Monday, August 30, 2010


The Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America reads:
“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.”
Common sense and logic when reading those words should suffice as definition but today it seems not only our federal government but an ever increasing portion of our populace doesn’t possess the mental acuity to apply those principles.
There are no less than four constitutional barriers to federal gun control. The first one is obvious if you’ve ever read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, the power to enact any control over guns or any other type of defense is simply not there. The language used in the Second Amendment is “the right to keep and bear arms”. Notice there is no implication that this right is only by government permission. The Declaration of Independence states that the “rights” of the people are inalienable and bestowed by man’s Creator, therefore since government does not create these rights, government cannot rescind them.
Second, the 2nd Amendment clearly forbids the government from any act which might “infringe” upon that right.  The word “infringe” means to limit or stand in the way of. It’s possible that no one in all three branches of our federal government has ever looked that word up. Do we have a national dictionary?
Third, the 9th Amendment asserts that the people have “retained” other rights besides those enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). It is not hard to understand that since the Declaration of Independence expressly guaranteed the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, it also guarantees the right to defend them against violence. Considering that in the 1700’s the possible sources of said violence could be from the King’s Soldiers, the local Indian Tribes, the French, the Spanish and a host of natural predators in the regions of the 13 colonies, its probably not mere assumption that the founders were not implying that the people should protect their lives and liberties with pitch forks. Yeah, yeah today our Native Population is not out to scalp us, the French are happy slinging insults, the British are more than happy to own our capitol and run our money system and the Spanish, well they don’t even occupy Mexico anymore but we do have a whole host of sources of violence against us to contend with; gangs, murderers, rapists, child molesters and our own overblown federal government that puts us on a potential domestic terrorist list if we object to anything it does or, “oh my”, we own a gun.
Fourth, the 10th Amendment contains the principle that all powers not “delegated” (meaning assigned to), to the federal government are “reserved” (held for), to the states and the people. The Constitution clearly does not delegate gun-control to Congress and therefore Congress has no such power.
All four of these reasons should be sufficient to impart the simple fact that the federal government has no venue in the area of gun-control. The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution so that even liberals would get the point.
In the words of James Madison in The Federalist Papers (No. 45), the powers of the federal government were to be “few and defined.” The idea of federal power to regulate guns is certainly not “defined”; in fact it is explicitly denied.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” Samuel Adams, during the Massachusetts convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).”
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson
Pursuant to the purpose of the Bill of Rights being to limit federal government, the 2nd Amendment ensures the federal government will never obtain a monopoly of weaponry. Liberals repeatedly invoke Congress to regulate interstate commerce (which by the way is also a false claim to power since the word among does not mean within), to cover anything they want to regulate. However common sense, (oops there’s that silly concept again), dictates that if the Constitution meant “within” as opposed to “among”, slavery and alcohol consumption – both of which involve interstate commerce – could have been banned by simple acts of Congress. We all know that is not the case.
Liberals often contradict themselves in the attempt to skew the meaning of the Constitution. For instance; they claim the 14th Amendment requires the states to respect the same rights the federal government may not violate but then retract that when claiming that does not apply to the right to keep and bear arms. When first we practice to deceive (to our own ends), we should be careful to avoid forgetting whatever ridiculous claim we may have previously uttered so as not to appear too overtly absurd.
The issue of the 2nd Amendment’s true meaning has today become a hotly contested political debate. A debate which has no basis in common sense but instead seems rooted in the partisan concepts of right vs left.  To the right of the center line, (fence sitters who sway with political winds and expediency) are conservatives who tend to accept the Constitution the way it is written and insist on it being observed to the letter. To the left are liberals who are not content with the founders and more and more unwilling to abide by their wishes. They are the ones who will tell you the Constitution is out dated and irrelevant in order to push their own views and obtain more power than the document has delegated to them. Today we are being assaulted from every direction by radical liberals who have decided that only they know what is best for the country. A conservative will say that each individual must decide for himself what is right and what is wrong and live his life accordingly keeping in mind that should he choose wrong he is subject both to the laws of God, and of man and will have to pay the consequences of his unwise choice. A liberal thinks the average individual is too stupid to think for themselves in the first place and therefore must be controlled and herded like sheep in order to be forced to see things through the eyes of those who are smarter than they are. Neither side is above the use of persuasion grounded in falsehood to win the debate.
In our founder’s day a lie was a lie, a pure fabrication of the human mind for personal gain of one kind or another. Today we have the ever popular concept of Political Correctness (PC), so we call it something much more benign. Now in the supposedly enlightened 21st century we refer to outright lies and fabrication as “spin”.  Those accepting this definition who still attempt to follow and obey the Ten Commandments and that pesky one that says “thou shalt not bear false witness”, can now feel better when they spout twisted interpretations of the founder’s words because it does not say “thou shalt not spin.” I think there may be some argument on that point when judgment day arrives and I don’t think Moses would have been convinced.
 In any case it is simply unacceptable to in any way for any reason attempt to skew the words of our founders and their original intent which is easily obtained through their readily available writings in their own words, for personal or political gain period. Imagine how angry you would be if you left in your Last Will and Testament, the instruction that you be cremated and your ashes scattered over your favorite geographical spot but the person whom you appointed the executor of that will were to say after your death, “well I’m sure he didn’t really mean cremated and scattered since that is going to be both costly and time consuming so we’ll just bury him in the local cemetery and then I’ll phone in a notice to the newspaper in that area and have them do a little piece on his great fondness for the place, yeah that’ll do.” I imagine men like Adams and Madison would be more than a little incensed at the attitudes and behavior toward their work today.

