Category: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES


A veteran friend sent this. Yet some wouldn’t see the truth if it hit them right in the chops! These don’t even include NDAA:

The sheer numbers alone are telling and speak volumes!!!!!!!!!
WAKE UP AMERICA ! LIFE WILL SOON NOT BE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY IF WE DON’T STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR IT.
WE HAVE TO VOTE THIS MAN OUT OF OFFICE.
IF YOU ARE OFFENDED, I’M SORRY, BUT THIS WILL EFFECT YOU TOO WHEN WE ARE NO LONGER A FREE NATION.
THINK OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN AND HOW LIFE WILL BE FOR THEM. THEY WILL NEVER KNOW THE FREEDOM YOU AND I HAVE HAD.

Check it out for yourselves on “Truth or Fiction.” This is just a part of the list.EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED:

Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR: NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
If you don’t get the implications you’re not paying attention. How many warnings do you need?923 Executive Orders in 40 Months

During my lifetime, All Presidents have issued Executive Orders, for reasons that vary, some more than others.When a President issued as many as 30 Ex. Orders during a term in Office, people thought there was something Amiss.WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT 923 EX. ORDERS IN ONE PART OF ONE TERM ?????? YES, THERE IS A REASON.
IT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS DETERMINED TO TAKE CONTROL AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.Even some Democrats in the House have turned on him, plus a very small number of Democrat Senators question him.HE SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. WHAT IS HE REALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH????DOES THIS SCARE YOU AS MUCH AS IT DOES ME?
________________________________Not really surprising that he appointed “Czars” to be in charge of everything.
Emperor Obama?
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you……
THIS IS NOT FUNNY, AND IF YOU VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN, YOU CAN EXPECT MORE!Remember what he told Russia ‘s Putin : “I’ll be more flexible after I’m re-elected.”THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 months!
What did Congress do in those 40 months? (The House – considerable. The Senate -nothing, not even a budget nor allowing any House bill to be considered.) A whole new order must prevail in Wash. DC as a result of this next election! Now look at these: EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.–EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the registration of all persons. Postmaster General to operate a national registration

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. Financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

Feel free to verify the “executive orders” at will… And these are just the major ones I’m sure you’ve all heard the tale of the “Frog in the Pot”… You all comfortable???
Watch Obama’s actions, not his words! By his actions he will show you where America is headed.

. Just this week, Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to “harmonize” U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another incremental step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system.

Unfortunately, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is happening. The American people need to understand that Barack Obama is constantly looking for ways to integrate the United States more deeply with the rest of the world. The globalization of the world economy has accelerated under Obama, and this latest executive order represents a fundamental change in U.S. economic policy. Now federal regulators will be required to “harmonize” their work with the international community.

THIS IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE??
THEN PROVE TO YOURSELF IT’S WRONG.

Had to repost this – almost lost it when making revisions in the dashboard.
NOT JUST YES; HELL YES!
Original Intent: The 2nd Amendment

February 6, 2012

Original Intent: The 2nd Amendment.

From http://ajbulava.wordpress.com/

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.

– The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The sentence above has spawned in modern U.S. history some of the most heated and vitriolic debates on government authority.  The key point is whether government has authority to require background checks, waiting periods, and registration for a person to own and use firearms. Some cities have even outright banned the sale, use and possession of firearms, even handguns.  In some states, there are laws governing open and concealed carry laws.  But what did the Founding Fathers really mean when they wrote the Second Amendment?  And how should it be applied today given that knowledge of the Founders Original Intent? That will be the topic of discussion for today’s blog article.

First, we will focus on quotes from the Founders that clearly outlines the intent and purpose behind the second amendment.  Secondly, we will talk about the modern implications and authority of the different levels of government in respect to this amendment and its original intent.
The second amendment is traditionally broken up into two parts or clauses.  The first clause is the militia clause, that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”

This clause is the lynchpin to most liberal arguments against private gun ownership and use.  Liberals argue that the right belongs to the militia to control the use of fire arms.  They view the police and military as the only legal owners of firearms.  What did the founders think of this? How did they define “militia?” And what was the purpose of the militia?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. – George Mason

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms. – Richard Henry Lee
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country. – James Madison

Who are the militia?  Are they not ourselves?  Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom.  Congress have no power to disarm the militia.  Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[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

No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state….  Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – “State Gazette,” Charleston, NV, 1788

We can see directly from these quotes that the militia is the complete body of men trained and capable of bearing arms.  This would lead us to believe that the right of bearing arms, while used in the militia, belongs to the individual trained to use those arms.  This is an individual right, not a collective right.  What was the purpose of the militia?

The most effectual way to guard against a standing army, is to render it unnecessary.  The most effectual way to render it unnecessary, is to give the general government full power to call forth the militia, and exert the whole natural strength of the Union, when necessary.  Thus you will furnish the people with sure and certain protection, without recurring to this evil; and the certainty of this protection from the whole will be a strong inducement to individual exertion. – James Madison

What, sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. – Elbridge Gerry

I object to the power of Congress over the militia and to keep a standing army … The last resource of a free people is taken away; for Congress are to have the command of the Militia … Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army–or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all.  When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed. – John Smilie

The Militia is composed of free Citizens.  There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them. – Samuel Adams

In a people permitted and accustomed to bear arms, we have the rudiments of a militia, which properly consists of armed citizens, divided into military bands, and instructed at least in part in the use of arms for the purposes of war.  Their civil occupations are not relinquished, except while they are actually in the field, and the inconvenience of withdrawing them from their accustomed labours, abridges the time required for military instruction.  Militia therefore never amount to perfect soldiers, unless the public exigencies shall have kept them so long together as to absorb the civil, in the military character. – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America
The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. – John Adams

