Law Enforcment: Is there any law you would not enforce?

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"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

---

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

---

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

---

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

---

"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

Make no mistake about it. Those who would take away our Second Amendment rights do so ., i.e., to reduce our citizens to subjects, and to take away any of the rest of the bill of rights without objection of our citizens.

England Warns America: Do Not Give Up Your Guns!

Critical Second Amendment Ruling: Federal Court Defends Man’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms

A Court Decision in the right direction:

Saturday, June 23, 2012 The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled today that it is unconstitutional for Chicago to treat people with non-violent misdemeanor convictions the same as convicted felons. The NRA-supported case, Gowder v. Chicago, involves plaintiff Shawn Gowder, who was convicted as a first-time offender for mere possession of a firearm in violation of Illinois law in 1995. His misdemeanor record did not block him from getting a state Firearm Owner’s Identification card, so he could still legally possess a gun in Illinois. Nonetheless, when Mr. Gowder, who lives in a high crime area of Chicago, began the process to legally acquire a handgun to keep in his home for self-defense (a process required following the McDonald decision), the Chicago police denied his application. Mr. Gowder sued the city, maintaining that Chicago’s law banning non-violent misdemeanants from possessing guns in their homes for self-defense is unconstitutionally vague, and that it violates the Second Amendment. Read entire article in NRA-ILA.

It would seem some of the courts are seeing the handwriting on the wall: that Americans overwhelmingly support the Second Amendment.

Americans deliberately confused on the true meaning of the second amendment of the constitution of the United States

The majority of the citizens of the united states are confused about the true meaning and original intent of the second amendment of the constitution of the united states.

I begin with original statements from some of our founders on the subject of the second amendment, militias, and our right to bear arms under the amendment. The amendment states, 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.Quotes on the Second Amendment by The Founding Fathers

"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

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."Zachariah Johnson Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights"

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 quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The Founding Fathers on Arms

"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

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine

"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

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."Patrick Henry American Patriot

"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 American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers at 184-8 The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. " Noah Webster American Lexicographer

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke British Statesman, 1784

"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

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin American Statesman Later Quotes on Gun Control

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

Now, from one who found that Gun Control worked very well."This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler Chancellor, Germany, 1933 Quotes above are from Cap-n-ball dot com.

The above quotes represent only a few from our founding fathers on the second amendment, which was made a part of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. These amendments were added to the constitution to limit the power of the federal government, created by the states as a servant of the states, from oppressing its creator, the states and its citizens. This is the obvious purpose of the founders for the amendment. The two main points can not be mistaken, and is the very reason the amendment was worded the way it is:

1. The founders intended each state to form a militia from its own citizens.

2. And to arm them. And also to permit them to own their own arms. Much of the fighting forces from both the North and the South used in the War Between the States, were militias of the various states.

Anyone who tells us the second amendment provides only for a militia, and not for the citizens of each state to be able to bear weapons, is lying to us. The two are bound together in the amendment. Individuals and laws of either the federal or state government who pass laws prohibiting their citizens from being not only owning arms, but bearing them, are guilty of breaking that bond. Anyone who tells you differently, is lying to you.

A final quote: The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. -Thomas Jefferson. I do not think anyone can twist the meaning of this statement!

In conclusion. We can very easily see the intent of the framers of the constitution, especially the second amendment in the bill of rights, that both the states should have their own militias, with every able bodied citizen being members, and having their own firearms, or those given them by the states. We can also see that states and cities that prohibit both concealed and open carry are in violation of the second amendment.

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 8

Chapter 8 The Minutemen

When looking for information on the role of the minutemen in American colonial history, I came across the following piece on the minutemen. I was surprised to find out that the minutemen had a larger role than they fulfilled in the War for Independence. To compare them with our modern warriors, we could call them the colonial special ops units.

The article below, is from the website of ushistory.org, created and hosted by the Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia, PA. The site is a treasure trove of early American history. Here is a link to their website: ushistory.org.

The article, Minutemen, written by Andrew Ronemus, is found at this web address: ushistory–minutemen.

Minutemen

The Minutemen playing a crucial role not only in the Revolutionary War, but in earlier conflicts.

Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.