In 1792, Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act, which required “every free, able-bodied, white male citizen of the respective States” – between the ages of 18 and 45 – to enroll in his state’s militia. Throughout the 1800’s however, militias were slowly replaced by formations of National Guard. In 1916 Congress passed the National Defense Act, bringing the National Guard under the control of the federal government. Keep in mind, 1916 was well after the federal government had become a foreign owned corporation……
1825 The Washington District of Columbia Corporation was repealed by the NINTEENTH CONGRESS of the United States.
THE REASON FOR REPEAL: "The Corporation was in Conflict of Interest with the Sovereign Civil Governments of the States."
WALL STREET [WR GRACE, JP MORGAN, ROTHSCHILD BANKING] encouraged THE WHITE HOUSE to 're-incorporate' in order for the United States to conduct 'international commerce.'
1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871. With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dust bin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced -- in effect vandalized and sabotage -- when the title was capitalized and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title.
[V.K. DURHAM notes that : “The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES corporation” has been formerly repealed by Acts of Congress]
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not.
……and therefore had no jurisdiction over the individual State’s National Guard units in the first place and still don’t, but once again the government’s attitude was, what the people don’t know works for us.
In the first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well-regulated militia, is a reason why the people have the right to bear arms and it’s a perfectly good and should be sufficient reason but it is by no means the only reason and there is no room for change as to who has the right.
Consider this: Being a pizza delivery person John has to buy a car. Does that mean that John should buy a car only if he delivers pizza in it? What if John needs to go to the airport to pick up Mrs. John? On the other hand John does not have to deliver pizza to buy a car. By the same token the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have to be true for the rest of the statement to stand because John doesn’t even have to like or eat pizza to own a car.
Just as a reminder to those who would argue that modern linguistics define the meaning of our founding documents; back in the 1700’s the word militia meant all able-bodied men not organized government military force. In fact, when the documents were written there was no organized government controlled military force.
It gets progressively (no pun intended) worse in 2010…..
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
President G.W. Bush would have none of it as the United States is among the world’s largest exporter of small arms.  Obama’s administration is not interested in protecting the commerce of the United States or anything which would slow the collapse of the economy, in fact the use of the Small Arms Treaty to disarm Americans would be icing on the cake. Never mind that we don’t have a clue as to what language is contained in that treaty…. Hmmm brings to mind when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”
The pushers (this time the pun was intended) of this monstrosity claim the treaty is just to protect the world from small arms winding up in the hands of guerrilla movements and insurgents and such.  Surely they don’t mean Tea Party goers, Patriots and Little Old Ladies with “Don’t Tread On Me” bumper stickers. No, just those nasty people on the MIAC LISTS, oh I forgot, they are on the list.
One of my favorite words in the English language is “caution”, its oft wise but most times thrown to the wind especially in regard to the Globalist One World Agenda. Ask yourself this, how could a Global Organization or a hand full of power hungry self appointed elite achieve a Global Governance without the United States? Since the answer is obviously that they couldn’t, how then could the people of the United States be forced to get with the program? There are nowhere near enough dummied down far left liberals frothing at the mouth for a Global Nanny state to convince the rest of the nation to go along so the only way to do it is by force. Remember the Emperor of Japan and his opinion of the possibility of using force against the American people.
The only way to peacefully disarm America is to convince them that guns cause violence, crime, death and destruction. That’s like saying pencils are the cause of misspelled words or cars cause accidents. It doesn’t stop that kind of pea brained logic though, we hear it every day.
If you don’t think American gun ownership is the largest deterrent to crime we have, just ask the citizens of Kennesaw, Georgia where there is an ordinance requiring every head of household (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. Crime against persons in Kennesaw since the passage of that ordinance has plummeted to near non-existent.
In Kennesaw there will be no husband in the middle of the night hearing a crash in the kitchen, hollering “Annie, git yer pitch fork, thar’s a bar in the house!”, any more than there would have been in the 1700’s. Annie will most likely hand the gun from under the bed to her husband and tell him to lock and load. After all Annie and her hubby are guaranteed the right to protect themselves by the Constitution for the United States of America……….. God willing it remains the case in perpetuity.
In Restored America, Annie’s gun will be right where she put it when she needs it…..
Gun Control, Opposing ViewpointsGreenhaven Press
Arguing With IdiotsGlen Beck
Original IntentDavid Barton


No comments:

Post a Comment