• mtman2

    Mr. Shwartz well stated the facts that make the 2nd the 2nd in OUR Bill of Rights; giving teeth + freedom to preserve the 1st!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

      But what if it is NOT “OUR Bill of rights”?

      The BoR was written to protect “We the People”; Americans today are not part of that group.

      The following is taken from “A Patriot’s Thoughts” at “cfhabeck.blogspot”; read it for more information.

      When you see “United States” in a sentence or law you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not. The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison
      Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated;

      The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

      The first definition is easily understood; the second and third are not. Let’s look at the second definition in the U.S. Constitution.

      The 14th Amendment
      “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
      reside…..”

      The 14th Amendment states its area of law is “…THE United States, and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof…” The term here is singular, the jurisdiction, or else it would be their jurisdiction or the jurisdictions.

      Hence it refers to the territory of the Federal Government. It can be stated also as Congress or the District of Columbia.

      Remember that the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitutions are contracts in nature and as such should follow the “Four Corners” doctrine. Essentially, if it is not addressed within the four corners of the document it is not addressed and must not be assumed.

      “Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
      Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)

      The fourteenth amendment created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by the government.

      “We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment…”
      Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

      And from the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873
      The first clause of the fourteenth article was primarily intended to confer
      citizenship on the Negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship
      of the United States, and citizenship of the States, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.

      The second clause protects from the hostile legislation of the States the
      privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as distinguished from
      the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States.

      The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the NATIONAL government, the
      provisions of its Constitution, or its laws and treaties made in pursuance
      thereof; and it is these which ARE PLACED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CONGRESS by this clause of the fourteenth amendment.” (emphasis added)

      So if you are a citizen under the14th amendment you are not one of “We The People” but under the jurisdiction of the “National government”. Please remember that we are supposed to have a federal government not a national one. The 14th
      amendment allows the federal government to have it own citizens separated from
      the protections afforded state Citizens.

      • polmutant

        this is oh so correct. only do not tell. let the sheoples dream, it is only a dream, go back to sleep. soon it is over. too poor to pay attention the sheoples go to slaughter. the big deal here is that under this interpretation it is washingtons national debt. not the free peoples! soon we shall see. God bless you and may no weapon formed against you prosper!

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

          The debt part is stated in “A Patriot’s Thoughts” but a few things have to happen first.

          • polmutant

            These things are in motion, some are complete. only not what materialized/enforced.

      • BigUgly666

        I ain’t called the “Internal Revenue” and the “federal income” tax without good reason.

        • Phillip_in_TX

          I like what “Granny” on the “Beverly Hillbillies” called them: “The Infernal Revenue Service.”

          I also like what Jed had to say to them too.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTm0IhspiQ8

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

          Ever think about this:

          If you buy an item at Walmart and try to “return” it at a Sears, you can’t. You can only return something you received from the place from which you received it. Follow that?

          Now, if you file a tax return, what are you returning? It is called officially a tax return so you must be returning something you received from the federal government or any other government agency.

          Since we are chattel of the federal government, per the 14th Amendment, ALL we have belongs to the government, just as any slave’s “possessions” belong to the slave owner.

          That’s why the Kelo decision states the government can take any propertry you own and give it to anyone else it wants.

          Hope I did not ruin your day :).

          • BigUgly666

            No, the ignorance of someone else never ruins my day.

            I am NOT a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States – I am a Citizen of Wyoming, one of these united States of America.

            I am no one’s ‘slave’ and will die on my feet …

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

            Do you have a “Driver’s License”? “Auto Registration”? Have ever accepted any benefit from the government? Student loan? FHA mortgage? Any of these is federal proof of their citizenship.

            The reach of our government’s betrayal is almost boundless. Are you a
            “Citizen of Wyoming” or a Citizens of WY?

            What you claim may not be what the law says. I wish you all the strength of your convictions to succeed.

          • $7872008

            C. Francis Habeck – Your rhetoric seems to be characterized by a lack of clear and orderly thought or motive. I don’t understand if you are against the accepted Constitutional Rights, or attempting to show the thought processes of those who penned the documents. Are you suggesting the Constitution is made for a sovereign ruling government and that “We The People” were only referenced as those who lived at the time it was written? If so, I don’t accept your logic or judgement.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

            ” I don’t understand if you are against the accepted Constitutional Rights…”

            Right there is one big problem. “We the People”had no “Constitutional Rights”, their rights were from the Creator and considered “Natural Rights”.

            If you are referring tio the Bill of Rights, please consider:

            Most Americans prove one of the Founders’ concerns about the Bill of Rights.

            He thought that in time the people would think their rights came from the document, just like YOU.

            Look at the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, this was NOT part of the Bill that was ratified. Coincidence, I think not.

            “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” (emphasis mine)

            The Bill of Rights grants no rights but states SOME of the rights already held by “We the People”.

            Unfortunately, “We the People” no longer exist; they were deceived into choosing to become “citizens of the United States”
            under the14th Amendment.

            These federal citizens only have privileges given them by Congress (per the SCOTUS).

            We, Americans, no longer enjoy God-given rights but have traded them in for man-granted privileges. All nice and legal according to the
            SCOTUS.

            Why do you think the government can take your property away and give it to anyone it chooses? You think slaves really owned anything?

            You think you have the right to get married? If you are exercising a God-given right, why do you have to pay the government for permission?

            You think you have God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? The SCOTUS has stated the PART of Liberty is the RIGHT to travel. Now, if you have the God-given right to travel, why do you have to pay the government for permission to use your automobile on your streets?

            Get the point? The SCOTUS stated “the power to tax is the power to destroy” and that a right therefore can not be taxed. They also stated that whatever it is called, if the purpose is to raise revenue, think license, permit, registration, etc., it is a TAX.

            The whole purpose of writing “A Patriot’s Thoughts” was for it to be a primer showing how we have been betrayed. The other articles on the site show some of the other signs we are in deeper trouble than we think.

            If you want to learn how we got here so you can focus your energies on solutions, if it is not too late, read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” (now at bottom of the posts) at “cfhabeck.blogspot”. Please send any comments or questions to patriot1789 at “hotmail”.

          • mtman2

            Hey Fran: Check out Jekyll island 1910 + Bretton-Woods Agreement 1944= WE the Constitutional People were sold as slaves to pay the World Bankers thru the Income tax then SS ponsi scheme. UR #’s up, on a roster w/all the rest of us pawns…

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

            I am aware of Jekyll Island. Most Americans will not take the time to learn.

      • The Carpathian

        Mr. Habeck has obviously atended classes in constitutional law. Nice.
        But Mr. Habeck seems to overlook, perhaps seliberately, that the concept of incorporation of the bill of rights into the restrictions against the states has occurred … most recently (lastly?) with the 2nd amendment.
        While Mr. Habeck goes about the mental masturbation of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin … or if we are the people, or citizens, or inhabitants, or any other linguistic gymnastics he wants … the rest of us will just plod along in the real world where “We the People” is a generational continuum. For if we are not “the People” constitutional law means nothing, and decisions of the court are vacated. If we are not “the People”, we have no rights. If we are not “the People”, our government is dissolved, for it was instituted by dead people more than 200 years ago.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

          Ah yes, personal attacks.

          “While Mr. Habeck goes about the mental masturbation of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…”

          “Mental masturbation”? Does that show where YOUR mind is?

          “But Mr. Habeck seems to overlook, perhaps seliberately (sic), that the concept of incorporation of the bill of rights into the restrictions against the states has occurred … most recently (lastly?) with the 2nd amendment…”

          I do not overlook much. You do know that the “incorporation of the bill of rights into the restrictions against the states” only affects federal “citizens of the United States”? True Citizens of the several States have their protection incorporated into their STATES’ CONSTITUTIONS. You do know that each State, especially those entering the Union before 1861 had its own, written by its citizens.

          I often look to California for answers to some of these “confusing” aspects of reality.

          It may seem strange considering what California has become BUT, it was one of the last areas to enter the union as a state prior to the War Between the States which radically changed the meanings of the terms
          “state” and “citizen” among others.

          The original California Code stated that if you were not a Citizen of California you were either a Citizen of one of the other several States or you were an alien. Since DC is not a State, a citizen of DC is by law
          an alien to the several States.

          Please note the WORDING of the 14th Amendment: “..and of the State wherein they reside..” An alien “resides”; a Citizen dwells, lives, abides.

          In Law the terms “alien” and “resident alien” can be used synonymously. Ever receive a letter address to “Resident”? Live in a “residential” neighborhood? Yes, I know, it’s silly.

          Now the argument will be made that the amendment says you are a citizen of a state. Does it really? Please consider the following:

          When did any of the several State legislatures change the official abbreviation for that State to a two-letter abbreviation?