The design of the militia was to protect the local community from threats against itself and to enforce the laws.  We can see from these quotes that the citizens that were part of the militia were not “select” soldiers, as we see today in the national guard.  The men serving in the militia were everyday people brought together to defend their community.  This fighting force was large or controlled by the directly governor or the President of the United States to fight our wars.  The use of the militia or today’s national guard in fighting wars oversees is a clear violation of that standard.  As we can see by this quote of Richard Henry Lee at the ratification convention in Virginia: “The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

The militia is a protection against the dangers of a standing army, which could enforce tyranny through a barrel of a gun.  The reason behind this is that the full body of citizens, armed and trained in their use will always out number the standing army produced by then national government.  Take, for example, the following quotes

By the last returns to the Department of War the militia force of the several States may be estimated at 800,000 men – infantry, artillery, and cavalry. – James Monroe

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops… – Noah Webster

The second clause of the Second Amendment focuses on the real individual right of the people protected and to not be infringed upon by the government.  It states: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

To form a militia people obviously need the ability to buy arms used to protect of themselves and their community.  So any laws that limit a person’s ability to possess and bear their weapons in public are in clear violation of this clause.  But if the above mentioned quotes are not enough evidence for the average reader let even more quotes from both our Founding Fathers and the courts of the U.S. be entered into the record as evidence of this correct interpretation.

The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun. – Patrick Henry
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.  These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. – Samuel Adams
Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense … – John Adams

The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms.  This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions.” – Henry Campbell Black, “Handbook of American Constitutional Law,” 1895.
This [Second Amendment] may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. – Saint George Tucker, “Blackstone’s Commentaries” (1803)

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

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee, in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?  Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress?  If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry debate in the state ratifying conventions
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

The rifle is the weapon of democracy.  If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military.  The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government – and a few outlaws.  I intend to be among the outlaws.” – Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” 1979

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

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

The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary.  The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. – People vs. Zerillo (1922)
The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. – State vs. Kerner (1921)

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.  He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. – Cockrum v. State (1859)
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” – Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed – Thomas Jefferson

What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear — and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedom.” – Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Preface, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – George Mason

Is any more evidence needed?  It is clearly seen in the words of the Founders of our nation, cases before the Supreme Court, and even from Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law that the right to bear arms belongs to the people individually, not collectively.  If anyone can provide any quotes from the courts or the Founders that show this to be a collective right instead of individual, please share them.
What implications must now be taken into consideration after learning what the founder’s original intent on the second amendment?  First, no peaceable citizen shall be deprived of their right to buy, possess or carry firearms, either openly or concealed.  A person’s interpretation of “peaceable citizens” does give government authority for several legal actions.  There is no debate that the government has authority to require background checks before an individual purchases a firearm.  The purpose of that background check would be to ensure that the person has no outstanding warrants or felony convictions.  The citizen who is guilty of such a crime may legally be denied their right to own a firearm until they are proven “peaceable” by regulations authorized by the state.

Secondly, gun registration laws provide a clear and unprecedented danger to peaceable citizens, without any benefit for the general welfare of all other citizens.  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the danger of gun registration laws became crystal clear.  The police would go into neighborhoods and forcibly confiscate the firearms from law-abiding citizens, using the gun registration records.  This is in clear violation of a person’s fourth and fifth amendment rights.  They confiscated property without probable cause, and confiscated property without providing the citizen due process.  After that the gangs and other criminals would flock into those areas and use their illegal guns to take what they wanted.  The law-abiding citizens people were defenseless.  This also happened under the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in Russia. The registration lists allowed the government to isolate and confiscate the arms owned by law-abiding citizens, thereby making them easier to control.  The other part of this implication is that gun registration laws have had little or no effect on the solving of crimes.  Guns used in criminal acts are rarely traced back to the own through gun registration records; so they serves no real purpose other than isolating and identifying the law-abiding citizens who own guns.

During the research for this article, there was an interesting part of the amendment that was found in the original drafts of what would become the second amendment, but excluded in the final text.  In the original drafts of the second amendment, debated before the House of Representatives and Senate, included a clause that allowed for conscientious objectors excused from service in the militia.  In the historical context this restriction on government make sense.  The religious sect known as Quakers, were a well-known group of people in the states during our colonial and found periods.  They were strictly pacifist and did not volunteer for any war.  This allowed them to stay true to their faith and kept government from violating their right to freedom of religion and conscious.  A U.S. hero in World War I, Sergeant Alvin York, was a Quaker and tried to get out of the draft by claiming conscientious objector status.  It was obviously denied, but one may argue that the founders intended to allow this excuse from military service.

The original intent of the Founders on this topic of the Constitution is clear for everyone to see.  When the federal, states, or local governments pass laws that prevent peaceable citizens from owning firearms are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Some of you would say that the Founders could not foresee a day when we would have of rapid fire weapons, so the second amendment requires reinterpreted.  But we can see in the original intent that the specific type of weapon is not a concern when defending the right of the people to defend themselves.  If you can regulate automatic weapons, what is to stop government from then regulating swords, knives and other “arms.”  The meaning of the terms is clearly defined in the words of the Founders.  This is the case for every questionable term that Constitutional modernists and activists think need should be reinterpreted for our modern progressive era.  And that is the key behind the idea of original intent.