Although today Minutemen are thought of as connected to the Revolutionary War in America, their existence was conceived in Massachusetts during the mid-seventeenth century. As early as 1645, men were selected from the militia ranks to be dressed with matchlocks or pikes and accoutrements within half an hour of being warned. In 1689 another type of Minuteman company came into existence. Called Snowshoemen, each was to "provide himself with a good pair of snowshoes, one pair of moggisons, and one hatchet" and to be ready to march on a moment's warning. Minutemen also played a role in the French and Indian War in the 1750's. A journal entry from Samuel Thompson, a Massachusetts militia officer, states, "...but when our men were gone, they sent eleven more at one minute's warning, with 3 days provision..." By the time of the Revolution, Minutemen had been a well-trained force for six generations in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Every town had maintained its 'training band'. The adversity that this region faced — Native-American uprisings, war with France, and potential for local insurrections, social unrest, and rioting — provided ample reason to adhere to a sound militia organization. In his recent book, perhaps David Hackett Fischer puts it best, "The muster of the Minutemen in 1775 was the product of many years of institutional development...it was also the result of careful planning and collective effort." (p. 151). By the time of the Revolution, Massachusetts had been training, drilling, and improving their militia for well over a hundred years.

Unfortunately, one thing the Minutemen lacked was central leadership. This disadvantage would lead to their dissolution. In February of 1775 Concord was one of the first towns to comply with the order to create Minutemen companies out of the militia. Of approximately 400 militia from Concord's muster rolls, one hundred would also serve as Minutemen. When a battle took place Minutemen companies from several towns combined their units. An officer from the 43rd Regiment of Foot was sent to the North Bridge in Concord with a number of light infantry. Minutemen from Concord, Acton, Littleton, and other towns combined forces. After a few volleys were fired, the British light infantry retreated back to the Concord Common area. Lacking central command, with each company of Minutemen loyal to their own town, they did not pursue the redcoats. In the running battle that ensued fifteen miles back to Boston the Massachusetts militia would see their last action as Minutemen in history. The militia would go on to form an army, surrounding Boston and inflicting heavy casualties on the British army at Bunker and Breed's Hill.

Thus, although lacking central command, the Minutemen were still better organized and battle-tested than any other part-time military. They were a vital and necessary force, playing a crucial role in not only the Revolutionary War, but in earlier conflicts. Without these "ready in a minute" men, our history may have been written in a very different way.

– Andrew Ronemus

This material is copyright by, and used with permission of, the Independence Hall Association, on the web at ushistory.org.
Picture courtesy of ushistory.org
Story courtesy of ushistory.org

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 7

Chapter 7 Obligations and Duties of Militia Members.

What exactly is a militia?
It may depend upon whose definition you use. I like the definition given by one of the founders:

"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 shall 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."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

When we are alone, we are all militia units of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one's duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty. Militia

Historical Militias
The character of militias in both the United Kingdom and the United States come to us from the days of the Anglo Saxons.

For fifteen centuries it has been a fundamental principle of Anglo-Saxon government--a fact that seems to be quite generally ignored--that every citizen capable of bearing arms owes, in return for his liberty and protection, the duty of personal service to protect and defend his government in time of need. At its base it is an obligatory and not a volunteer system, though, chiefly perhaps because the ordinary need of the State requires the service of far less than the number available, in England until recently, and here as well, the service seems to have been regarded not as a bounden duty but as necessarily voluntary, as, of course, it is under the policy legislatively established. The Colonists brought with them here the militia system indigenous to the land of their origin. [Italics mine] Legal and Historical Aspects of The Militia: Guncite.com.

No other American institution bears a closer resemblance to its ancient English ancestor than our militia. An examination of historic state documents of the colonies shows that all the essentials of the English system were established here. Just as the Second Amendment of our Constitution was borrowed from the Bill of Rights of 1688, so did our colonial legislatures adopt the militia laws of the Motherland. [Italics mine] Ibid.

So we can readily see that the use of militias have solid historical basis. The founding fathers were well versed in history, and within the principles they derived from having a Judeo-Christian background, thy wisely decided to create a constitutional mandate for our several states to form militias.