          Now, if you answered none, you are correct. But then what does NJ, MW, WA, CA mean? They are federal territories, per the buck Act, also
          called states.

          “… the rest of us will just plod along in the real world where “We the People” is a generational continuum..”

          Actually, “We the People” is a political construct describing the citizens of the several States belonging to the Union.

          “For if we are not “the People” constitutional law means nothing, and decisions of the court are vacated…”

          There are other entities besides “the People”. As pointed out in “A Patriot’s Thoughts”, there are the 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” who have only those privileges granted by Congress, per the SCOTUS, under the law.

          The Constitution also has “..Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons..”; persons Not citizens or part of “We the People”.

          As stated in “A Patriot’s Thoughts”, what we are now is another entity that is NOT part of “We the People”, again per the SCOTUS, the U.S. Constitution, and most laws passed by Congress.

          Your last comment “If we are not “the People”, our government is dissolved, for it was instituted by dead people more than 200 years ago.” Is ridiculous.

          Even is we were members of “We the People”, out form of government would still have been “instituted by dead people more than 200 years ago”.

          “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
          Johann Wolfgangvon Goethe, (born August 28, 1749, Frankfurt am Main [Germany]—died March 22, 1832, Weimar, Saxe-Weimar), German poet, playwright, novelist, scientist, statesman, theatre director, critic, and amateur artist, considered the greatest German literary figure of the modern era.

          In conclusion, from the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873:

          “The first clause of the fourteenth article was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the Negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of the States, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.

          The second clause protects from the hostile legislation of the States the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as distinguished from the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States.

          The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the
          NATIONAL government, the provisions of its Constitution, or its laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof; and it is these which are placed under the protection of Congress by this clause of the fourteenth amendment.“ (emphasis added)

          Now, let me try counting angels.

      • Ken Barber

        In the sense that you have explained the distinctions of federal citizenship as opposed to citizenship of the several states, you seem to suggest that a federal citizen would enjoy certain undefined benefits that would be superior to those of the several States. If my understanding of your intent is correct, a superior level of citizenship and a superior level of government, as in the federal sense, is/was created by the 14th Amendment. If so, that would be barred first by the 10th Amendment and then by various articles of the Constitution and the the preamble to the Constitution, and the reality that the Founders clearly stated that the rights embodied by the “Bill of Rights” were endowed by our Creator(GOD) and thus rested in the only sovereign power WE, The People that created the federal government which was intended to be a government, of the people(sovereign) , by the people(sovereign) and for the people(sovereign). The federal government was never intended to be the superior power or authority. Otherwise, the WE, The People would not be citizens but, instead merely subjects or serfs of the federal government.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

          Everyone should take time to read the published court case Colgate vs Harvey. This case is often utilized by U.S. Attorneys in their briefs. The following is a quote from page 309 of the Lawyers Edition:

          “Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly apparent. That is to say, a citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a NATIONAL citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship “paramount and dominant” instead of “derivative and dependant” upon state citizenship.”
          296 U.S 404, 427; 80 L.Ed. 299 (1935)]

          Now, if the Fourteenth Amendment DID NOT create a national citizenship, then WHAT did it create?

          It created a citizenship in the District of Columbia, commonly called the “United States” in legal terminology. So, by law, a “United States” citizen is a citizen of the District of Columbia, which is not a State of the Union of several States; it is not a star on the American flag. Therefore, the District of Columbia is alien to the 50 common-law States of the Union. In law, the term “resident” can be used synonymously with “resident alien”.

          Now, as a citizen of the District of Columbia, you are subject to ALL the municipal laws that Congress passes for the District of Columbia. This means that ALL of Titles 7, (Agriculture), 8 (Immigration), 12 (Banks & Banking), 15 (Commerce & Trade), 16 (Conservation), 19 (Customs), 20 (Education), 21, (FDA), 22 (Foreign Relations) 24, (Hospitals), 25 (Indians), Title 26 (Internal Revenue), 27 (Liquor), 29 (Labor), 30 (Mining), 33 (Navigation), 36 (Patriotic Societies), 40 (Public Buildings), 41 (Public Contracts), 42 (Public Health), 43 (Public Lands), 45 (Railroads), 47 (Telegraphs & Telephones), 48 (Territories and Insular Possessions), 50 (War and National Defense); all the above attach to you personally regardless of where you “reside” in the world (See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S 47 (1924)). There are some individual paragraphs that attach to the common-law Citizens of the
          several States, but they are very few and far between.

          Please note the the Fourteenth Amendment is not law; it was never
          properly adopted or ratified. “A Patriot’s Thoughts” does touch on this aspect of the amendment.

          Madden V. Kentucky was decided in 1940. I would like you to read what the court said:

          “This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship.” [Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)] [84 L.Ed. 590, at 594]

          In the Madden case, the Court is telling you that, as a State Citizen, you have natural sovereign rights which are fundamental. But, as a “citizen of the United States” a/k/a a citizen of the District of Columbia, you have a different type of rights; these are called “privileges and immunities” and they are different from those “natural rights inherent in state citizenship.”

          Previously, the California Supreme Court also arrived at these same conclusions in K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545 (1927). “It is a fundamental Right to be a state Citizen.”

          The Supreme Court of Maryland In Crosse v. Board of Elections,
          221 A.2d. 431, at 433 (1966) stated:

          “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.”

          Is it possible that you have not been told the truth of the matter? It is and it is also true that we have been deceived to accept an inferior unlawful, citizenship.

      • Ed Williams

        The Second Amendment means what serious people with guns say it means.

    • Grandpa David

      Remember, the rights in the original ten are NOT granted to us by government. The rights are inherent, God given, and the Amendments protect them from government. The Second Amendment cannot constitutionally be taken away.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

        But, can we voluntarilly relinquish them? While most of us would say “No”, the Court’s and laws say otherwise. To say it is an uphill battle would be an understatement.

  • Jack

    I am going to say that if this man Mr Dorner had been a person that was not a police officer or in the military .Even worse he is a member of the Tea party the media would be screaming for more gun control .Because the media has in there minds that the only the police and military should have guns. That anybody else should not have guns

  • drmoogala

    An utterly useless individual like obozo cannot elevate himself to the position of Dictator unless we are defenseless that is all that this is about

    • LUCKYME

      You nailed it Doc, from my cold dead hands if it may be.

      • BigUgly666

        Won’t it be just a bit difficult for them to pry our weapons from our “cold, dead hands” …. with their “cold, dead hands”?

        • Phillip_in_TX

          Yes, it will!

      • CrustyOldGeezer

        My hands may be cold, but don’t grab the gun by the barrel…. it won’t be cold.

    • SirWilhelm

      He’s already a dictator. He’s consolidating his hold on power every day. Guns are now the thing he fears most, that could remove him from power, which is why he ordered the Marines that marched in his last inaugaral parade to remove the bolts from their rifles. Now he’s taking the first steps to take guns from the rest of those he fears, while allowing those he does trust, to keep them. They aren’t big steps, but that’s the way he does it, with little steps, but, the goal is the same. All the rationals for controlling guns are cover for that one real reason, to keep him in power.

      • LadyforLiberty

        No-one apart from a welfare dependent Democrat who can only read his “rights” to Welfare and “Committed Programs” such as food stamps, being unable to understand the technicalities of Freedom laid down by the Founding Fathers, would support this power crazed Commie!
        The first President to ignore “We the People” for unAmerican grounds!
        Where is the Committee on UnAmerican Activities when you need them??

      • Evermyrtle

        He is just as near to dictator that is possible without having completer control and he is working on that just as fast as possible and our responsible ones appear to be asleep. Will they awaken in time to deliver us from doom??, or will GOD take charge? but then, why should HE take charge when so many of HIS people appear to be asleep?? .We will not fight for ourselves but expect GOD to do all for us.

        • beebee

          How about we “fight for ourselves” and ask God to help us do it? In 2 Ch. 7:14, God promises “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land”. However, this may be difficult for many people to do, but it’s a worthy suggestion, and will be easier to live with than the alternative, which would be life under a tyrant dictator! Think about it!

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

          I understand your exasperation BUT;

          Paul writes “..have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them.” (Eph5:11) The NKJV sheds a little more light on the meaning by saying “..expose them”. If we see a lexical definition of this word, we see that the process we are involved in regarding the “works of darkness” is of exposing and causing the
          participants to feel shame for their behavior such that they might be convicted of their sin; to find fault with their actions; to chide, admonish, reprove.

          Notice that this is what Peter did in Acts2 when he proclaims Jesus’ death and resurrection and says, “..this same Jesus WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED.” (vs36) You see, he lays the blame right at their feet. And
          the outcome was, “and hearing, they were stabbed in the heart..” (vs37) They were convicted of their sin, and then exhorted to “repent and be baptized”. (vs38)

          A bit later, the religious leaders confront them and tell the disciples not to preach in Jesus’ name. And the response they get is, “It is right to obey God rather than man.” (Acts5:29)

          History and the blood of the martyrs illustrates the “disobedience” to civil law when it would have meant, as a result, disobeying God.