It is understandable that government must change with the times, but it cannot change not beyond the clearly limited enumerated powers of the Constitution.  The words of the Constitution are clearly defined and understood if you do your due diligence and research the meaning behind the phrases when written. Both strict and liberal constructionists must do this research because both are bound to the origins of these phrases and clauses written 235 years ago.  Both theories are necessary and proper for understanding the Constitution and the authority given in the document.  But we can only completely understand that authority when we know and understand granted authority by viewing what the Founders meant when they wrote the document.
Related articles

From YT; I love this video: Note – Mr. Nugent pulls no punches; the term “bastard” is used, and if you’d rather be martyred by a criminal, than use deadly force to defend your life, and your loved ones, you’re invited to not view this point blank, direct defense of the Second Amendment.

http://gds44.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/original-intent-the-2nd-amendment/

Par Excellance blog from PAN admin Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer

Update made 6-13-2016  Neither of us has been on PAN well over a year.

Let me begin by quoting John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime” and the up-dated edition “More Guns, Still Less Crime”-

“In the last 50 years where a gun was used to kill three or more people every time but one was in a “Gun Free” zone!

Sources-

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/42-constitution-and-legal/68…

and,

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 For further reference see:

http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topics/in-the-entire-history-of-th

http://revlarry.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/11/09/gun-control-a-l…

http://revlarry.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/09/10/hello-world/

This link is still active:

http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topics/watch-what-happens-when-a-n…

Common-Sense and Facts.

My Grandfather, William Otto Wallenmeyer, was known to say, “Common-sense isn’t that common anymore.”

Within the world of Liberals, so-called “Moderates” and so-called “Mavericks” this is quite true.

A “Moderate”, particularly one who still thinks Obama is doing “o.k” is neither a Conservative, NOR a friend of Common-sense.

So let me make some common-sense points and see if this may further educate the Liberalism out of The Liberal, “Moderate” and “Maverick”…here goes-

[NOTE: These Principles of Conservatism, i.e. Common-Sense, work equally well with the playground bully, the home-owner with a gun to the rogue Muslim/Marxist nation with a Nuke.]

Scenario 1.
My youngest brother was only 5 years old (I was 15). He was out playing when 4 of the neighborhood boys, all older, surrounded my brother and began to threaten and taunt him. He came in to me crying…

A) I could have gone out there and took care of them myself. In some cases that would be needed. But then these older bullies would have jumped my little brother later when he was ALONE and tore him to shreds.

B) I could have said “Ignore them. They’ll eventually go away and leave you alone.” THAT is stupid and wrong. It has never worked…ask Neville Chamberlain…or me, because that is what my dad told me and it NEVER worked. “Ignoring them” marks you as an easy mark…and they will continue to bully you until they are made to stop.

C) What I DID tell him was go back out and play. WHEN they gather around again, and they WILL gather around again, the one who is doing the most talking sock as hard as you can in the belly…they’ll ALL leave you alone. He went out and, sure enough, the bullies gathered around again. The “Big talker” started his threats, and my little brother gave him what for! (I was standing at the door watching ready should I be actually needed). They ALL left my kid brother alone…and eventually became friends.

The Lesson-
Weakness (crying, getting “big brother”, running away, ignoring the threat) marks you as THE Easy Target…you WILL be victimized until YOU stand up for yourself.

Scenario 2.

An armed gunman is doing “recon”, scouting out an area to “go postal”. Is the armed gunman likely to pick:

A) The Local National Guard Armory,

B) The Police Station,

C) A home in a neighborhood with window stickers saying home-owner HAS A GUN,

D) or a “Gun Free” Zone?

Scenario 3.

Some rogue nation/group has a Nuke and/or other WMDs, oh, let’s just use Iran, N. Korea, Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah for examples. They make repeated threats and PROMISES to nuke us to molten slag, do we:

A) Trust that that we can somehow reason with frothing mouthed maniacs,

B) Trust that we can appease, negotiate and via sanctions convince Militaristic madmen bent on destruction from killing us,

C) That if we be nice and do all we can to get along with them and ignore the mean, ol’ Nukes they have headed our way, that they will re-think their hatred of us and become our buddies and pals,

D) OR are we going to have to sooner-rather-than-later HAVE to directly deal with this in a manner that will actually prevent them from killing us…all of us?

What America’s Founding Fathers Said.

Fisher Ames, Massachusetts Representative wrote:
” The RIGHTS of conscience, of BEARING ARMS, of CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT, are declared to be INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE.”

Tenche Coxe wrote in his “Remarks on The First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution”, which appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette in June 1789:
“THE PEOPLE are CONFIRMED by the next article in THEIR RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR THEIR PRIVATE ARMS.”

Joseph Story, 1833 U.S. Supreme Court Justice wrote:
” The RIGHT of a CITIZEN to KEEP and BEAR ARMS has JUSTLY been considered the palladium of The Liberties of The Republic, since it offers a STRONG MORAL CHECK AGAINST USURPATION and ARBITRARY POWER of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, ENABLE THE PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER them!”

James Madison’s ORIGINAL draft of The Second Amendment:
“THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be infringed; a WELL ARMED and WELL REGULATED Militia being THE BEST SECURITY of a FREE Country.”

George Mason, “Father of The Bill of Rights”, wrote:
” WHAT is The Militia? It is THE WHOLE PEOPLE! To disarm THE PEOPLE is the best and most effectual way to ENSLAVE THEM!”

Thomas Jefferson’s commonplace book, 1774-1776, QUOTING from “On Crimes and Punishment” (1764) by CRIMINOLOGIST Cesare Beccaria:
“Laws that FORBID the CARRYING of ARMS…disarm ONLY those who are NEITHER inclined NOR determined to commit crimes…such laws make it WORSE for the ASSAULTED and BETTER for the ASSAILANTS; they serve rather to ENCOURAGE than to PREVENT HOMICIDES, for an UNarmed man may be ATTACKED with GREATER CONFIDENCE than an ARMED man.”

Fast FACTS:
Switzerland has a National law that REQUIRES EVERY household to have at least one gun- RESULT: the LOWEST crime rate in the world. Whereas Washington D.C. has some the most Marxist, stringent, ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL anti-gun laws- RESULT: D.C. is “The MURDER Capitol of the World”!