Duties of militias–Riot Control

Militias are attractive forces of order for several reasons. They have often deployed with battlefield weapons—from bayonets to cannon—that can overawe or, if necessary, decimate a crowd armed only with bricks, stones, and pistols. They also, at times, have brought an impressive discipline to riots, acting with a restraint and neutrality beyond the ability of a sheriff’s posse or a squad of special police hastily recruited from among civilians. Unlike professional police forces, they are not paid full-time, but lie mostly dormant until the rare emergencies when they are needed. And unlike regular soldiers, they are—in theory—composed of the local citizenry, and therefore unlikely to oppress the rights of the people. Zachary M Schrag’s notes on militias.

Community Service

You can search the internet for other duties performed by the militias of the colonies and some states today. They were called up to put down riots, to aid volunteer firefighters as some were, aid in cleaning up after natural disasters, and serve the community in other ways. Some were the social centers of their communities, providing help and assistance to citizens and service organizations.

Summation

Militias provide safety and a sense of well-being to the communities in which they serve. The colonies feared a standing army, preferring instead local militias. Today, we have a powerful standing army which is more than a match for any state militia. The second amendment is still the best defense against a potential tyrannical government, who would do away with the amendment. It is hoped, that if the federal government ever sent members of the armed forces against the states or individual citizen, that they would refuse to carry out the orders.

If that ever happened, a second war between the states would be fought, and the death toll would be unimaginable.

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 6

Chapter 6: Founders Intended the States to form Militias

Much evidence exists in the histories of the original colonies, and in the writings of the founders of the U.S. Constitution, that they fully intended that the sovereign states of the United States form their own militias, so much, that they made provision in the Constitution in support of militias.

Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, “The Congress shall have Power To . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. . . .”

As we can see by the wording in the last half of the above paragraph in section 8 of Article 1, that this is referring to state militias, organized, and officers appointed by the said states.

The Second Amendment: “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.” Not only must the states, according to the constitution, have their own militias, but also have the obligation of creating a disciplinary structure to maintain the efficient organization of the militia, and knowing how to contact in emergency every able-bodied man (and women) for immediate service.

What is a militia? Who constitutes the militia? “The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up "bearing arms supplied by themselves..." Black's Law Dictionary defines militia as, "The body of citizens in a state (read jural society), enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.", "The body of citizens in a state" and not the "regular troops of a standing army." The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces. Source.

How did the founding fathers describe the militia? Source.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

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

Alexander Hamilton: "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185). "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own 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?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169. "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “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.” "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967). "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added. "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention).

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." Source.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil intehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifrference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress). Source.
In conclusion, we can easily see that it was the intention of our founders that each state develop a militia of every able-bodied citizen, owning his own firearm, and being closely regulated by the state of his residence. I submit, that many of the gun-grabbers know this, and they do not care, as their goal is for government to maintain control over society, and to provide a state sponsored military, i.e., National Guard–never the constitutionally designated militia–and county and city sherif and police forces.

The police very seldom ever save lives except in the case of hostage taking, but show up after a crime to write it up and investigate it. But, thousands each year defend and protect themselves through use of their own firearms. It is imperative that we do all we can in our power to protect our Second Amendment.

Illinois State Police refuse to release list of firearm permit holders

The Illinois State Police are setting the example how authorities should uphold the Second Amendment when asked by government officials to violate the civil rights of gun permit holders.

Showdown in Illinois Over Identifying Gun Owners

Posted on March 3, 2011 by Conservative Byte

In a showdown over the privacy rights of gun owners, the Illinois State Police are refusing to release a list identifying all firearm permit holders in the state after Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan determined that the information “must” be made public. Read full article in Conservative Byte dot com here.

This action on the part of the Illinois Attorney General has put her in the middle of a fire storm and a massive protest is forming. It is hoped this massive protest will send a message to all government gun-grabbers.

Massive Rally at Illinois Capitol Will Protest Release of Gun Owner Names and Personal Information

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., March 7, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

Anger over Attorney General Lisa Madigan's recent decision to make public the names and other personal information belonging to law-abiding gun owners is expected to swell the ranks of protesters at a gun rights rally scheduled for Thursday, March 10th at the Illinois Capitol.

The initial intent of the 2011 edition of Illinois Gun Owners' Lobby Day was to encourage the General Assembly to pass legislation allowing qualified citizens to carry defensive firearms. Illinois is one of only two states that prohibit citizens from protecting themselves and their families by carrying defensive firearms. The other state, Wisconsin, is expected to pass concealed carry legislation later this year. Read rest of story here: PR Newswire.