          Jesus did say that anyone wanting to follow Him must “count the cost”. (Lk14:28) That He did not come to “bring peace but a sword”. (Mt10:34) And this “sword” was not a sword by which Christians were to go out conquering, but the one the persecutors would be using against Believers, as He also exhorts Believers, “when they persecute you in this city, flee to another.” (Mt10:23) Believers do not “fight back” against persecution, but rather “whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Mt5:39) Because, as we partake in the “afflictions of Christ” (Col1:24), we -GIVE- ourselves just as He did. “I gave My back to strikers, and My cheeks to pluckers; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.” (Is50:6) Up to a certain point Jesus would elude their attempts to throw Him over the cliff (Lk4:29-30), or stone Him. (Jn10) But finally when His time had come, He says, “I AM” the one you’re looking for. If you’ve come for Me, let these others go. And when Peter starts to fight, Jesus tells him to put his sword away…and heals the person whose ear Peter has just whacked off. (Jn18:8-11) (from a-voice)
          We do have a means of changing the courseof our country, it is the ballot box. If that fails, remember that this age must come to an end and that end will be exemplified a government that will be anti-Christ.

          • SirWilhelm

            The ballot box, too, has been stolen. Obama is a fraud, and every vote for him is a fraudulent vote, making him, and his government, illegal. Besides that, most ballot boxes have been replaced with computerized machines, which can be easily programmed to change votes, without being detected, and, many absentee ballots are fraudulent, the dead vote, and military absentee ballots are destroyed, or not received in time. Voter ID laws are challenged, because they make voter fraud more difficult. The examples of voter fraud are so numerous, one can see we will never have an honest election, ever again. What alternative do you see knowing that?
            Could a foreign national occupying the White House, be the anit-Christ?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

            It’s not who you voted for, it’s who the machine says you voted for.

        • SirWilhelm

          It’s impossible to tell which ones of “our responsible ones” are supporting him willingly, or have been intimidated into submission, or, are just asleep. If any of them are asleep, I doubt if they are enough to make a difference, if they do wake up. Are We the People too, just asleep, or do we lack the leader, or leaders, that our Founders had when they acted?

  • Bulldog74

    My thoughts exactly — anybody who wants gun control, lay your cards out on the table and propose a repeal of the Second Amendment, let’s see how far you get with that.

    • agbjr

      The first ten amendments – Bill of Rights – are part and parcel to the Constitution itself. As a statement of God-given liberties they are non-negotiable and therefore can not be repealed.

      • Evermyrtle

        The present government wants to kick GOD out of the EQUATION, they have no idea the ‘HE HOLDS THE WORLD IN HIS HANDS!”

    • LadyforLiberty

      Bulldog: If a repeal was proposed I am sure there are elected people, beholden to the Democrat Party for their comfy positions in Washington, who would sponsor and support such a treasonous step!
      The People, irrespective of the weasel words of some wishing to control every aspect of citizens` lives, have real rights!
      The Right to allow only friendly folk onto their property!
      The RIGHT to chase off Unfriendly folk…whoever they are!
      The RIGHT to DISAGREE with any Politician, on ANY subject, (Whoever the politician is, or whatever he has to say!)
      Unfortunately over the years since the late 1980s, liberals have brought in regulations creating entities which work CONTRARY to Constitutional freedoms, and seek to undermine morality and honesty.
      CCTV on most streetcorners is proof of what I claim.
      Allegedly “For the protection of the citizen”, that piece of legislarion enables Orwell`s Big Brother on a massive scale. And all of it “For the benefit of the CItizen”!! Yeah Right!!
      Vote Republican at the Mid Terms (Paper Vote only as Fed voting machines are rigged!)
      Maybe by then even the Libertards of the Democrat party will have slowly and dimly begun to perceive that the black guy they voted for just because of that Dermal fact really HAS designs on the Liberty so dearly earned by citizens, which is being subverted and ignored by power hungry Socialists, more akin to Marx and Stalin, than Franklin and Washington!
      BTW to all Liberals out there, It was a Republcan President who gave freedom to the Southern black population, NOT the Democrats!
      Seems to be a trend here.
      GOP fight for freedom and the Constitution, Dems fight for Socialism and for undermining the rights laid down in the Constitution!!(By stealth of course) Of course…..see any dimocrats coming out to say clearly we are aiming to destroy the freedoms of the Constitution???
      Commies always lie! I remember them lying on camera at the United Nations that they had NOT supplied nuclear rockets to Cuba!
      I also remember when sexual orientation was never on any school curriculum.
      It is now! Courtesy of the Democrats.
      “Give me a child between 3 and 7 and I will give you the man”.
      That was the motto of the Roman Catholic Jesuits. It became the motto of the Communists. Now it is securely fixed in every school curriculum in USA!
      Only the Lefties, parading as freedom fighters, have constantly removed morals and ethics whilst pretending to protect what they are really attacking.
      Well O is the latest manifestation of this disease. Maybe there is a cure. You tell me!!

  • Brian

    “Because a trained militia is a requirement of a self-governing nation
    and because a militia is a military force made up of the country’s
    civilians, weapons used by our military, law-enforcement, and foreign
    military are exactly what the Second Amendment protects.”

    Does this mean I can buy a Patriot Missile Battery and a couple of nukes too?????

    • Bulldog74

      An illustration of the logical fallacy known as the Straw Man argument, as in this example from http://www.nizkor.org:
      Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
      Jill: “We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.”
      Bill: “Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?”
      Jill: “I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous.”

    • Marlin208

      Get some sun Brian, you need it.

    • lasercad

      Actually, yes, you idiot. It means you have the right to whatever military arm you want. Can you afford it? As long as you are not using it to infringe on anyone else’ rights… yes, you can have it. As a matter of fact, until the government stepped in to “save us from ourselves”, you used to be able to walk into any hardware store and purchase a fully automatic Thompson machine gun. You know what… we didn’t have a bunch of folks running around murdering each other. Criminals had them then, and have them now. The only difference is “we the people” do NOT have them. ANY infringement (gun law) is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

      • Brian

        Somehow, I think you are all nuts! You remind me of some back woods survivalist just waiting for the day when the government comes and pries your guns out of your old, wrinkled crotchety hands while holing up in a bomb shelter trying to guard your gold and seeds.

        I post on several “conservative” websites, and one thing I find in common is that whenever anyone, not just me, disagrees with what is being said, the names start flying. Maybe one reason amongst many as to why conservatism is dying in this country is because y’all can’t have a civilized discussion without name calling.

        • USMC(RET)

          Moron!

        • webeers

          Not an argument. Certainly not one from the Constitution. And conservativism isn’t dying, it is being sensored by the chattering class of the left.

        • BigUgly666

          ” and pries your guns out of your old, wrinkled crotchety hands while
          holing up in a bomb shelter trying to guard your gold and seeds. ”

          Thank YOU for not resorting to “name calling” and “slanderous comments”.

          Give me one reason that anyone (not prohibited by law or evidence) should not be able to own a nuclear weapon. Give me one reason that anyone should not be able to own a quad-50 or a fully automatic weapon, or a Vulcan 20mm cannon – or other cannon for that matter.
          Until a “crime” is committed … there is no crime. Until you have harmed someone else, there is no crime.
          If you think otherwise, let me know the State and County of your residence, and your last name …. I will call your County Sheriff and have you arrested for the “potential of rape” and the “potential of child molestation”.

          Were I to possess a fully automatic weapon (personally, I think they are wasteful) what “crime” have I committed if I have not harmed another? If you say that I have the “potential” to do harm with that weapon – then admit that you, too, have the potential to do harm with your “weapon” that hangs between your legs ….. provided there is one, of course.

          • Brian

            “Give me one reason that anyone (not prohibited by law or evidence) should not be able to own a nuclear weapon.”

            I would love to see statistics on how many guns used in horrific shootings (Sandy Hook, Columbine, VA Tech, the theater whose name I can’t remember, Gabby Giffords, etc) were legally obtained. And if we see that most of them were legally obtained, that would be reason enough for anyone not to own a nuclear weapon.

            My questions to you, or anyone else, is (and let’s forget the ridiculous scenario of missiles and nukes): What is the rationale behind being able to own weapons that can shoot hundreds of rounds automatically? Or clips that hold large quantities of bullets? Do you really think the government is bent on dictatorship, and the only thing stopping them is citizens arming themselves? Is there ANY type of gun control you would acquiesce to?

          • Phillip_in_TX

            Yes, they are bent on dictatorship. Yes, what is stopping them is an “armed populace.” The ONLY type of gun control I will acquiesce to “is HITTING MY TARGET!”