In the early 1930′s Nazi Germany disarmed the German Citizenry which lead DIRECTLY AND QUICKLY to their OPPRESSION and GENOCIDE! Stalin and Mao did THE SAME THING respectivley in the USSR and China, also leading “purges”, i.e. GENOCIDE!!!

– If our Founding Fathers were present today they’d IMMEDIATELY ABOLISH the some 1,700 ANTI-2nd Amendment/ANTI-gun laws on the books!

++++++++++++++++++

Let me close by quoting John Lott once again-

“In the last 50 years where a gun was used to kill three or more people every time but one was in a “Gun Free” zone!

===================================================

 

BE CONSERVATIVE.

WIN!

-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer- Admin II.
“Disobedience to tyrants is Obedience to God.” -Benjamin Fraanklin.

 

Scotus Guns

I was talking to a friend recently about the whole Colorado theater massacre. We were lamenting about how our culture is so obsessed with these psychopathic murderers and that we never hear about the heroes, because sadly, in our dying culture, there are no heroes. But maybe we do have heroes; not superheroes, but heroes nonetheless. We just don’t hear about them.

Just recently in Florida, an armed 71-year-old internet cafe patron opened fire with his .380 pistol on two armed thugs attempting to rob the place. Samuel Williams, the aged hero, waited for the right time to shoot. Just as one of the teen bandits’ back was turned, Williams plunged into action, chasing them both out the door with bullets. They were both “beside themselves” as they fell over each other trying desperately to get out the door and away from this crazy old gun-toter (you should see the video; it’s hilarious). The two robbers were hospitalized with gun shot wounds and arrested later on robbery charges.

Critics are saying that these robbers weren’t going to shoot anyone. They were just going to rob the place, so what Mr. Williams did was completely unwarranted and over the line. Well, we don’t know that they weren’t going to shoot anyone. It could have turned into the “Florida internet cafe massacre,” which the media would certainly have gone crazy with. But it didn’t have to even get close to that because there was an armed, law-abiding citizen there willing to put his life on the line for the protection of his neighbors, and no one ended up getting hurt except the bad guys. So why don’t we hear stories like this in the major media?

I’m sure we’re all tired of the media “theater” surrounding the crazed “batman shooter.” I’m not even going to say his name. We all know it. We know what he looks like and what color his hair is. But one other thing we know is that the media love this type of person and what he did. It gives the media something to sensationalize, something on which to fixate and talk about non-stop knowing that fear-addicted Americans will sit and gawk at their TV’s or radios. It’s good for ratings. And when it’s good for ratings, it’s good for money. Yes, the media love a story like this because it makes them money. After all, they are a business, and they’ve got to profit somehow.

And it gets even better when these media people invite “experts” on their shows to talk about guns and how politicians need to just “do something” about them. Of course, that makes the liberal viewers mad because they believe these “experts”; and it outrages us conservatives because we know that “guns don’t kill, people do.” And again, the media sit back and watch the conservatives and liberals duke it out while their ratings go up (and with the media’s current dismal rating, they need all the help they can get). But I think there’s something more than just profit that drives the media.

How about an agenda? It seems we only see the bad news. We see the murder stories, the armed robbery stories, terrorist attack stories, kidnappings, child molestation, rapes, etc. Yeah, we might see some “heart-warming” story about how a cute kitten was rescued from a tree, but in general, we see mostly bad news. And I think that’s for a reason. It’s to elicit fear in the mind of the viewer and to convince us to live in constant fear of our surroundings. The media try to brainwash us into associating guns with bad people. Don’t you love it when the media show images of the “assailant’s” arsenal all sprawled out on a bed maybe next to a stack of cash (as if those things are inherently evil)? And then they show some scruffy, scowling picture of the alleged “bad guy”. It might even turn out that this bad guy was innocent after all, but it doesn’t matter.

The association is already done. If you have a gun, then you’re like that bad guy on TV. The more people are afraid, the more they will willingly give up their rights and even demand that those in power take them away from us in order to protect us from ourselves. The media won’t talk about the myriad cases where law-abiding citizens defend themselves and others from certain death using guns. That might convince viewers that guns can be used to protect people.

We’ve all speculated about the theater shooting and how if there had been just one person in that theater with a gun, he could have prevented all this carnage, and he would certainly have been a hero. But from the media’s perspective, there would be no news story in that. Nothing to sensationalize. More importantly, it wouldn’t be consistent with their agenda. So, like Samuel Williams’ story, no one would end up hearing about it. Just because something isn’t on the news doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Contrary to what our media won’t tell us, there are heroes among us.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/media-covering-up-gun-self-defense-stories/#ixzz21vXpwzvJ

Received from an all American mother:

I wonder which part of this is true and which part is not? The part I don’t like about all these government changes is that the seniors, which I am now, seem to be getting SCREWED out of something some how. We who paid for all this stuff while we were the working middle class. Now that we are old and need our country’s help, they just shove us aside like trash. Shame on our elected officials. I hope they get what they deserve, double…….jo-ann.

 

Truth or Fiction labeled this mostly true, Liberal Snopes said it was a Mixture.

 

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment  – see page 272

What Nancy Pelosi didn’t want us to know until after the healthcare  bill was passed.

Remember she said, “pass it and then read it!!.” Here it is!

 Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number

 

THE CARE BILL HB 3200

JUDGE KITHIL IS THE  SECOND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.