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. For more than a century, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners. Many other states have State chapter of NRA upholding the rights of US citizens preserved by the Second Amendment.

The Real Purpose of the Second Amendment--Chapter 3

How Does God Look at Gun Control?

In searching for material for this chapter, I found the following by Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners Foundation. This is a revised version I posted in 2009. It covers the subject and I present part of it here from the web site of Gun Owners of America:

What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?
by Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President, Gun Owners Foundation

The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?

Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.

God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons. Read Article by Larry Pratt.

Many who support gun control and would deny the right of our citizens the right to own and bear weapons according to the second amendment, like to quote the Bible to support their position. Again, we quote Larry Pratt:

Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government -- that is, taking vengeance -- was also proper for an individual.

Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times.

Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").

To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments. Ibid.

Read the entire article, as it answers many questions about the Bible and the Second Amendment. We will discuss the article further in the next post on this subject.

It can't happen here--or can't it?

This was posted on Soda Head Discussion Group:

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside..

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask."Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them.Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to die."The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences... Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars..

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..It
does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know. You had better wake up, because your president is going to do this very same thing over here if he can get it done... And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

What the Founders Intended in the Second Amendment

In the coming weeks, I hope to put serially, chapters in a book I am working on about the reasons the founders had for developing the Second Amendment. A lot of arguments have been put forth about the wording and what it means. The founders used exactly the words they used to convey what they desired for our republic in the amendment.

“These words have generated considerable controversy as part of the broader debate over gun control. Proponents of stricter controls generally contend that the amendment was meant to protect the collective right of states to maintain militia units. Their opponents respond that the amendment was intended to protect an individual right, noting that in the eighteenth century the militia was composed of the entire free white male population, who were expected to muster bearing their own arms.” Answers.com
Not only is the Second Amendment misunderstood and misinterpreted, the true definition of what a militia really consists of is not fully understood. It is appropriate that the Wikipedia article (Militia, United States) reads:
“The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time. The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States.” Then Wikipedia presents the definition according to current U.S. law.

US CODE

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The official classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

* The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2–Consult article for footnotes] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
* The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)[2]
* A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.[4]
* A private militia, which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia. Wikipedia

The constitution, and the amendments, are written exactly as the founders intended. They used clear language. Every word and phrase was carefully chosen to impart the meaning they intended for then and for now. Any changes made were to be made in one of two means.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority. US Constitution Online

The courts have shown interest in any clues they can find in the Preamble regarding the Constitution's meaning.[4] Courts have developed several techniques for interpreting the meaning of statutes and these are also used to interpret the Constitution.[5] As a result, the courts have said that interpretive techniques that focus on the exact text of a document[6] should be used in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, so the Preamble provides additional language against which to compare other parts of the Constitution. Balanced against these techniques are those that focus more attention on broader efforts to discern the meaning of the document from more than just the wording;[7] the Preamble is also useful for these efforts to identify the "spirit" of the Constitution.
Additionally, when interpreting a legal document, courts are usually interested in understanding the document as its authors did and their motivations for creating it; as a result, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders. Wikipedia

History of militia movements in Europe and in the original U.S. Colonies tell us explicitly what a militia is and what it is not. Historical statements of many countries over the centuries clearly tell us of what made up militias. And statements of our founding fathers nail down for us exactly what they had in mind when they formed the Second Amendment. I found in my research that no mystery exists in what a militia is and the intended purpose of it in our society today.

The Misunderstood and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

Part 3

Apologies to my regular blog followers. Sometime back, I began a series on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Originally in searching information on the Second Amendment, I came across the following article: If you wish to copy or repost any parts of this article, please go to the original source, and be sure to credit Rich Mason and his web site: Tennesseefirearms dot com. He grants that it may be reprinted, retransmitted, and broadcast on a not-for-profit basis. I continue with Point 4 of his lengthy article.

Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important to You
Point 4
By Rich Mason, Bartlett, TN
Copyright © 1999, 2000 - All Rights Reserved.
Point 4: The Arms of a Free People. The arms referred to by the Second Amendment and the founders of this country are the arms necessary for the free people of America to be able to hold their governments unbridled appetite for power in check and to resist invaders when called upon to serve in the militia in defense of our country, state or community. If the arms of the soldiers of this era are automatic rifles, machine guns and sub-machine guns then it is the right, in fact the obligation, for the citizens of this country to possess such arms themselves. It is laughable on its face, as some have stated, that the Second Amendment would grant to us the right to only have flintlocks or muskets, such weapons as were in use at the time of our countries founding, to defend ourselves against an armed force raised by the government to oppress us, or to defend against an invading enemy. This would be the same as saying, concerning the First Amendment, that the press could only use the printing technology that existed at the time of the Revolution while the government could use movies, television, radio, modern printing presses, the Internet and any other means of communications that it desired. A ridiculous thought isn't it? If it's ridiculous for the First Amendment, why is it any less ridiculous for the Second Amendment? Our rights are not "frozen in a moment of time", they are eternal rights and we are free to use our ingenuity to advance the technology to ensure those rights. If anything, we have the rights to limit the governments use of technology, not the other way around.

Surely, our founding fathers meant for us to have arms that would allow us to meaningfully resist, better yet, deter the government from any attempt at tyranny. No doubt this is a shocking position to the ignorant masses that have been lied to by their government, the press and the educational institutions of this country that our Second Amendment right exists only so we can have single shot sporting arms for such purposes as hunting, target shooting, etc., or that the Second Amendment is a right of the states to maintain armed militias. The following quotes ably put to rest both of these specious arguments:

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2

"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." -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"...What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify if a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure...." -- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Colonel Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

Second and First Amendment Paralleled

If you are in doubt about whether the Second Amendment is still valid and important to you, even if you choose not to own a gun, consider this:

If the government were to pass legislation to limit your First Amendment right to criticize the government in any form, would you be upset? Would you consider your rights had been unconstitutionally infringed? Would you still feel free? Of course you would be upset and, no, you wouldn’t still be free, because one of the bedrock's of our freedom is the ability to freely speak our minds on any subject, particularly criticizing those we have elected to govern us. It is the basis upon which this country was founded, and when we lose that right, we stop being citizens and become subjects.

While you may not have considered it in the same light, the Second Amendment is just as important as the First Amendment. We must support the Second Amendment, with the same fervor that we support the First Amendment. Why? Because our liberties were won at the point of a gun, and the sad reality of this world is that ultimately they can only be maintained at the point of a gun.

Let me ask you this? When the government outlaws free speech, what will you do to oppose it? Write letters of protest? No, that's now against the law. Protest in the streets? No, that's now against the law too. When speech is suppressed and tyranny reigns, only the sound of the gun will be heard. This seems extreme to today's pampered, cowed society, but in the end it will be the only means left to protect the First Amendment when the government finds it inconvenient for us to exercise our right of free speech and religion. However, if our guns have been confiscated, or simply limited to weapons ineffective against an oppressing government, then how will we restore our liberties? The answer, of course, is we won't be able to.

If you think that such a situation can’t happen then you have failed to learn the lessons of history. We must all guard jealously the rights we are endowed with by our Creator…ALL of them, not just the ones we like, from the tyranny of government control.

Kansas Passes Right to Bear Arms

Kansas State Rifle Association News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2010

Right To Bear Arms Vote Sets A National Record!

(Bonner Springs, KS) - The citizens of Kansas voted overwhelmingly on November 2nd to insure that their Second Amendment rights are never questioned in Kansas.

Voters decided with 710,255 votes (89% of votes cast) that the Kansas Constitution should be changed to insure that every individual has the right to bear arms in Kansas. Only 91,004 persons (11% of votes cast) declared they did not want this change made.

It was a great victory and shows how important the people of Kansas believe this issue is. This was a record setting vote as no other gun rights initiative has passed with this overwhelming of a vote in the entire country.

The previous record was set in 1986 when West Virginia voters approved their Constitutional Amendment with an 83.6% approval.

Article 4 of the Kansas Constitution will now read, "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."

The Kansas State Rifle Association worked with the NRA and Senator Mike Petersen and several other members of the Kansas legislature to pass a resolution to provide for this new language and get it placed on the ballot for this general election.

The Kansas State Rifle Association would like to thank everyone who assisted in educating the voters about this amendment. It was a huge effort to inform voters to make sure they understood what was being done and why it needed to be done. Volunteers spent countless hours passing out bumper stickers, flyers and yard signs and explaining the issue to citizens.

Our voices have been heard loud and clear and the Second Amendment prevails in the great State of Kansas!

The Misunderstood and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

Part 2

In searching information on the Second Amendment, I came across the following article: If you wish to copy or repost any parts of this article, please go to the original source, and be sure to credit Rich Mason and his web site: Tennesseefirearms dot com. I continue with Points 2 and 3 of his lengthy article.

By Rich Mason, Bartlett, TN
Copyright © 1999, 2000 - All Rights Reserved.
May be reprinted, retransmitted, and broadcast on a not-for-profit basis.Point 2: The Constitution is a Limitation on the Power of Government and the Bill of Rights is not an inclusive listing of personal rights. While the Bill of Rights enumerates certain rights, the oft-overlooked 9th Amendment to the Constitution states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Bill of Rights is not intended to be an inclusive statement of our rights. All of our rights are to be equally protected under the Constitution, whether enumerated or not. The Constitution, in general, and Bill of Rights, in particular, are intended to be limitations upon the power of the federal government.

Point 3: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Inviolable Personal Right. It is clear from the words of the men who founded this country that the right to "keep and bear arms" is an inviolable personal right and that there are good reasons for it to exist and to be protected by the Second Amendment. This is not a subject for debate, except for those ignorant of our history or those that purposely wish to debase the American citizenry under the tyranny of government and ultimately into subjugation. Anyone who holds the position that the American people do not possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, or that it may be legislated away through gun control laws, is ignorant of the basis upon which this country was founded; including the means by which the founders intended for us to maintain our personal liberties.

"This 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" -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on 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 in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87

"The great principle is that every man be armed.... everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

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

"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." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

I would like to point out in Mason's article, he states two things is one sentence: 1. That The Constitution is a Limitation on the Power of Government and 2. the Bill of Rights is not an inclusive listing of personal rights.

The rights are already there as the creators of the constitution believed, that they were granted by God, and should be rights to all people on the earth. But sadly, this is not the case by far. The Bill of Rights is to limitthe power of the federal government--created by the states to serve the states and its citizens.

The Misunderstood and Deliberately Misinterpreted Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights

On July 8th, of this summer, I began a series on the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, by covering the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Rights and Abuses.

In searching information on the Second Amendment, I came across the following article, which I will re-post in several parts. I may occasionally add comments of my own. If you wish to copy or repost any parts of this article, please go to the original source, and be sure to credit Rich Mason and his web site: Tennesseefirearms dot com.

Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important to You

By Rich Mason, Bartlett, TN
Copyright © 1999, 2000 - All Rights Reserved.
May be reprinted, retransmitted, and broadcast on a not-for-profit basis.

"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." -- Second Amendment, United States Constitution

"That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." -- Tennessee Constitution, Article I - Declaration of Rights, Section 26

Across our nation a debate rages about "gun control". This euphemism glosses over the fact that what is being debated is one of the most precious guarantors of liberty, the right to keep and bear arms. At the heart of this debate is not whether the right to keep and bears arms is an individual right or not, but at its core the debate is over the primacy of the individual over the primacy of the government. This debate rages because many, too many, in this country have forgotten, or, worse, have never been educated in, the nature of our rights.

Government and liberty are natural adversaries. The founders of our nation understood this. With that understanding in mind they crafted a Constitution and a Bill of Rights designed to limit the power of government and guarantee the rights of the people. The rights that they intended to protect were those written about in the Declaration of Independence and other un-enumerated rights, e.g. the natural, inalienable rights of man.

The Basis of Our Rights:

Point 1: Government does not grant rights. If we were to assign to government the authority to grant rights, then we would also have to acknowledge the government's power to take rights away. Surely, we can all see the dangers of allowing governments formed by men being in the position of assigning our rights to us. Today's right would be tomorrow's crime. Such is the quixotic nature of mankind. The reason we have a Republic and not a pure democracy is because the founders of this country understood the tyrannical nature of a pure democracy. Rather than trusting the wisdom of men, our founders looked to another source as the basis of our rights… the Creator of the Universe.

Let us examine this quote from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Our Founding Fathers stated unequivocally that our rights came not from men, nor governments, but from our Creator. Since our rights are from our Creator and therefore preceded the founding of this country, the government has no authority to deprive us of our rights no matter how unpopular they might become with the government, or even the majority of the people. The Declaration of Independence continues:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

and continues:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."