          • JoeTexan

            I’ve never seen a clip that holds large quantities of bullets. As for being able to own weapons that can shoot hundreds of rounds automatically, that was stopped by the government back in the 1930s, so now only criminals can own them.

          • BigUgly666

            First – the average person CANNOT OWN A WEAPON THAT SHOOTS “HUNDREDS OF ROUNDS AUTOMATICALLY”. That takes a Class III license and payment of a very high tax.
            Second – who cares how large the “MAGAZINE” is … one can only fire as fast as one can pull the trigger AND it only takes a second or so to change out a 10 round magazine – besides, with stripper clips a magazine can be ‘recharged’ faster than changing out the magazine.

            In answer to you last question, Yes, there is …. the trigger.

            You, still, have given me no solid reason for non-ownership.
            The weapons used in most shooting were not “lawfully” obtained, though a few of the were “legally” obtained.

        • CrustyOldGeezer

          Well, maybe it’s time you stop throwing out the names?

          You keep being referred to as an idiot because…. that is the term that best explains your intellectual capabilities.

          It’s not a derogatory term, my friend, just the pigeonhole you assigned yourself to.

        • Black Rain

          Brian, you sound as you might like to have a good conversation on the subject but, you most likely received you property from you dad or from the government. Either way you did work very hard for it or have no respect for anyone who has property and goods.
          I now God tells us not to put our values in material things. None the less, I worked hard for thirty plus to provide for my family and knock on wood, I’m not a burden on society.
          It pisses me off when I go to the Dr, I have insurance, I still have to pay a co-pay of $20. and some public has to pay $3.20 and doesn’t pay that.

          • Brian

            Sorry dude, you’re wrong there. I received virtually nothing from my parents as far as money or property. What i did receive from them was love and guidance and support for the time I was with them. Started working at 14, went to college, moved out when I was 22, hand-built my own house because I couldn’t afford to buy one, and have been fortunate enough to have never been unemployed for the 30 years I’ve worked. I would hardly call myself a “burden on society” either.

            My ideals more closely relate to Libertarian than anything else, although I, like so many others, have different views that the party on certain subjects. This is one of them.

          • Black Rain

            Yes, it sounds like you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You don’t like some of the things your party says or act. Don’t we all but, I don’t hold it against another person because they disagree with me, I do hold it against the government when they go against the constitution or the bill of rights and christian values which this great nation was founded. If that make me a bad person in your eyes so be it.
            I don’t believe welfare should be a full time job. I don’t believe being a congressman or a senator is a full time career. Like anything else, we need new bleed in Washington, the more thing change, the more it stays the same.
            I heard that some where don’t know what it means. :-)

        • dreadnought61

          “some back woods survivalist just waiting for the day when the government
          comes and pries your guns out of your old, wrinkled crotchety hands”
          You mean the day like when those men, women, and children in Waco were killed by the Government??

      • CrustyOldGeezer

        Automatic weapons were outlawed because criminal organizations used them on each other and occasionally against law enforcement.

        You will note that it was NOT the Law Abiding Citizen that was doing the wanton killing with that style of weapon… just the criminals, and I don’t remember there being ‘gun buy back’ programs for all the criminals to turn in their fully automatic weapons…..

        do you?

        Probably another “INFRINGEMENT” that needs to be removed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/C-Francis-Habeck/100002426016552 C Francis Habeck

          Consider this:

          What was the REAL consequence of Prohibition?

          “Unlawful” behavior by citizens: bootlegging; speak-easies; CRIME.

          What was the government’s response?

          The creation and expansion of a FEDERAL law-enforcement agency.

          The result of this agency?

          Increased use of sophisticated weapons, such as “tommy” guns, an automatic 45 caliber weapon.

          The government’s response?

          More heavily-armed federal police.

          The result?

          More oppressive laws against citizens; the alleged banning of automatic weapons. In reality, they were not truly banned but you had to pay a “tax” and get a federal license to own one.

          The result?

          Escalating violence.

          Citizens start demanding the repeal of Prohibition.

          The result?

          Repealing Amendment turned over control of alcohol to the States instead of making it a commodity such as cigarettes or anything else in
          a supposedly “free” market.

          Another result?

          While “alcohol” crime vanished, the crime syndicates continued into prostitution, drugs, and gambling.

          What I see as the INTENDED result?

          A fully-armed federal police force acting contrary to the intentions of the Constitution, which granted no such police powers to the federal government to usurp the authority of the several union States to protect and pass laws for their Citizens according to their individual
          constitutions.

          In other words the federal government created a “crisis”, acted upon said crisis, came up with a solution that created a seemingly unconstitutional police force, and finally pre-empted the lawful States from enacting laws for the enjoyment and betterment of their Citizens. Put the finishing touches on making the States nothing more than servants of the federal government.

          This is not the first incidence of Americans being turned into chattel of the federal government. Read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” at cfhabeck.blogspot (scroll down to last post).

          • CrustyOldGeezer

            That started the day after the last State ratified the Constitution.

            WELL STATED!

    • Black Rain

      If you have the money, today if you fill out the paper work you can buy a Patriot Missile Battery. Nuke, not so sure. Our government sells them all the time to countries who want to harm us.
      You can buy a fully-automatic if you apply for a Class III firearms permit. In some states you only have to be a collector for fully-automatic firearms.
      It has been proven that full automatic is not the way to go. Now, a full auto has a select switch for three round burst, thats what you need.

  • slickzip

    If ODUMBA wants my guns he will have to kill me and take them from my cold dead hands ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  • GRAMPA

    The one thing I continually stress in my rhetoric is that the constitution does NOT give us our rights. It was written to limit the powers of government. We have inalienable rights. these come from our creator not government. Our constitution then prevents government from taking our rights and has no authority to do so. If we allow the government to claim the power to interpret the constitution they will reinterpret the rest to their advantage. If the American people need to speak up it is now or there will be no peace.
    I love my country but fear my government.
    God bless America
    Grampa

  • DaveP326

    There are 9.2 MILLION AR15s in civilian hands today. Do they REALLY think they can ban them? Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s out for good.

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.adams.7902 Terry Adams

    Now if we can only get the rest of the country and world to understand it. As Ted Nugent says if you come to take my guns you get them one bullet at a time. GOD BLESS AMERICA

    • Evermyrtle

      What worries me, will I be able to shoot to kill when that time comes????

      • Phillip_in_TX

        They will have no problem killing you. So, just remember the first part of the “Golden Rule.” “Do unto others,” especially if they are coming to HARM you.

      • leithel1

        Don’t worry about “Shoot to kill”, worry about shoot to live.

      • beebee

        Threaten or frighten me badly enough, I think it would be a reflex action which would require no obvious thought! Kind of like if someone kicks me in the shin, i would automatically kick back,,,,,,,especially if you have had any practice or training on how to handle your weapon. That should be a requirement for any gun owner. And as any “gun grabber” thinks, that inanimate gun willl not automatically jump up off the table by itself and shoot someone.

  • Bob

    Brian , you’re a troll and Piers Morgan has already used that stupid example. But YES we should own some missles and a few tanks to counteract the govt.

    • Brian

      Define “troll”. Let me guess…anyone who doesn’t agree with you? And while I don’t watch Piers Morgan, if he used the same example I cited, good for him!

      • http://www.facebook.com/randolph.goeman Randolph Goeman

        Brian– your brain is definitely on the wrong end of you spinal cord.

  • mickey

    IMPEACH the Arrogant/Illegal/Musli,/SOB!

  • KittyKittyKit

    The VOTE is NOT our only power. We have the power of the CITIZENS ARREST. We need to band together in every city this CRIMINAL plans to visit and arrest him, en masse, for TREASON. The local police are required by law to cuff the accused and cart them off to jail where their case will be entered in the logs and the courts will have to settle the issue. All of this is AFTER we step up to make the Citizens’ Arrest. Dare not do it alone as they will find some way to sweep it under the rug and go after the individual and his family. This is an UGLY, CRIMINAL, GODLESS, bunch of THUGS. They hate America and they have to be stopped. We don’t have time to wait for the ballot box. Let’s ARREST HIM, America, and get this FORIEGNER out of here and NULLIFY every thing he signed and FIRE every person hired because of his shenanigans.

  • KittyKittyKit

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson

    • Myrtle

      That is why they want to take our guns, then we will not be free, because we cannot protect ourselves, or out freedom

  • elmcqueen3

    If you listened to Charles Chucky Cheese Schumer after Obama’s speech…Schumer used the word “Universal Registration” when discussing Obama’s stance on gun control…
    Does this sould like Nazi Germany’s 1930’s Universal Registration of those who owned guns….Before they were confiscated by the SS!