JUDGE KITHIL OF MARBLE FALLS. TEXAS – HIGHLIGHTED THE MOST EGREGIOUS PAGES OF HB 3200

 

NOTE – I CAN’T “HIGHLIGHT” SO THE REFERENCED PARTS ARE BOLD ITALICS, IN AMBER FONT  “X”

PLEASE READ THIS… ESPECIALLY THE REFERENCE TO PAGES 58 AND 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote: 

**
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to
all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

**
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

**
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government) for all union members, union retirees and for
community organizations (such as the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform, Now – ACORN).

**
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section
will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)

**
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors’ fees.

**
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care
according to the patient’s age.

**
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an
exception.

**
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care
planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be
required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five
years. (Death counseling..)

**
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will NOT apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”

Honorable
David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas

ALL OF THE ABOVE SHOULD GIVE YOU THE AMMO YOU NEED TO SUPPORT YOUR OPPOSITION TO OBAMACARE. PLEASE SEND THIS INFORMATION ON TO ALL OF YOUR E-MAIL CONTACTS.

VOTE ON 11/2/2012

 

 

Individual or Collective Right – A brief history of the 2nd Amendment

Posted by Gary Wood on March 20, 2012 at 9:00am

Today we are struggling with people who believe the right to keep and bear arms is somehow a collective right, tied to militia membership, and not an individual natural right. This false assumption is based on today’s understanding and rhetoric.  We also have the ambiguous 1939 Supreme Court case, U.S. vs. Miller that significantly fails to embrace the founding generation’s intent.  The other area we have is the 2nd Amendment’s preamble that some point to as a reason to support the collective, militia tied concept.  Yet history and understanding of bearing arms teaches us what is really the intent – the right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right!

One key to understanding any rights found in what we know of as the Bill of Rights is the deep tie to our English roots, as a country.  The colonial citizens were mostly English citizens serving under the Crown with guidance from the Parliament.  Of course, self-rule was also deep rooted due to the fact colonies were separated from England by a little thing called the Atlantic Ocean.  The colonists became very independent and felt extremely competent to legislate their daily lives.

Come with me on a swing back in time, before the 17th and 18th centuries, before 1689 when the English Bill of Rights came into existence… back to a time when it was not a right to bear arms… not a right at all but rather a requirement.  Our first stop takes us back to the 9th Century under Alfred the Great. As Scott Bradley reminds us “…all of his people were required to be armed with personal weapons and were subject to perform in the defense of the nation.”

Moving forward, it is now the 13th Century and you are a citizen under Henry II.  You are required to keep certain arms if you are a freeman.  The next century, under Henry III you’re now required to have weapons other than a knife.  This was no longer restricted to freemen but all men aged 15 to 50, even those who did not own lands.  Back in these times the Crown’s officers actually conducted inspections to insure you are properly armed. Can you imagine aknock on the door with a servant of the King of England asking to see your weapons to make sure you can assist in keeping law and order, to aid in maintaining the King’s peace?

Although today we have brave men and women serving to protect and defend us, this concept of a police force was nowhere to be found in the 14th and 15th centuries.  Do you know when we first started having organized police forces?  It was not until 1829.  Back in the time of Henry III all men were responsible to have arms, and know how to use them (well trained) it was every male citizen’s obligation to help stand guard day and night.  It was also a responsibility to answer, and join, the ‘hue and cry’ in the event of a crime.  They were relied on to help in the pursuit of those who resisted arrest or escaped after being arrested for a crime.

Keep in mind there was full awareness a standing army was extremely expensive, hard to maintain, and a potential threat to both liberty and the Crown.  By the time of the American Revolution was it not the idea that George III sent troops to live among the citizens and the presence of those troops that truly rubbed nerves raw?

But we’re ahead of our timeline.  Let’s fast forward to 1671.  By this time people were quite use to having arms. Keeping arms was not a matter of controversy; it was a matter of fact.  Then Parliament changed the entire view of keeping and bearing arms.  A statute was enacted focused on hunting…it was a game act used to begin disarming Englishmen.  The restrictions on the ownership of land were so strict it evolved to a point where almost all Englishmen found themselves in violation of the law when it came to owning firearms.

As this took hold over a decade, Charles II used this period to disarm his political opponents in the Whig party, in 1686.  Since he was successful Charles’s successor, James II focused on banning firearms for all Protestants.  This not only infuriated Protestants, as Catholics made up only about 2% of the English population at the time, this level of oppression led to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689.  A few minutes ago I mentioned something about 1689… what took place, what was created? That’s right, the English Bill of Rights.

We are also in the time of John Locke, Isaac Newton, Hobbes, von Pufendorf and other influential philosophers, that helped spark more than the Enlightenment Era.  It was the period where natural rights, liberty, social contract, and federalism were born.  Keep in mind this was also the time when words that are quite familiar today, started to be placed inside contracts between the people, and those governing the people.  John Adams would quote Serjeant-at-Law William Hawkins’s Pleas of the Crown where he declared; “Here every private person is authorized to arm himself.

The English Declaration of Rights made the right to bear arms a personal, individual right.  It went through many drafts before the words that would restore the rights of Protestants, and all Englishmen, were finalized.  Caveats existed, as they do today, to insure those possessing arms were qualified and allowed by law to have them.  Yet, again, it was a personal right designed for the people to be able to provide personal security for their liberty and their property.

By the 18th century it was an accepted axiom that people had a natural right to have personal firearms.  Standing armies were seen as a threat to liberty, while armed citizens were seen as a protection of liberty, both personal and societal.  Boston, a hot bed for patriots frustrated by the oppressive laws coming from England, had a newspaper titled A Journal of the Times.  In 1768 there was an article urging Americans to retain their weapons, and reminding them of the protection they had under the English Bill of Rights.  They went so far as stating, “It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.

Blackstone’s Commentaries, the most quoted work by the founders, outlined the right “to have” arms as indispensable “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.”  Listen closely; security, liberty, and private property (adapted by Jefferson to become the ‘pursuit of happiness’), all personal and all vital for maintaining our freedoms, our liberty.