It is clear from the above that our government does not grant us our rights, but rather was formed to ensure our rights; and when our government fails in its duties to effectively secure our rights, we have the right to abolish that government and form a new one that will effectively ensure our rights.

It is quite obvious from our Constitution, that our government was set up to protect God-given rights, which should be the case for all nations. Governments seem to be in the business to take away the rights of its citizens, which ours seems hell bent on doing.

To continue in subsequent posts . . .

Rand Paul promises to be 'vigilant' protector of gun rights

By Joseph Gerth • jgerth@courier-journal.com • June 12, 2010

Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul told gun enthusiasts that if elected, he'll work to ensure that Congress doesn't pass any legislation that would restrict their rights to own weapons.

"I'm a proud defender of the Second Amendment," he told a group around him at the Great Eastern National Gun Day Show and JAG Military Show at the Kentucky Exposition Center.

"We must be ever vigilant of our Second Amendment rights. We must continually remind Washington that a majority cannot vote to take away our Second Amendment rights," he said. Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY

Kan. Campuses Move Closer To Concealed Carrying Board Of Regents, KU Oppose Bill

POSTED: 3:57 pm CDT March 24, 2010
UPDATED: 4:49 pm CDT March 24, 2010

LAWRENCE, Kan. -- With eight votes in the Kansas House, public college campuses got one step closer on Wednesday to allowing people to carry concealed weapons.

The bill passed on Wednesday would allow anyone with a concealed gun license who is over 21-years-old to bring a weapons to any of the state's public higher education institutions. The only exception would be if the building was deemed to have adequate security measures, such as metal detectors inside.

On the University of Kansas campus, there are signs posted that say no weapons are allowed inside, but there are no metal detectors. Read article at KCTV5 on line News.

Bill O'Reilly, Did You Really Mean What You Said?

Bill, You really screwed up with this one:



I anticipate a lot of blow-back on this from Tea Partiers, Conservatives, and Second Amendment supporters.

The real negative aspect of Bill's remarks, is that now many of his viewers, including me, will wonder about other things he says, including even those that are true. I hope the feedback he is definatly to receive, will humble him a little.

Kansas Firearms Freedom Act

F Y I
KSRA CRAFTED FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT
INTRODUCED IN LEGISLATURE TODAY (Feb 3 2010)!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Kansas State Rifle Association Crafted
Kansas Firearms Freedom Act
Introduced Today

TOPEKA, Kansas (February 3, 2010) - The Kansas Firearms Freedom Act, House Bill 2620, crafted by The Kansas State Rifle Association was introduced this morning in the Kansas House of Representatives by Representative Ray Merrick and several other co-sponsors.

The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is principally a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the "commerce clause," with firearms as the object - it is a state's rights exercise. Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state is beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

"The FFA may affect congressional authority other than for firearms." said Patricia Stoneking, President of the Kansas State Rifle Association. "This legislation is actually about reducing excessive Federal regulation in areas such as education and intrastate trade."

Proponents contend that the commerce clause was amended, by the Tenth Amendment, and that the Tenth Amendment, being the most recent expression of the enacting authority, must prevail over an unlimited interpretation of commerce clause authority to regulate firearms made and retained in a state.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit in federal court to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The renewed debate over states rights and the pending litigation over the FFA have set the stage for re-examination of the scope of federal commerce clause authority. While it is still unclear exactly where this re-examination will end up, the outcome could drastically change application of federal authority.

"The Firearms Freedom Act has been enacted by two states, Montana and Tennessee." said Stoneking. "Kansas makes the twenty-first additional state to introduce this bill and five other states have expressed their intentions to introduce this legislation at this time."

Contact:

Patricia Stoneking, President
Kansas State Rifle Association
P. O. Box 117
Bonner Springs, KS 66012
(913) 667-3044
vfm-targetmaster@bizkc.rr.com

HOW TO CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS

To find your Federal Representative and Senators use these links:

Click Here To Find Your US Representative

Click Here To Find Your US Senator

To find your State Legislators use these links:

Click Here To Find Your Kansas Legislators

To send letters to the White House:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Click This Link for the White House Web Site