  • KittyKittyKit

    I don’t plan on startin’ the war….but when the shootin’ and throat cuttin’ begins….watch out!! As they say, I may not be as good as I once was….but I’m as good ONCE as I ever was. Gettin’ old, but there’s plenty of fight for the right left in me.

    What we need is for COPS who love our nation’s constitution and have the integrity to stand by the oath of office they took, to stand up with us and TAKE INTO CUSTODY those we make a CITIZENS ARREST on, be they public or private citizens.

    ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS age 21 and older, male and female, LET’S GET IN THEIR FACE on JULY 4, 2013….9:00 a.m EST / 6:00 a.m PST. Strap on our handguns, shoulder our rifles, grab our shotguns NOT TO CAUSE TROUBLE but to TAKE BACK our 2nd Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Then ANYONE in the PUBLIC SECTOR, (or private sector), trying to DISARM US is to have a CITIZENS ARREST invoked on him/her, and charged with TREASON for attempting to overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America.

    BEARING OUR WEAPONS IS NOT A CRIME….IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT….AND IT IS NOT TO BE INFRINGED!!!

    If you’re carryin’…that’s NOT PERMISSION to commit a CRIME. We as local Militia, will stop ANYONE (public or private) from committing a CRIME against another citizen. THIS IS NOT ABOUT REVOLT….IT’S ABOUT RIGHTS.

    PUT ‘EM ON AMERICA, AND NEVER TAKE THEM OFF AGAIN. SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER IN YOUR IMMEDIATE VICINITY, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE, IN KEEPING THE PEACE….IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE…IT’S COMMON SENSE.

    IF WE DON’T HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND UP AGAINST THESE FEW WHO HAVE EVICERATED OUR CONSTITUTION NOW……THEN IT’S ONLY A MATTER OF DAYS BEFORE THEY’LL STRIKE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL MEET NO RESISTANCE.

    THEY CAN’T LEGALLY TAKE OUR RIGHTS, WE’RE STANDING LEGALLY….THEY ARE THE CRIMINALS, THE TRAITORS……..WE CAN STAND OUR GROUND OR LAY DOWN OUR LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY WEAPONS TO PROTECT ONE ANOTHER FROM THESE UN-AMERICAN RESIDENTS….AND JOIN THE OTHER SIDE, AND IN SO DOING, BETRAY OUR NATION AND BECOME GUILTY OF TREASON JUST AS THEY ALREADY ARE.

    AMERICAN POLICE OFFICERS ACROSS THE NATION….STAND WITH THE PATRIOTS!!! ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES, STAND WITH THE PATRIOTS!!! THE PATRIOTS ARE BACKING YOU AS YOU BACK US AND WE, TOGETHER, CAN ARREST AND CONVICT THE TRAITORS OF OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE AND OUR UNTITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND RESTORE FREEDOM TO ALL

  • polmutant

    weapons used by military are automatics, RPG, etc. and YES gun GCA, ATF, NFA all need repealed. as well as the organization known as the “justice dptmnt” what a joke, justice. too bad the joint chiefs of staff are more interested in their bellies than the good of the nation. too poor to pay attention the seoples go their slaighter, crying take my wool, eat my children, only leave me grass to eat.

  • Randy131

    If one would take all the gun murders, gun violence, and gun crimes committed by all other guns besides the AR15 in the USA, and compare it to the gun murders, gun violence, and gun crimes committed by just the AR15 in the USA, the comparison showing the percentage of those by the AR15 would be so miniscule that it would not be worth even mentioning.

    So why then is Obama and the Democrats picking the AR15 to debase, chastise, and demand it’s ban? Probably because it is one of the only weapons, besides the AK47, which they also want banned, that could be used to over-throw a tyrannical government that is usurping the people’s rights and freedoms, while ignoring and trying to destroy the US Constitution. The type of weapon that the ‘Founding Fathers’ decided that all Americans should have in order to protect their heritage and the US Constitution from all enemies , both foreign and (especially) domestic, and so wrote into the US Constitution that 2nd Amendment.

    The problem today is that people like Obama and the Democrats, who took an oath to support and protect the US Constitution, nonchalantly obfuscate and refuse to honor their oaths, as only immoral people would do. Thus the reasoning behind the ‘Founding Fathers’ proclamation that only a Christian God Fearing people could live under and maintain the form of government they created for our heritage, for they knew such a people are very moral and would uphold and keep their oaths, as all federal government positions are required to take to support and protect the US Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    The federal government has a long record of failure for banning anything, such as prohibition has shown, and the war on drugs has been showing. If guns of any type are banned, then only those who have them would be the criminal element in our society, which then would endanger tremendously the law abiding citizens, who would then not have those same banned guns to defend themselves from the criminal element in our society, as they now have and use to defend themselves from the criminal element in our society as well to defend against those who would usurp their rights and freedoms and destroy our US Constitution.

  • KittyKittyKit

    ….and all we do is talk and complain. We still have the U.S. CONSTITUTION on our side. We don’t have to go to ANY COURT to get permission to take our country back.
    The Second Ammendment of the Constitution gives the RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS to the PEOPLE as a FEDERAL LAW
    That means it is STILL the LAW of the land unless, and/or until, it is REPEALED by a 3/4 MAJORITY of ALL STATE LEGISLATORS. That means 37-1/2 States, out of 50 must ratify its REPEAL. (that would be 42 out of 57 states in Obama’s world),
    UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, ….. ANY Public Official, at any level of Government, advocating and then implementing ANY statute, ordinance, or law RESTRICTING our RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, is a CRIMINAL carrying out an ACT OF TREASON against the U.S. Constitution and ALL American CITIZENS.
    The RIGHT is given to the PEOPLE, specifically, for the preservation of their STATE. It purposely was NOT GIVEN TO THE STATE for the preservation of the people.
    THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE, AMERICA. This July 4th, 2013, EVERY ADULT AMERICAN CITIZEN, put your guns on (open carry) and let’s WALK OUT INTO THE PUBLIC STREETS and venues, ALL OF US, wearing our guns. Then ANYONE trying to arrest or disarm us, we will ban together and IMMEDIATELY inact a CITIZENS ARREST of that INDIVIDUAL, be they COPS, or POLITICIANS, and file charges against them for TREASON.
    THEN NEVER TAKE THEM OFF AGAIN, IN PUBLIC…..NEVER! It’s OUR RIGHT and it is the ONLY RIGHT, that keeps American CITIZENS FREE.
    THIS IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW, AMERICA……those PROHIBITING us this RIGHT are the LAW BREAKERS.
    SIGN ON AMERICA…SIGN ON!!! We can have our country back WITHOUT firing a shot….IF WE STAND TOGETHER.
    COPY THIS POST AND POST IT EVERYWHERE ON THE INTERNET!!! We STAND TOGETHER, or we DIE ALONE. Our current Federal Government, (and some State governments) are NO LONGER opperating under the U.S. Constitution, which they took an OATH to defend against ALL ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC.
    WE WHO LOVE THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA. STAND – UP!!! 7-04-2013 and march out into the streets at 9:00 a.m EST, 6:00 a.m. PST.

    • BigUgly666

      If we wait – we may not be able to.

      I strapped up over 5 years ago and never without a weapon.
      I carry openly 95% of the time and I carry the citation of the Law with me along with a copy of the Constitution.
      I carry Title 10, subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Sections 311 & 312.
      And, I carry the citation of the LAW that states I have the “Right to Refuse Unlawful Arrest”. I have had to invoke “Unlawful Arrest” once – I hope I never have to do it again. Looking an “officer” in the eyes from a distance of 24″ and informing him that I am prepared to resist with deadly force, if necessary, is NOT one of the most comfortable positions that I have ever been in. In the end, it all ended well. The “officer” agreed that, of my own free-will, I would be in the City offices the next morning …. and I was …… strapped up! After citing Supreme Court precedent and pointing out the fallacy of the “ordinance”, while sitting inside the police station wearing my .45 openly, we all agreed that there was no issue after all.
      Know your Ground, Stand your Ground, Know the LAW.

  • KittyKittyKit

    The United States Constitution
    Amendment II
    Ratified, December 15, 1791
    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.
    Infringed means: To be BREACHED, BROKEN, to GO AGAINST, INFRACTED, TRANS-GRESSED, or VIOLATED
    There has NEVER been a REPEAL or an AMENDMENT of Article II of the Bill of Rights. That means it is STILL IN FORCE and it is STILL THE RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, (Guns, Swords, Knives, Tomahawks, Sling Shots, Bows and Arrows, etc.).
    It is the NATIONAL RIGHT of the PEOPLE for the security of the State….NOT….the Right of the STATE for the security of the PEOPLE.
    The FEDERAL government NOR the STATE government, has ANY Constitutional AUTHORITY to DISARM ANY ADULT American Citizen as long as they are not attempting to commit a CRIME.
    To do so is to DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY engage in the OVERTHROW of the U.S. Constitution, and THAT is an act of TREASON;
    ANY adult American Citizen has the AUTHORITY to make a CITIZENS ARREST on any other
    LAW BREAKING Citizen, whether in the Public or Private sector.
    Tench Coxe(1755–1824)
    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 birth-right 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.