Liberty is an often used yet little understood aspect of what we are all about in principle.  The sixth, and in my view the most precious, goal of the Constitution’s preamble is to ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves, and our Posterity.’  Where do guns, and this right to keep and bear arms, fit into achieving this goal?  James Burgh, one of the most influential philosophers in England and a Lockean scholar, wrote in his well-known and well-read series, Political Disquisition of 1774, the words that will hopefully move you as much as they did me.

He invested more than 100 pages in his three volumes to the topic of our right to be armed.  Do you think it was an important consideration?  He contrasts the difference between the values of an armed public compared to that of a society with standing armies.  He wrote that arms “are the only true badges of liberty.”

Let’s quickly look at state constitutions created before the U.S. Constitution.  Pennsylvania, in 1776, was clear and to the point.  The people’s right to bear arms was “for the defence of themselves.”  No mention of a militia, no collective confusion.  Knowing a good thing, Vermont copied the language for their Constitution in 1777.  In 1780 John Adams, in writing the Massachusetts Constitution, was the first to use the phrase we know so well; “To keep and bear arms.”

During the ratification debates, between the Federalists and Republicans (anti-federalist as labeled by most writers of history) many issues were discussed, the people’s right to be armed was accepted by all – with the main debate coming down to whether or not this natural right needed to be written into our Constitution.  A Massachusetts republican, Theodore Sedgwick, raised his voice to articulate so well that “a nation of freemen who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands,” cannot be subdued.

King George III and his military men, especially General Thomas Gage, knew the first major targets to quell the uprising in the colonies, were the arms being gathered and stored at Concord, and the gun powder stored in Williamsburg. The people knew the British wanted them disarmed.  Facing a nation armed and trained in the art of hunting was ominous, and proved a challenge the mighty British army would succumb to.

It is now June of 1789, after the Constitution was ratified, after much debate in state conventions.  The first Congress was in session.  Madison finally had his chance to present the ideals of personal rights that should be considered for addition to the Constitution.  It was actually the fulfillment of a campaign promise he had made.

Here are a couple of key things to know.  You can read the annals of the first congressional session at the Library of Congress.  (As a matter of fact, create your own MyLOC account to build an original source bookshelf tailored to your studies.)  He DID NOT make our right to bear arms dependent on being a part of the militia.  Read his personal notes where he writes, “They relate 1st to personal rights… guards for private rights”  He referenced the English Declaration of Rights.  He recommended all the rights be integrated into the existing Constitution.  Where were these rights to be placed?  In Article 1, Section 9, between Clause 3 & 4.  This would have nestled them between ‘no ex post facto law being passed’ and ‘no Capitation, or other direct tax.’  (A whole different dance we can dance sometime.)  Each personal rights; individual protection…not collective!

Roger Sherman of Connecticut pointed out to actually place them within the document would add something to a document already signed off on, while the signers were not present to agree to it.  Rather than completely opening the need for a re-ratification it was decided the proposed amendments would come at the end of the document. Thus was born our Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment among those rights.

Its preamble was not meant to create the right to bear arms as a collective right.  It is, and always has been, a natural right of individuals.  It remains an individual right; self-defense is an inalienable right we should stand in defense of always. Should we ever become a disarmed society, tyranny will have no fear of oppressing the citizenry… history has far too many lessons regarding the fact that a disarmed society is an enslaved society.

Is this an individual right or collective?  Good… individual and history leaves no doubt this is what it is, and this is what it has always been!  The sixth goal of our preamble is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  For our Posterity… the gun is the badge of what?  Right, LIBERTY!  This is just a brief history… please, please, please in this busy campaign season, always find the time, make the time, to STUDY OUR HISTORY.

Today we are struggling with people who believe the right to keep and bear arms is somehow a collective right, tied to militia membership, and not an individual natural right. This false assumption is based on today’s understanding and rhetoric.  We also have the ambiguous 1939 Supreme Court case, U.S. vs. Miller that significantly fails to embrace the founding generation’s intent.  The other area we have is the 2nd Amendment’s preamble that some point to as a reason to support the collective, militia tied concept.  Yet history and understanding of bearing arms teaches us what is really the intent – the right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right!

One key to understanding any rights found in what we know of as the Bill of Rights is the deep tie to our English roots, as a country.  The colonial citizens were mostly English citizens serving under the Crown with guidance from the Parliament.  Of course, self-rule was also deep rooted due to the fact colonies were separated from England by a little thing called the Atlantic Ocean.  The colonists became very independent and felt extremely competent to legislate their daily lives.

Come with me on a swing back in time, before the 17th and 18th centuries, before 1689 when the English Bill of Rights came into existence… back to a time when it was not a right to bear arms… not a right at all but rather a requirement.  Our first stop takes us back to the 9th Century under Alfred the Great. As Scott Bradley reminds us “…all of his people were required to be armed with personal weapons and were subject to perform in the defense of the nation.”

Moving forward, it is now the 13th Century and you are a citizen under Henry II.  You are required to keep certain arms if you are a freeman.  The next century, under Henry III you’re now required to have weapons other than a knife.  This was no longer restricted to freemen but all men aged 15 to 50, even those who did not own lands.  Back in these times the Crown’s officers actually conducted inspections to insure you are properly armed. Can you imagine aknock on the door with a servant of the King of England asking to see your weapons to make sure you can assist in keeping law and order, to aid in maintaining the King’s peace?

