion and appeared in the introduction to a 1987 pro-life documentary on late-term abortions.

Charlton Heston also spoke frequently of the culture war waged by liberals. In a speech in 1997, Heston charged that a generation of liberal media, educators, entertainers, and politicians were waging a war against “the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle-class Protestant, or even worse, evangelical Christian, Midwestern or Southern, or even worse, rural, apparently straight, or even worse, admitted heterosexual, gun-owning, or even worse, NRA card-carrying, average working stiff, or even worse, male, working stiff because, not only don’t you count, you are a downright obstacle to social progress,” according to The Times Online.

President Bush, who presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Heston in 2003, praised Heston as “one of the most successful actors in movie history and a strong advocate for liberty.”

“He was a man of character and integrity, with a big heart,” Bush said.

I say Charlton Heston was a patriot warrior!

73% Of Americans Support The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Founding Fathers

Do you need more proof that a majority of Americans support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? What about the results of a Gallup poll, which were reported in a March 27, Gallup.com article. The poll shows that an overwhelming majority of the United States public … 73% … believes that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms.

For most real Americans, these results come as no surprise. In fact, the Gallup poll reflects comparable results from a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll carried out from December 6 to December 9 in 2007, which found that 65% of Americans believed the Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms.

Other recent polls have shown that Americans support gun rights. A Zogby International poll for Associated Television News, conducted between December 13 and December 17 in 2007 found that 27% of voters would be more likely to support a candidate endorsed by NRA (through its PAC, NRA Political Victory Fund). That survey showed that NRA ranks above Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, the AFL-CIO, Oprah Winfrey, and Barbara Streisand in influencing voters! And another Zogby International poll conducted earlier in 2007 found that 66% of the American voting public rejects the idea that new gun control laws are needed.

The results of this latest poll make clear where the majority of Americans stand, and confirm what other polls have consistently shown: Americans overwhelmingly support firearm rights and ownership.

What Is A Patriot Warrior?

The Spirit of a Patriot Warrior!

Lady Liberty

Do You Love Your Country?

Patriot Warriors are simply people who believe in the underlying principles that this great country was founded on; the “inalienable rights” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In todays America, there are some people who would deny the Creator simply so they can deny you your inalienable rights … because rights that merely emanate from men … in the form of a government … can easily and legally be taken away from you by another man or another government.

People tend to hold on tighter to rights they believe emanate from God … and are often willing to die to preserve them. Inalienable Rights cannot be legally or easily taken away for you by man or even a government!

These left-wing liberal/secular-progressive/socialists count on the fact that rights simply allowed you by other men, or by a government, are not often worth dying for.

There are some wealthy people in this country that simply do not want you to have “inalienable rights.” They want to be in charge, and to rule a socialist American patterned after that shining beacon of world liberalism, France … or maybe Sweden. They want to create a country where you and I know our place … and where they can lead the aristocratic lifestyle they long for … the lifestyle they imagine the old European aristocrats living.

And … of course they … and those Americans gullible enough to accept their liberal propaganda and mass media brainwashing, will deny such a devious plot exists. Put the proof is in their own words, the words of those like Sara Brady, George Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others:

Sara Brady

Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.“
— Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

For more on the George Soros / Barack Obama connection, Click here to visit Road Sassy … a new favorite blog I discovered!

The hardcore socialist, Hillary Clinton wants to empower the government to take whatever it wants from you and give it to who ever it wants. It is very easy to see her leanings in the disastrous “HillaryCare” attempt (“It’s time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals”), and in her idea that the “village” (state) should raise the child.

Consider Hillary Clinton’s September 28 pitch to a Congressional Black Caucus symposium:

“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they … have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that down payment on their first home.”

Given roughly 4 million annual births, Clinton’s proposal would cost taxpayers some $20 billion each year.

Hillary Clinton has said: “I am a fan of a lot of the social policies that you find in Europe.”

It is important, however, to remember that socialists always exempt themselves from the restrictions they place on others. And, whatever they allow you to have … they will have a whole lot more … after all, don’t they earn it by taking care of you? ……. and you will have NO SAY in the matter at all. You gave up that say when you gave up your rights, voted them into office, and asked them to take care of you because you are unable to act and think for yourself!

So what is a Patriot Warrior!

Zee spells it out nicely on her blog Road Sassy! I love this quote:

I’m an American. Even during my hippie days, it meant something to me. I’ve never had a problem with it. Apparently there are those in the world who do.I’ve never been a political animal, it always having been something I could comfortably ignore. Until now. My politics have become an ‘a la carte’ adventure, a mosaic still being created. I have much to study, much to learn. But here is what I do know. I am frigging American to the bone and, the greatest threat to western civilization that I have so far espied is the one who comes riding in on the Trojan Horse of Liberalism Progressives.

So, be warned. Hell hath no fury as a woman who has found her allegiance and rediscovered her country. I’m an American.

Zee

How does one become a Patriot Warrior?

Culture Warrior

Here is a warrior code I try to follow. I adapted from the Traditional Warrior code found in Bill O’Reilly’s book, Culture Warrior … and use it in my karate dojo as well:

A Traditional Warrior Code

  • Always keep your word.
  • Always be considerate of others.
  • See the world as it it really is, not as you wish it were.
  • Honor and defend your country.
  • Always make sound-judgments based on the facts.
  • Respect and defend the rights and property of others.
  • Cultivate real mental toughness.
  • Defend the weak and vulnerable.
  • Deal with all problems in a straightforward and honest manner.

Not a whole lot in that code that left-wing liberals, socialists, or secular-progressives even try to follow … is there?

How do patriot Warriors handle life in the modern world? Here are a few examples:

  1. Warriors handle rejection by being persistent and eventually forcing people to believe in them, not by whining and crying about discrimination!
  2. Warriors say no to unemployment by studying harder and increasing their qualifications until they find a great job, not by looking for a government handout!
  3. Warriors handle unexpected events by being flexible and able to adjust to changing situations, and not simply by screaming “unfair!”
  4. Warriors handle failure by learning from it and using it as a step on the road to success, not by quitting or crying to the government for more handouts!
  5. Warriors say no to depression and unwanted emotions by attempting to achieve a deeper understanding of themselves and working to master their emotions, not by going on a cowardly murder/suicide rampage and killing innocent people!
  6. Warriors handle life’s problems by challenging them and working at them until they are solved, not by going to the government for yet another handout!

Becoming a Patriot Warrior!

How can you become a patriot warrior?

First, understand that letting yourself be overcome by the any problems the world throws your way, or resigning yourself to your fate is just a choice. Your subconscious mind simply scans its available choices every time it faces a crisis and selects the best choice available.

Therefore, becoming a patriot warrior is no more than adding a new choice in that list so that your subconscious mind can choose it. This choice is to fight on instead of giving up in the face of pressure.

Another step is working on changing your self-image from a helpless victim style to a pro-active warrior style. For example, instead of thinking “why does this always happen to me … why do I always lose my job;” you could think, “OK, the economy is shifting … what do I need to do to be able to take advantage of the change?”

A third step is to stop listening to the left-wing media that specializes in airing only the bad news and promoting the anti-American secular-progressive, socialist agenda. At least listen to both side of the discussion and make a decision on your own!

Listening to that left-wing media crap all day long would make anybody feel helpless and desperate. Do you ever ask yourselves why there is absolutely no good news from Iraq on CNN, MSNBC, or CBS?

Iraq 001Iraq 002Iraq 003Iraq 004Iraq 005Iraq 006Iraq 007Iraq 008Iraq 011Iraq 012Iraq 010Iraq 013Iraq 014

I always wondered that myself!

To make a long story short, patriot warriors do have problems and troubled times, and they understand our country is not perfect … but they still choose to look life straight in the eye rather than choosing to be victims, … and they realize that though, America is indeed not perfect, it is still better vastly than any other country out there … including France and Sweden!

Have you become a patriot warrior yet?


U.S. Supreme Court Hearing 2nd Amendment Arguments

2nd Amendment Eagle

As the lawyers for Dick Heller and the city of Washington, D.C. present their side’s argument for this important Second Amendment case today, it becomes readily clear how twisted and laced with pure fantasy the anti-gun nut side of the argument is!

It is the same old lame arguments made by the anti-gun nuts that we have seen before.

Anti - 2nd Amendment

The city of Washington, D.C. claims:

“The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes.”