    • Black Rain

      Since 1791, we have had eleven infringements on the 2nd Amendment. None good. We need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior and stop going after the law-abiding citizens.
      I use a firearm to fatally take your live, I can the same treatment. This cop killer, if he hasn’t already fried, should get the firing squad. The Az, Co and the Fort Hood shooters should be in front of a firing squad long ago.
      Same with the black panther leader or muslin leader in Michigan should be fined for his advocating murder of other citizens.

  • KittyKittyKit

    Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders’ definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of ‘civil rulers’ when he wrote:
    The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. 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 birth-right 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.
    The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.
    Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as 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.

  • agbjr

    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.”

    James Madison

  • KittyKittyKit

    Whoa…Whoa…slow down here. The answer is way more simple than that.

    This July 4th, 2013, Independance Day, EVERY ADULT AMERICAN (LEGAL) CITIZEN, (age 21 and older), (male and female), strap your hand guns on your hips (open carry) and NEVER TAKE THEM OFF AGAIN in ALL PUBLIC places.

    I’ll wear my gun so I can DEFEND YOU and everyone else around me AGAINST ANYONE trying to perpetrate a crime against YOU or them. YOU wear your gun so you can DEFEND ME and the others around us, for the same reason. THEY will wear thier guns to DEFEND ME and YOU.

    Law abiding CITIZENS will NOT attack each other. I’m comfortable with YOU wearing a gun in public even though I don’t even know your name. YOU are a law abiding citizen, as a VAST MAJORITY of American citizens are.

    We will all DEFEND one another when circumstances call for it. Otherwise, there’s NO REASON to take our guns out of our holsters. ALL OF US are responsible to handle any criminal activity going on around us within ear shot.

    The person who sees a problem just raises their hands in the air and shouts ALERT!! All of us (carrying guns) look to the person shouting the Alert and see he/she has NO GUN IN THEIR HAND (they are not the problem), and look which way they are pointing as they point out the person committing the criminal act. NOW ALL OF US are FOCUSED on the CRIMINAL. He/she, either stands down and allows themselves to be taken into custody or they chose to shoot it out….and they WILL LOSE. NO MORE 3-hots and a cot for CRIMINALS.

    CRIMINALS only like to pick on UN-ARMED people. CRIME WILL IMMEDIATELY FALL, and we’ll all realize we don’t need CROOKED COPS on the payroll anymore either. LAW ENFORCEMENT is EVERY CITIZEN’S RESPONSIBILITY. When the WHOLE PRIVATE SECTOR is the police force, POLITICIANS can’t get away with thier crimes which affect all of us so badly.

  • webeers

    It does not mean “semi-automatic rifles”. It means fully automatic rifles. That is what is in use by military and police. Tyranny was also not addressed in this article. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the citizen from the political class whether foreign or domestic. Why is government tryanny so seldom mentioned. Governments kill and oppress people more than any other institution.

  • zeprin

    If ‘A modern nation has no need for a Second Amendment’. Then why not ‘Efficient Governance is made too difficult by the FIRST Ammendment’. Or, ‘The current economy and crime statistics render the Thirteenth Amendment moot. And the Government can find solutions to the latest crisis by selling the labor of the convicted. And the Tax avoider.’ Or possibly ‘The electoral Process is just TOO unwieldy. Lets by pass or remove the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments…’
    Seems to me that there’s a well known book that warns about slippery slopes…

  • agbjr

    For generations those in Washington have acted only to preserve their own personal power not administer the government according to the Constitution and the wishes of the people.The federal government has betrayed the promise of the Constitution.

    “A
    government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a republic,
    and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it,
    without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.”

    James Madison

  • gail2012

    Yes it’s time to stop talking about it. It’s the Constitution so back off. I suggest California and New York sue their law makers for passing illegal laws on our gun rights and include Md. And all the commy blue States.This thug in the Whitehouse may have razzle dazzled some people in his SOU address for some but it was all lies and the beginning OF TYRANNY through our hip national, through flushing the Constitution, through global warming B.S. and through healthcare. Oh lets not forget the Military which includes our intelligence agency. He’s installing Radical Muslim converts and incompetent Directors while he sets up his DICTATORSHIP. Like Holder who would never go against Obama no matter what. HOLDER has so much blood on his hands it’s not funny!

  • CrustyOldGeezer

    What I sent to the Colorado House judicial committee to have in mind as they hold hearings on VIOLATING the 2nd Amendment for political reasons.

    Note to politicians:

    This may come as a shock to some of you that feel public opinion is the sole arbiter of Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights, and, if so, then it would be in your best interests to learn your job description.

    When you ran for Public office, won the election, and took the Oath of Office you promised the voters that you were the best person for the position to see to the needs of the infrastructure.

    Included in your Oath of Office was a promise to uphold, Protect and Defend the Constitution.

    At no point is there an exemption that would allow ‘consensus’, or ‘public opinion polls’, or ‘what-ifs’ as an excuse to violate your Oath of Office.

    Now this next part is going to be a real shocker.

    Legislated law can NEVER supersede Constitutional Law. You knew that going in…
    or if you didn’t then you lied to the Voter in exchange for their votes. That would be fraud, and everybody knows that you would never lie in exchange for something of value under false pretenses.

    If you choose to write a bill that is in direct conflict with the Constitution, that would be an act of Conspiracy to violate the Constitution. Any person that works on the writing of the bill would be a co-conspirator.

    IF that bill is presented for a vote, each vote in favor would be a deliberate and intentional violation of your oath of Office as well as an act of TREASON against the People, the Constitution, and America as an ideal.

    Now, since many of you have long careers in public office, complete with Public Records that could be researched for a pattern of criminal acts to undermine the Constitutions of both the State and United States Constitutions over a period of years.

    Many of you could be looking at life sentences with no chance of parole and the People may not be amenable to supplying a cushy place for you to live out your life.

    Not many people like being lied to then stabbed in the back by self-serving corrupt politicians.

    • Phillip_in_TX

      Love it!

  • covert1970

    An excellent definition of the Constitution and the Second Amendment, all of its meaning and purpose to protect and defend the individual citizen and our way of life as a free people !

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Mr. Schwartz is absolutely correct: It’s HIGH TIME we talk about the Constitution–how INEPT it is. As early as the mid-1800s, Libertarian attorney Lysander Spooner wrote that the Constitution “has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.” (Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. 7, The Constitution of No Authority)

    Think about it, the amendment that contains the language “shall not be infringed” is arguably the most infringed, licensed, and limited amendment of the entire twenty seven.

    Under Constitutional law, self-defense and the defense of others is an optional right. Under Yahweh’s law, self-defense and the defense of others is a God-expected responsibility (1 Timothy 5:8, etc.). Which do you think is more easily infringed, licensed, and limited?

    See online Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs.Biblical Self-Defense” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.html.

    • T. Edward Price

      I, for one, could care less about the 2nd Amendment. By what authority did men arm themselves prior to 1791? The Constitution itself allows for the repeal of the
      second amendment, no matter how unlikely. Then what? We need to stop looking to a government document to protect our “rights”, when government could, and HAS, usurped those “rights” continually. Rights ALWAYS contain the option NOT to exercise said rights. We need to understand that Biblical RESPONSIBILITIES give us NO opportunity to “opt out”. That having been said, if you look to the
      Constitution to protect your gun ownership “rights”, then look no further than
      the First Amendment’s prohibition against laws restricting the “right” to freely exercise one’s religion. Christians were instructed to arm ourselves long before there was a second amendment.

      “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy
      5:8)

      “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property,
      unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” (Matthew 12:29)

      “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed.” (Luke 11:21)

      “And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along,
      likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword (or 1911 .45ACP, or Glock 23, or
      Benelli 12 Gauge, or M4 Carbine, or Savage .338 Lapua) is to sell his coat and
      buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

      If you are not a Christian, then you can continue to look to man’s law to protect you. You can debate the original meaning of militia, the type of arms protected, and the quartering of soldiers all day long. But for Christians, God- ordained
      responsibilities trump God-given “rights” every time. This is one reason I urge
      everyone to abandon the NRA, and turn to GOA (Gun Owners of America) instead. This is the ONLY gun ownership advocacy group that has NEVER
      compromised, NEVER voluntarily given an inch, unlike the NRA. The Executive
      Director of the GOA, Larry Pratt, understands that this is not just a political, but also, a spiritual issue, and that Christians have the RESPONSIBILITY to arm themselves, in defense of self, family, community, and nation, government permission or not.