Although today we have brave men and women serving to protect and defend us, this concept of a police force was nowhere to be found in the 14th and 15th centuries.  Do you know when we first started having organized police forces?  It was not until 1829.  Back in the time of Henry III all men were responsible to have arms, and know how to use them (well trained) it was every male citizen’s obligation to help stand guard day and night.  It was also a responsibility to answer, and join, the ‘hue and cry’ in the event of a crime.  They were relied on to help in the pursuit of those who resisted arrest or escaped after being arrested for a crime.

Keep in mind there was full awareness a standing army was extremely expensive, hard to maintain, and a potential threat to both liberty and the Crown.  By the time of the American Revolution was it not the idea that George III sent troops to live among the citizens and the presence of those troops that truly rubbed nerves raw?

But we’re ahead of our timeline.  Let’s fast forward to 1671.  By this time people were quite use to having arms. Keeping arms was not a matter of controversy; it was a matter of fact.  Then Parliament changed the entire view of keeping and bearing arms.  A statute was enacted focused on hunting…it was a game act used to begin disarming Englishmen.  The restrictions on the ownership of land were so strict it evolved to a point where almost all Englishmen found themselves in violation of the law when it came to owning firearms.

As this took hold over a decade, Charles II used this period to disarm his political opponents in the Whig party, in 1686.  Since he was successful Charles’s successor, James II focused on banning firearms for all Protestants.  This not only infuriated Protestants, as Catholics made up only about 2% of the English population at the time, this level of oppression led to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689.  A few minutes ago I mentioned something about 1689… what took place, what was created? That’s right, the English Bill of Rights.

We are also in the time of John Locke, Isaac Newton, Hobbes, von Pufendorf and other influential philosophers, that helped spark more than the Enlightenment Era.  It was the period where natural rights, liberty, social contract, and federalism were born.  Keep in mind this was also the time when words that are quite familiar today, started to be placed inside contracts between the people, and those governing the people.  John Adams would quote Serjeant-at-Law William Hawkins’s Pleas of the Crown where he declared; “Here every private person is authorized to arm himself.

The English Declaration of Rights made the right to bear arms a personal, individual right.  It went through many drafts before the words that would restore the rights of Protestants, and all Englishmen, were finalized.  Caveats existed, as they do today, to insure those possessing arms were qualified and allowed by law to have them.  Yet, again, it was a personal right designed for the people to be able to provide personal security for their liberty and their property.

By the 18th century it was an accepted axiom that people had a natural right to have personal firearms.  Standing armies were seen as a threat to liberty, while armed citizens were seen as a protection of liberty, both personal and societal.  Boston, a hot bed for patriots frustrated by the oppressive laws coming from England, had a newspaper titled A Journal of the Times.  In 1768 there was an article urging Americans to retain their weapons, and reminding them of the protection they had under the English Bill of Rights.  They went so far as stating, “It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.

Blackstone’s Commentaries, the most quoted work by the founders, outlined the right “to have” arms as indispensable “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.”  Listen closely; security, liberty, and private property (adapted by Jefferson to become the ‘pursuit of happiness’), all personal and all vital for maintaining our freedoms, our liberty.

Liberty is an often used yet little understood aspect of what we are all about in principle.  The sixth, and in my view the most precious, goal of the Constitution’s preamble is to ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves, and our Posterity.’  Where do guns, and this right to keep and bear arms, fit into achieving this goal?  James Burgh, one of the most influential philosophers in England and a Lockean scholar, wrote in his well-known and well-read series, Political Disquisition of 1774, the words that will hopefully move you as much as they did me.

He invested more than 100 pages in his three volumes to the topic of our right to be armed.  Do you think it was an important consideration?  He contrasts the difference between the values of an armed public compared to that of a society with standing armies.  He wrote that arms “are the only true badges of liberty.”

Let’s quickly look at state constitutions created before the U.S. Constitution.  Pennsylvania, in 1776, was clear and to the point.  The people’s right to bear arms was “for the defence of themselves.”  No mention of a militia, no collective confusion.  Knowing a good thing, Vermont copied the language for their Constitution in 1777.  In 1780 John Adams, in writing the Massachusetts Constitution, was the first to use the phrase we know so well; “To keep and bear arms.”

During the ratification debates, between the Federalists and Republicans (anti-federalist as labeled by most writers of history) many issues were discussed, the people’s right to be armed was accepted by all – with the main debate coming down to whether or not this natural right needed to be written into our Constitution.  A Massachusetts republican, Theodore Sedgwick, raised his voice to articulate so well that “a nation of freemen who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands,” cannot be subdued.

King George III and his military men, especially General Thomas Gage, knew the first major targets to quell the uprising in the colonies, were the arms being gathered and stored at Concord, and the gun powder stored in Williamsburg. The people knew the British wanted them disarmed.  Facing a nation armed and trained in the art of hunting was ominous, and proved a challenge the mighty British army would succumb to.

It is now June of 1789, after the Constitution was ratified, after much debate in state conventions.  The first Congress was in session.  Madison finally had his chance to present the ideals of personal rights that should be considered for addition to the Constitution.  It was actually the fulfillment of a campaign promise he had made.

Here are a couple of key things to know.  You can read the annals of the first congressional session at the Library of Congress.  (As a matter of fact, create your own MyLOC account to build an original source bookshelf tailored to your studies.)  He DID NOT make our right to bear arms dependent on being a part of the militia.  Read his personal notes where he writes, “They relate 1st to personal rights… guards for private rights”  He referenced the English Declaration of Rights.  He recommended all the rights be integrated into the existing Constitution.  Where were these rights to be placed?  In Article 1, Section 9, between Clause 3 & 4.  This would have nestled them between ‘no ex post facto law being passed’ and ‘no Capitation, or other direct tax.’  (A whole different dance we can dance sometime.)  Each personal rights; individual protection…not collective!