Specifically, the city points to the language of the Second Amendment and argues both clauses taken individually or in concert can only be read to suggest its application to militias and not individuals.

This, however, flies in the face of all historical evidence and commentary by the original Founding Fathers. For example, here are just a few of the available historical quotes by those who wrote the Constitution:

  • Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
  • That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. —Included in the Virginia delegation’s recommended bill of rights.
  • Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people! —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
  • No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
  • The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” — Patrick Henry, American Patriot

Then, magically, out of thin air … for its historical argument, the city concludes, “There is no suggestion that the need to protect private uses of weapons against federal intrusion ever animated the adoption of the Second Amendment.”

But … again, the facts say differently! Here are a few more quotes by the “Framers” of the Constitution:

  • “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 to James Madison
  • “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. “ — Noah Webster, American Lexicographer
  • The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46
  • If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 29

Defender

Here are two modern quotes on the that follow in the same line:

  • “The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.” — Malcolm Wallop, former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)
  • An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject.” — Anon.

The city’s second argument is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to District-specific legislation. Sounds plausible on the surface … I guess.
However … doesn’t this seems to be a rather curious argument, at least politically, for a district government that is so keen on seeking equal representation in Congress. Why is it that left-wing, anti-gun, socialist, secular-progressive liberals always seem to want to have things both ways?

Dems For Gun Rights

The real truth behind the anti-gun nut’s argument can be summed up by these two quotes from strong leaders of the gun control movement:

  • Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
    — Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
  • This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” — Adolph Hitler, Chancellor, Germany, 1933

The Second Amendment side of the argument.

Dick Heller’s lawyers contend the D.C. gun ban is a “draconian infringement” of the Second Amendment. And they too present their grammatical and historical interpretation of the law writing there cannot be “doubts or ambiguities” about the meaning of the second clause or its relationship with the first.

“The words cannot be rendered meaningless by resort to their preamble. Any preamble-based interpretive rationale demanding an advanced degree in linguistics for its explication is especially suspect in this context,” the attorneys argue.

I think it should also be pointed out that any “advanced degree in linguistics” is most often going to be held by a person of the liberal, elitist, anti-gun persuasion … because they like to stay where they feel secure … in the Ivory Towers of our more liberal universities.
Heller’s lawyers also present cites Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison.

They also quote from lawyer John Adams, who stated during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre, “here [in America] every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense.”

Heller’s lawyers dismiss the spurious argument the city makes that the Second Amendment does not have the effect of law in the District of Columbia. They do acknowledge that Congress (and also the D.C. government under … Home Rule) has the ability to make gun laws but must do so in accordance with the Constitution.

Finally, his lawyers dismiss the city’s argument that the handgun ban is legal under a “proper reasonableness” standard. Instead they offer a “strict scrutiny” guideline for imposing restrictions on gun ownership.

“As our nation continues to face the scourges of crime and terrorism, no provision of the Bill of Rights would be immune from demands that perceived governmental necessity overwhelm the very standard by which enumerated rights are secured. Exorbitant claims of authority to deny basic constitutional rights are not unknown. Demoting the Second Amendment to some lower tier of enumerate rights is unwarranted. The Second Amendment has the distinction of securing the most fundamental rights of all — enabling the preservation of one’s life and guaranteeing our liberty. These are not second-class concerns.

It is also common for the Supreme Court to request the official position of the United States government. In this case, Solicitor General Paul Clement has been given 15 minutes to argue before the court. Lawyers for the District of Columbia and Heller will each have 30 minutes.

Paul clement’s brief, however, surprised many when it argued against a definitive ruling on the merits of the case. Instead the brief counsels the justices that the “better course” would be to remand the case back to the lower courts for further review. In so doing, Clement urges the court to acknowledge the “plain text” of the Second Amendment and recognize that the law does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. He says such an interpretation “reinforces the most natural reading of the amendment’s text.”

I will end this post with a History of Gun Control that I found on a website by Scotts Computing, that I am sure the anti-gun nuts would not want you to read!

The History of Gun Control

  • Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976 20 million Anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other “mongrelized peoples,” unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 1 million “educated people,” unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

That amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who were slaughtered by their own governments – governments that had first rendered their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms.

A free man with a firearm has a fighting chance against any would-be gangster or criminal. An disarmed man does not.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.