  • CaptTurbo

    Well written, straight shooting article!

  • BigButch1961

    Mr. Schwartz commentary on the 2nd Amendment is so concise,simple,and common sense that even any Brain Dead Illiterate Socialist member of Congress should finally be able to understand the Rights that we as a Free People were given,and guaranteed by our Creator!It`s to bad that (Benedict)OBAMA is more concerned about taking away the Rights,and Liberties of Law Abiding Citizens than he is about enforcing the laws,and taking away the Illegal guns that criminals,gangbangers,and drugdealers obtain through the underground Blackmarket!But i guess it`s easier to take away the Rights,and Liberties of Law Abiding Taxpayers that get up,and go to work everyday to make this country,their communities,themselves,and their families better!GOD Help The United States Of America!

  • goodgreg

    The US Constitution was originally written without the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was then sent to the several states for ratification. At this time, the discussion was largely divided into the federalists and the anti-federalists. The federalists thought that the new nation required a big, strong central government to be successful. The
    anti-federalist feared a large, oppressive federal government stripping people
    of their inalienable rights willy-nilly. In order to get the Constitution
    ratified, there was a compromise that would add the Bill of Rights, that would clarify that these rights were inalienable and thus did not come from the government and therefore could not be taken away by the government. This is what President Obama has referred to a “negative rights”. These rights are also clearly rights of the “people” with the partial exception of the 10th Amendment, which delegates all powers not clearly delegated to the federal government, to the states or the people. On could convincingly argue that the anti-federalist were prescient in as far as the goliath that federal government has become.

    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.

    So, the first clause, “A well regulated Militia,” causes most of the problems. So, let’s see why we need to have a well regulated militia. “being necessary to the security of a free State.” Now when they say a “free State,” it does not appear that they are talking about an individual state or the collection of states, but likely a “free State” of governance. This would be a state free of tyranny, similar to what they just overthrew (England and the monarchy). If we ask the question, ‘What is necessary for a state of tyranny?’ we would likely answer, ‘A militia (military) controlled by a tyrant.’ Makes sense.

    Asking a slightly bigger question, ‘What is necessary to the security of a State (free or not)?’ That would be a militia. A militia is necessary for security. But if we ask the full question, ‘ What is necessary to the security of a free State?’, then the answer is a well regulated Militia. Because if the Militia is not well regulated, then it is either under the
    control of a tyrant or it is out of control. The two choices being a dictatorship or a military junta.

    Now we have made it to the defining question, ‘How do you maintain a well regulated militia?’ The answer is clear and concise. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There is no other reading of this amendment that makes grammatical, textual and historical sense.

    The founders had just won a great war against the strongest military in the world at that time, in large part, because every household had a gun equivalent to the finest military rifles and pistols at that time. Not every gun was as good, but they were largely equivalent.

    We consider this right to be so important, that we gave it to the Iraqis. Every Iraqi household is allowed to have one fully automatic rifle for personal defense. The Swiss believe this right is inalienable. The Mexicans don’t, but they want us to implement gun control because it has worked so well there. Rahm Emmanuel thinks the Chicago gun laws should be the model of the country, because we all want Chicago’s violent crime and gun murder rate.

    Your choice, do we keep our republic or do we set the stage for tyranny?

  • gmalarki

    To understand what the founders had in mind with the Second Amendment, look again
    at the May 8, 1792 Militia Act, http://patriotpost.us/documents/47. The founders wanted every man between 18 and 45 armed with a military-style weapon and related accoutrements and to engage in drill and target practice on a regular basis. The pattern was (and is) Switzerland. The August 1-2, 1946 Athens, Tennessee “uprising” was exactly the sort of scenario they had in mind, http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

    It is, by the way, one of the greatest disgraces in American history that there was no uprising against the unconstitutional internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II or even FDR’s seizure of Americans’ gold. And it is a further national disgrace that Americans allowed their taxes to be raised beyond the moral maximum of 10% for anyone whether he made $1 a year or $1 billion a year. We are all nothing but tax slaves and peons to the banking system. We are a disgrace.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1359607950 Jack Dixon

    And it doesnt matter what “progressive” courts have to say about umbras and penumbras in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution was written in plain language, which all laws should be. As our Prevaricator in Chief, the “constitutional scholar” so amply demonstrates, the focus of today’s courts is on ways to get around the plain language and shift power to the elite political insiders.

  • Doug Todd

    I served as an infantry squad leader (Marines) in ’66 and have always felt very protective of the Bill of Rights — including the 2nd amendment so (in my nearly 70 years) I have read a lot of political balderdash on both sides of the question and, while I don’t often opine on these articles I felt compelled to say that this is absolutely, hands down, the best and most compelling statement I have seen on the 2nd! (one of those “Wish I had written that things”!) …..Why is Mr. Schwartz only a “Guest Commentator” here?

  • Brian P.

    Here here!

  • The Carpathian

    As a retired educator who taught Constitutional Rights and Liberties for over 25 years, let et me thank Mr. Schwartz for an excellent article.

    As sentient beings, we are hard-wired for self defense. No species can survive if the response to danger is to surrender. You will either die or be enslaved. The modern firearm is the current substitute for the bronze swords of the ancient Egyptians. We’ve passed through club, lance, sword, short sword (gladius), sabres, flintlocks, percussion locks, single action revolvers. double action revolvers, semi-auto pistols, bolt action rifles, semi-auto m-1’s, and the m-16 (AR-15 in it’s civilian version).
    EACH OF THOSE WEAPONS WAS THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” OF IT’S TIME! For thousands of years, hominids have used weapons to guarantee their survival — and the survival oftheir tribe against another. This isn’t speculation, its history. And the US constitution guarantees that our government cannot take away the most effective means of guaranteeing our, and our nations, survival .
    We are not nation rules by mobs. At least not yet. And should that unfortunate day ever arise, we will bemost thankful that we have the power to resist the mob that threatens us.

  • leithel1

    “Do NOT ban guns, which is in
    defiance of the U.S Constitution!”.

    Also Do NOT ban freedom of speech which is
    in defiance of the U.S Constitution!.

    In fact remove obama who is in office in
    defiance of the Constitution.

  • coastx

    200 years of industry in repatriation and indoctrination in the nation breaker occult propaganda of the lie, double cross, trauma bond and rendition, and America is going to capitulate Give them a choice between Hollywood and their Bill of Rights, and they will choose the former, which is how this is coming about in the first place. Any real effort will come from political leadership directed at expulsion, barring, arrests and hangings what SYG is sustained on principle and is not the manifestation of marketing scheme, but unfortunately this will not be in this life time or even the next millennia. The light was on for a while. A lie shut it off. Here, you don’t need this… CLICK!

    … HAHAHA

  • David R. Nemirow

    I have been preaching the exact same message forever. The truth is evident in the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. What upsets me the most is that I know without any doubt that Obama, Feinstein, and Bloomberg know very well the facts that are in this article. THEY DON”T CARE. Not about us, and certainly not about the Constitution.

  • marineh2ominer

    Talk to Maurice Renard about gun control , OH ! That’s right , you can’t . You see , he was just murdered by two home invaders while trying to protect his eleven year old daughter from them . Second amendment guarantees aside , he could have made darn good use of a GUN .

  • Zoomie72

    My only critique is that our military and police do not, for the most part, use semiautomatic rifles. They use automatic rifles. M-16’s, not AR-15’s. And those should be legal, just as semiautomatic weapons should be.

  • reggiec

    The left constantly states they are not trying to ban guns, only control them.
    Occasionally those who do not agree with our Founding Fathers slip and somehow the truth comes out.
    Here is a direct quote from Sarah Brady of Handgun Control:
    “We must get rid of all the guns.”
    – Sarah Brady, on the Phil Donahue Show, September 1994
    Here are a few more:
    1. “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”
    – Sen. Joseph Biden, Associated Press, November 18, 1993
    2. “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
    –Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, November 18, 1993
    3. “We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!”
    – Sen. Charles Schumer, NBC Nightly News, November 30, 1993
    4. “I honestly think, and I am not an expert on the amendments, I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, ‘Sorry!’ It is 1999; we have had enough as a nation… Only the police and military should have guns, it’s ridiculous! I know it’s in the Constitution, but you know what, ENOUGH! I would like to say, and I know it will sound extreme, but that no one can have a gun in the U.S., if you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison!
    Rosie O’Donnell
    Dear Rosie is a prime example of the mentality of the left. They do not care if something is a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. If it does not fit their ideology The Constitution can be ignored.
    5. “The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.”
    – Janet Reno, Past Attorney General of the United States, addressing a 1991 B’nai B’rith gathering in Ft. Lauderdale
    ****
    Words have meanings! If those meanings are bastardized all becomes chaos.
    “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison
    Definition of to KEEP: to hold or retain in one’s possession; hold as one’s own.
    Definition of to BEAR: to carry, transmit, transport, have a characteristic of and exhibit.
    Definition of INFRINGE: to “encroach” upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
    THIS IS THE WORD MOST FORGETEN……INFRINGE!!!!! Read the meaning!!!
    Definition of INFRINGE/ENCROACH…….. 1: to enter by “GRADUAL STEPS OR BY STEALTH” (MY BOLD) into the possessions or rights of another. 2: to advance beyond the usual or proper limits
    Why is this so hard to understand? The meanings of the words in the Second Amendment have not changed since the amendment was ratified.
    I am not aware of the Second Amendment being repealed or amended.
    In reference to arms control by the states; the Fourteenth Amendment Section .1. is crystal clear.
    Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (My emphasis) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Many in politics from the legislative, administrative branches and or judges cite “precedent” as a justification for the violations of our rights as guaranteed in The Constitution of These United States of America. Precedent only describes what has been done and gotten away with, not if it was done in compliance with the supreme law of the land or in accordance with the oath of office to uphold The Constitution.