Roger Sherman of Connecticut pointed out to actually place them within the document would add something to a document already signed off on, while the signers were not present to agree to it.  Rather than completely opening the need for a re-ratification it was decided the proposed amendments would come at the end of the document. Thus was born our Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment among those rights.

Its preamble was not meant to create the right to bear arms as a collective right.  It is, and always has been, a natural right of individuals.  It remains an individual right; self-defense is an inalienable right we should stand in defense of always. Should we ever become a disarmed society, tyranny will have no fear of oppressing the citizenry… history has far too many lessons regarding the fact that a disarmed society is an enslaved society.

Is this an individual right or collective?  Good… individual and history leaves no doubt this is what it is, and this is what it has always been!  The sixth goal of our preamble is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  For our Posterity… the gun is the badge of what?  Right, LIBERTY!  This is just a brief history… please, please, please in this busy campaign season, always find the time, make the time, to STUDY OUR HISTORY.

Mr Wood’s column at PAN “can’t be found”, link is no longer valid.  “X” 7-2017

http://social.patriotactionnetwork.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2600775%3ABlogPost%3A5619783&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

 

S-JR.com

The State Journal Register, Springfield, Illinois

Feb 10, 2012 @ 06:00 PM

http://www.sj-r.com/video/x962226807/Audio-Ted-Nugent-speaks-in-Springfield?page=0

 From Socialism is not the Answer

Posted on February 20, 2012

American Thinker

We have witnessed President Barack Obama, and his administration, issue edicts, work against and/or ignore the US Constitution and Congress, and be inconsistent when it suits him. The question now becomes, “What will Obama do next?”

 In August, 2011, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a proposed regulation that would force all health care plans to cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that cause abortion. On January 20, 2012, Sebelius announced that the final regulation would take effect for individuals and business owners on August 1, 2012, and for Catholic hospitals, universities and charities on August 1, 2013.

Also, because Obamacare mandates that all Americans must purchase health insurance, the HHS regulation will require Catholics to act against the teachings of their faith. Obama is attacking the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. To try to ease the outcry the HHS announcement caused, Obama, on Friday, February 10, 2012, he proposed a “solution,” an “accommodation.”

So since Obama and his administration think they can ignore the US Constitution, particularly the first amendment, and mandate that Catholics go against their faith, the question now is, “What next?”

Let’s turn our attention to the Second Amendment. Obama’s most lasting impact on gun control is through the appointment of Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both gun control advocates, to the Supreme Court. While paying lip service to the second amendment, he told Sarah Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” What good will the second amendment be if/when all guns have been “controlled” out of existence?

As for the rest of the Bill of Rights (amendments 3 – 10), the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) took care of that. The NDAA is an act that grants the US military the “legal” right to conduct secret kidnappings of US citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture, and even murder, and Obama signed it into law.

With his “We can’t wait” campaign, Obama has declared that he will ignore the US Constitution and Congress when they don’t let him have his way. In December, 2011, Obama appointed Richard Cordray to direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Also in December, 2011, he appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board. They were all “recess appointments.” The only problem was that Congress had not recessed. This attempt to circumvent the legislative branch is a violation of Obama’s oath of office to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

On December 17, 2011, the Senate agreed to, as it can as outlined in Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution, an order instituting “pro forma” sessions. President Obama now claims that the Senate was actually recessed. But on December 23, 2011, President Obama signed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. If the Senate was actually on recess, as Obama claimed, that day, it couldn’t have passed the bill, and Obama couldn’t have signed it into law. Ever inconsistent and looking for situations to get his own way, Obama did not respect the Senate’s own view as to whether it was in session or not.

In a radio interview on November 6, 2011, Obama said that if Congress is not willing to pass legislation he wants, he will do it himself in order to win another term.

We now have a clear picture of Obama’s behavior. With that picture in mind, we can now ask the question, “What will he do next?” Obama ignores the US Constitution and Congress when it suits his purposes. He issues edicts without regard to the US Constitution. He signs into law unconstitutional acts. He is blatantly inconsistent.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said, “If that [ObamaCare] is held constitutional — for them [Obama and his administration] to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance — then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

So again, I ask the question, “What next?” What other edicts/mandates/surprises await us? Since the government is the major shareholder in General Motors, is he, in an effort to reach his goal of having 1 million electric cars on US highways by 2015, going next to tell us that we must purchase Chevy Volts? Is a declaration of martial law coming? Is he going to try to suspend ALL civil rights? Is he going to suspend elections and have himself declared king?

Martin Niemoller, a decorated U-boat captain in World War I, became a minister of religion and an opponent of the Nazis in the 1930s. He said:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no communist. When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; I was, of course, no Social Democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest.”

Was he prophetic?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/from_obama_what_next.html#ixzz1mxpaguYF

 Bookmark the permalink

—————————————————————————————

Enough – Treason this huge, calls for the Congress to ACT, not master****.    Or for what Doves do…   “X”

Full Speech: Daniel Hannan at CPAC 2012 « My Blog. Courtesy of Loopyloo305

Hannan’s admiration for, and an admonition to America.

via Full Speech: Daniel Hannan at CPAC 2012 « My Blog.

I am a 1%er

I’m a one percenter – [Read last sentence] !

This just about says it all.

“WHERE CAN I GET MY PISTOL ENGRVED LIKE THIS?”

A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him “Why do you carry a 45?” The Ranger responded, “Because they don’t make a 46.”

———

The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. “Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?” He promptly replied, “No Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my shotgun.”

———

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house? I said I did. She said, “Well I certainly hope it isn’t loaded!” To which I said, “Of course it is loaded; it can’t work without bullets!” She then asked, “Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?” My reply was, “No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.”

 

HAVE A NICE DAY!

And Remember…

I’m a one percenter… because 99% of the people who read this won’t have the guts to forward it!

%d bloggers like this: