Not Ashamed of America’s Gun Culture

America has a freedom culture, of which guns are a part. The only reason we have freedom is because we can defend that freedom on an individual basis. Without the guns we would all be slaves.

Amen.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
B. Franklin

Amen, Mr. Yoho, Amen!

Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives/regressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in the hands of those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

Your history of the Chinese atrocities was a good example of what happens to a society with severe gun control.I think to further drive your point home is the fact that the Chinese didn’t learn the lesson,and embraced a dictator named Mao who made sure they were defenseless against his ” government” and rounded up any opposition,making them disappear into a dark hole,or off the face of the earth all together.

What horrible quirk of human nature makes some take any major accomplishment by any but themselves and immediately try to pick it to pieces? Is it ENVY? Because THEY didn’t conceive of, create, devise, or greatly improve something, it MUST be degraded, or torn down!

The Constitution is one of the greatest documents devised by men in search of freedoms, of existence, of faith, and the least interference in one’s life! However, this document has existed for 225 YEARS, with few changes! This must REALLY grate on some!

YES, there are those who cannot STAND to let thinge be! They MUST INTERFERE, they MUST CHANGE, they MUST CONTROL others! Whether or not the ‘others’ agree!

If nothing else, they nit-pick every little thing. And, if there is nothing said about what they want, they MAKE UP something. Take the freedom of faith thing; The idea was everybody could worship as they please. We’ve ALSO allowed those who DON”T want to worship, that they DO NOT, although THIS wasn’t listed! The idea was there would only be no STATE supported religion, only!

A phrase, ‘freedom of religion’ was coined by one of our founding forefathers, in his letters. This WAS NOT listed in any laws, regulations, Constitution, etc! Now some want to take this “non-official” phrase, REPHRASE it to read: “freedom FROM religion”!

So, something, NEVER, EVER, encoded into laws, has been used, by a small minority, to FORCE the majority to NOT celebrate OUR religions as we have in the past! One even stated that the sight of the nativity scene, “made me sick seeing it!” OMG! And, some idiotic judge bought it!

Back to the gun thing (sorry for the dissertation!): Laws ONLY apply to the law-abiding! When people relinquish their 2nd amendment rights to ‘keep and bear arms’, the criminal element will NOT! This gives them a huge advantage…….they KNOW their prey has NO defenses! Does the phrase, “shooting fish in a barrel” sound familiar?

[Here is a great explanation of what the issue is. I cut this from a comments section January 1, 2013. Credit should go to "docdave1" and "James Pakinpastor", not me since I too only agree but did not author it. These guys really see just what we all need to know.]

James Pakinpastor • quoting docdave1•

Rights Are NOT Gifts from Government:

Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.

Following the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789, Congress had reduced approximately 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.

A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not contain the preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.

A review of this paragraph shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “Further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers.

Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision. If the Bill of Rights had granted rights, then the word “granted” would have to appear each and every time a right was being established. A review of the Bill of Rights shows that the word “granted” does not appear in any Amendment.

In reality, the Bill of Rights placed additional or secondary restraints on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people and powers reserved to the States. That is why the words “no,” “not” and “nor” appear throughout the Amendments instead of the word “granted.”

Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

In order to help explain this constitutional principle, I reluctantly decided to reference a United States Supreme Court case from 1875. Normally, I would not cite a court case to support a constitutional principle because too many opinions do not reflect the true intent of the Framers. However, I decided to make an exception because this decision states this constitutional principle clearly and concisely and has never been overturned.

In the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that the Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government and it is the duty of States to secure the individual rights of the American people.

One of the most definitive and succinct interpretations of the Second Amendment is found in the Court’s second holding: “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government… .”

The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do, from a federal standpoint, is remove the secondary restraint imposed on federal power by the Amendment. And since many States have a right to keep and bear arms clause in their constitution, separate and apart from the Federal Constitution or the Second Amendment, the existence or non-existence of the Second Amendment would not affect the right because the federal government was not granted and does not have the general power to abolish a natural or individual right secured by a State Constitution.

Note: There is a school of thought that the Fourteenth Amendment made, through a doctrine known as incorporation, the Second Amendment applicable to the individual States. Since the Second Amendment did not create a right, then repeal of the Amendment could not abolish the right in the individual States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

This Nation needs to get back to GOD.. If we do not, we stand to see the end of this great Nation. And Yes,, it is true that our families before us were a family of GOD fearing people that worshiped him and also knew how to take care of themselves and each other. We had some bad times in our history, like the Hadfields and McCoys. Even being GOD fearing, they stood against one another because they would not back down from the other. But also, back in their time, Men were supposed to stand against one another and not worry about government that rarely showed up to take care of business like they stick their nose into things they shouldn’t now days.. If the government would stay where they are supposed to be and not up in our business like they do now, we would have a better place among ourselves. But in this day and time, the government thinks they should stir up trouble at every chance they get. They truly need to back the heck off if you know what I mean…

I got a great email about the “Battle of Athens Tennessee” in 1946 where a bunch of returning veterans had to take arms from the local armory in order to retrieve the stolen ballot boxes taken from their local sherriff who was bought by a local family who had basically been fixing elections for years. Funny…I can’t find anything on this battle on snopes or factcheck? The uproar about repealling the 2nd amendment or just plain ignoring it and going into gun confiscation by the wants of the libtard left, further reminds me that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

A KGB officer, after the fall of the USSR, said that the commies and the Red Army decided it was not possible to invade and occupy the US because of the prevalence of privately owned firearms. Even we haven’t, as yet, used our firearms for the purpose the founders intended in the second amendment (overthrowing oppressive gummint), but thats coming, there’s no telling how many times the knowledge of those firearms in the hands of free citizens stopped would-be tyrants from making that mistake. The current batch of oppressors are obviously not that intelligent, spurred on by their owners in the NWO.

Go ahead …. repeal the Second Amendment …… the “government” is not, nor has it for some time, honored the GUARANTEE not to infringe on OUR PRE-EXISTING RIGHT.

The ONLY thing that the Second Amendment does is to promise that the “government” will not interfere. Read the first ten amendments to the Constitution …. then tell me …. if you can …… which of those ten GUARANTEES are currently being honored by this administration …. or any of the recent administrations, for that matter.