    • reggiec

      One more thing:
      ***”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”, (MY BOLD) are the birthright of an American…[T]he 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, an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  • Paladin

    I know that and YOU know that, but how do you explain that so that the average Ja-Moke who does not even know that AR does not stand for assault rifle to know that.

    They’ve been brain washed by the media and government that AR is assault rifle, etc…they’ve been lied to and mis-informed, their emotions played each time the pictures of dead children paraded in front of them so that emotion rules over logic.

    What do you say when they say, ‘it will never happen here’ as the only recourse I had was to ask them if they could personally guarantee that, or if the US government personally guarantees that to which you get the deer in the headlights response?

    I’m looking for SERIOUS dialogue as together we stand divided and stupid we fall.

  • Carol

    Washington talking about the constitution is like a little kid talking about eating brocolli. They hate it. They will destroy anyone who tries to get them to do it. They ARE CRIMINALS!!!!!

  • G W

    The communist democrats think they have themselves a King who can with impunity issue royal decrees over the surfs of the new USSA. I think otherwise and believe that it is now only a matter of time before Obama has the citizen uprising he has been working so hard at starting. Only I do not think it is going to turn out the way the communist have planned.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Phil-Bronner/100001112435407 Phil Bronner

    The 2nd Amendment gives teeth and freedom to preserve ALL the rest of the Bill of Rights….The Gubmint’s SOLE job with respect to the Bill of Rights are to PROTECT and GUARANTEE those rights listed…..nothing else….that’s ALL they are supposed to do…

  • allamericanpatriot

    It’s interesting that no one has tried to change the wording of the Oath of Office….YET!!
    It amazes me that EVERY elected official will stand before the entire nation, with hand on the Bible and swear to PROTECT and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION…..unmodified….exactly as written today. Then turn around and talk about taking our guns, limiting free speech, etc., etc.
    THAT ALONE should be immediate cause for removal from office….and PROOF of their actions are well recorded. WHY CAN’T WE THE PEOPLE STEP FORWARD AND DEMAND THIS BE DONE. It should not require the entire country. It should only take A FEW PEOPLE to point this out. If this Oath of Office means NOTHING…then WHY TAKE THE OATH at all ? WHY continue to force these poor worthless idiots to LIE before God and Country? …….I would love to hear Obama’s explanation as to WHY he swore this Oath and then started DOING just the opposite !

  • 2War Abn Vet

    It did not bother the Founders, at all, that in their time the citizens were better armed than the government. It was true, particularly in the South and on the frontier, that citizens were carrying rifles that were deadly at 250-300yards. The government equipped soldiers with smoothbore muskets effective at only 50-75 yards.
    The reason this did not disturb the Founders is that they created a government
    answerable to the citizens.
    Politicians have been trying to pervert that government ever since, never more than today.

  • Vince Fox

    “Reasonable regulation” = “reasonable consequence”. There’s said to be “limitations” to the freedom of speech. You can’t yell “fire” in a theater. But the reality is I could walk into any theater I wanted to today and yell “Fire!”. We don’t gag people before allowing them to enter a theater. But there are consequences for how you exercise your right.
    The same holds true for the right to keep and bear arms. Banning people from possessing guns is not the answer. Handing out “reasonable (consequences) regulations to those who exercise their right in a manner that endangers others is the proper regulation.

  • $7872008

    It’s past time for us to tell the news media that a Universal background check will immediately label and restrict anyone who is receiving medical marijuana from access to a gun. Big deal huh? So what? Well maybe it would mean something if you tell them it also includes anyone who has or is receiving medical controlled narcotics for pain now or in the future, does that make it a bigger deal? It does and here is why: Because they are legally required to be reported to the Justice Department. Why? Because it is current law. Universal background checks will open the door for the government to know if a anyone has medical history of therapy and controlled medications resulting from their service connected disabilities. How about that? When the “Universal back ground investigations are enforced, the law initiated through a congressional action or E.O., (Executive Order), will destroy the 2nd amendment. It will restrict access for the purchase and ownership of anyone with a medical or mental health record from having access to firearms. Of course that will include most combat veterans. America does not realize the far reaching effects of the “universal background checks”. It also includes anyone who has a weapon of which a labeled individual can gain access. Individual’s and their families will give all gun rights over to the government. Your control and ownership can be seriously limited or denied.
    I am disappointed with all the articles that don’t reflect the facts. Let’s tell people the truth. That it will end their 2nd Amendment rights. This will effect all 27 amendments of the Constitution. There will be no enforcing article within the Constitution, as the 2nd Amendment is the hammer that gives the other 26 Amendments the authority and right to enforce the peoples demands against a dysfunctional Congress and a tyrannical Administration. We do need a way to identify and dispense treatment to those with mental problems and it can be accomplished with proper legislation but not at the expense of dismantling our constitutional rights.

    Frank E. Vincent
    Hermiston, OR 97838.
    Like · · Share · Prom

  • Ken Barber

    I am constrained to point out the fact that the First Ten Amendments,popularly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were necessary in order to get the Constitution ratified by the States. It is also important for those who would suggest repealing the 2nd Amendment to realize that it cannot be legally done without invalidating the Constitution in its entirety. That would require 50 separate State Constitutional Conventions to vote on the question and would require 38 states to vote approval for the change. Probability of that happening within the required time-frame? Slim and none. We, The People, acquired our rights by grant from the sovereign, which is us We, The People. The three branches of the federal government have their powers enumerated by the Constitution..The Bill of Rights restricts the federal government from infringing on the rights of the citizens secured by grant from We, The People(the Sovereign).

  • Average Joe

    We get it. Its the goverment that dont.

  • goku vegeta

    WELL REASONED AND STATED!

  • mogul264

    Let’s put it this way: Frank;ly, I’d rather get rid of the President, the present one, even the OFFICE (and actually, not even then) before I would submit to the loss to my rights to ‘keep and bear arms’! Essentially, ANYONE who would, might as well walk out into the path of speeding 18-wheelers, or walk down in the rough parts of New York City at midnight blindfolded. The outcomes would be similar when the thugs find you have NO recourse to self-defense!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1424397042 Billy Bull

    The framers of our constitution were clear about their intentions for the population as a whole to be armed and without restriction. (see following quotes):

    1.) “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

    2.) “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers at 1848

    3.) “The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Patrick Henry – American Patriot

    4.) “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”Richard Henry Lee – American Statesman, 1788

    5.) “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, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”George Washington – First President of the United States

    6.) “And that the said Constitution be never 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

    7.) “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

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

    The information I provided are facts and quotes that can be researched. They have not been edited nor are they taken out of context.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1424397042 Billy Bull

    Everyone of age and mental capacity should be required to own and carry a gun, only the depraved prey on the weak and defenseless. Often there is no law around, it only takes seconds to kill, yet minutes for law enforcement to respond and usually to only clean up the mess. Those with the morale fortitude should, and be required to react using deadly force to stop the threat.

    Sometimes the only ones upholding the law are those on the scene with the conviction to stand their ground, to protect those weaker than themselves, using the force that the weaker cannot. You cannot trust freedom when its not in your hands. Gun control, legislation, banning is not the answer, it is however, taking the cowards way out! Only the coward gives up freedom and liberty in the quest for security, yet neither will he get nor deserve. You cannot rely on someone else to save you!

  • Daniel F. Melton

    If these people in elected office will not listen, perhaps we should lift them higher so their ears are unobstructed by any surroundings. A good rope and a tree or lamp post will suffice.

  • Charlie

    We now have a bunch of illegal actions and branches that our government has imposed upon us. IRS illegal branch, TSA endlessly breaking the forth amendment, DHS stating “If you are with in 100 miles of he boarder you have no constitutional rights, pre

The latest from ClashDaily.com