Tag Archives: 2nd amendment

Commentary

Weapons of War

As noted in a previous post, this time it is different and it looks as if Democrats and other enemies of freedom will finally accomplish another infringement on the “shall not be infringed” right of the people to keep and bear arms. One measure that Joe Biden, the Democrats and even some back stabbing Republicans seem to favor is putting some kind of restrictions (or outright bans) on so-called “weapons of war” such as the ubiquitous AR-15 rifle platform. But I have a serious warning for every trap or target shooter, plinker, sportsman, hunter or self-defense gun owner.

Don’t think that because you don’t own or use an AR-15, AK-47 or other “weapon of war” this infringement does not affect you. If the government succeeds in banning “weapons of war” (by that or any other name) then private ownership of all firearms in America will be doomed.

Wild-eyed hyperbole? No it is not. In U.S. v. Miller (1939) the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did protect the right of American citizens to be armed, but upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 on the grounds that the weapons banned (in this case, a short-barreled shotgun) were not shown to be suitable for use by “the militia.”

Of course that is ridiculous, since short-barreled shotguns have always been used by military forces ever since there were shotguns, but no evidence was presented to the court that such was the case. The NRA did not involve itself, and not even the defendant (Miller) was present to argue on behalf of the Second Amendment. And so the first significant “infringement” on the right to keep and bear arms was allowed to remain law.

What does that have to do with your .22 target pistol or over-under shotgun? By the clear ruling of the Supreme Court in this case (which has not been overturned or repudiated) the Second Amendment does not protect the right of Americans to own any firearm other than those “suitable” for use by the militia, that is “weapons of war.” If weapons of war are banned all other firearms will follow.

This is a good time to remember that all of our fundamental rights were bestowed upon us by God, not granted by government. They cannot be withdrawn by the political process. They cannot be rescinded by executive order, act of Congress or decree of the Supreme Court. They cannot even be taken by a majority vote of our deluded fellow citizens. Our fundamental rights, including the right to be armed for the defense of all the others, can only be stripped from us by force, if we allow it.

And that is why God gave us the right to keep and bear arms and why our Founding Fathers so valued it. That is why “weapons of war” are exactly the kind of firearms that the Second Amendment is talking about.

Commentary

“No Amendment is Absolute.”

It’s nice to know our president believes that. Of course we already knew that he and his “progressive” ilk do not believe that the Constitution itself is absolute. After all, it’s a “living, breathing document” that changes with the times. In other words, it doesn’t mean anything if it keeps them from doing what they want to do.

We’ve also known for a long time that the Second Amendment means nothing to them. Biden repeatedly claimed to be a “strong supporter” of the Second Amendment, often adding “I own a shotgun!” But he never hid his disdain for the right to keep and bear arms. In his eyes it means that the American people are entitled to own the firearms and ammunition that (for the moment) the government allows them to own. That’s like saying you have freedom of speech, provided you don’t say anything the government doesn’t like.

But now we know that he believes all the amendments are subject to interpretation, adjustment, change, disregard and whatever wind of government authority happens to blow. Drawing on Biden’s plans for the Second Amendment, some examples:

  • Freedom of religions is absolutely guaranteed — provided that your religion doesn’t offend anyone’s sexual preference or gender choices.
  • Freedom of the press will be respected — as long as the press does not report anything that the government considers “misinformation” (facts or opinions that are embarrassing or inconvenient to the regime).
  • Freedom to assemble is a fundamental right — provided that you are rioting, burning and looting in support of BLM, ANTIFA or against the police, law and order or White Supremacy (by which they mean anything or anyone they don’t like). Simply attending a Trump rally could be grounds for loss of employment, fines and imprisonment even if the crime does not include “meandering” through the Capitol Building.
  • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effect against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated — except when raiding the homes of citizens suspected of harboring forbidden “weapons of war” (any firearm someone might use to resist oppression by a despotic government) or those suspected of other types of resistance against the exercise of tyrannical governmental authority.
  • No person shall be put in jeopardy of life or limb twice for the same offense — except when a “not guilty” verdict contradicts the expressed demands of a favored identity group.
  • No person may be compelled to testify or give evidence against themselves — unless the regime must use exceptional methods to discover the location of hidden arms caches that might be used to resist oppression by a tyrannical government.
  • Cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted — except that exceptions may be made for White Supremacists (conservatives, Trump supporters, etc.).
  • The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people — but since no amendment is absolute, there actually are no rights retained by the people except those recognized and permitted by the government. (In other words, there are no rights.)
  • The federal government shall have only the powers granted to it by the Constitution and all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people — except that in cases of emergency (that is, whenever it wants to) the federal government may impose restrictions on individual freedoms that it feels are necessary. (For example, closing schools and businesses, forbidding gatherings for church services, Trump rallies or Thanksgiving Dinners at private homes, requiring the wearing of masks to appear in public or a “Vaccination Passport” in order to travel.)
  • No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law — unless the government suspects them of especially heinous crimes, such as harboring forbidden weapons or war, being White Supremacists or resisting government power.
  • The right to vote may not be denied on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. However, White Supremacists (whatever their race or color) may be disenfranchised to rectify past White Privilege and enforce “equity.”
  • No person shall be eligible to be elected President of the United States more than twice — unless, of course, there is an emergency.

Everybody (even Democrats) like to say, “we are a nation of laws!” but we all know that this is no longer true. We are a nation that is governed by the (almost) unrestrained use of force by our government. “Stroke of the pen–law of the land!” But the “Law of the Land” is the United States Constitution, and those amendments are all a part of that document. Anyone who can read and think can understand what it says and means. Anyone with any sense at all knows what shall not be infringed means. When the right of the American people to arm themselves to counter government tyranny is finally infringed to death, then you can erase that “(almost)” from the paragraph above. And then say goodbye to the 13th Amendment too.

After all, even the amendment abolishing slavery isn’t “absolute.”

Liberty and the RKBA

The Nature of Compromise

In grammar school I was taught that our system of government is based on compromise. That’s not true, but that’s what I was taught. Compromise is fine, but there is something you have to understand about it. You cannot compromise with someone whose ultimate goal is diametrically opposed to yours.

For instance, let’s say you and your friend are going on vacation together. You both want to go to the beach, but you want to get there as fast as possible and he/she wants to take the cross-country scenic route. Perhaps you can travel part of the way on the Interstate and part of the way on the secondary roads, and you both wind up where you ultimately wanted to be. But suppose you want to go to the beach and he/she wants to go to the mountains. You compromise and travel part-way toward the beach, and then turn off and go to the mountains. When you get there, you suddenly realize that your friend got what he/she wanted and you got nothing.

That’s where we are with the “gun control” debate. Thanks to Beto, everyone can now see where the democrats have been wanting to take us for fifty years, but everyone is still crying out for compromise on this issue. Democrats, when asked straight up if they agree with Beto on confiscation, hedge, dip and dodge. They use phrases like, “we’ve got to do something now,” and “starting place” and “first steps” and “what is achievable.” What they are saying is that they know they can’t get confiscation right now, but if they can get us to compromise and move in that direction a little, they will be patient and come back for more after the next mass shooting.

Make no mistake: no matter how much they may deny it and claim to be “firm supporters of the Second Amendment,” confiscation of all privately held firearms is their ultimate goal. Why is disarming the population so important to them? Because you can’t make a tyranny without it. Compromise is just another word for slow defeat. In the end, we will either defeat the enemies of freedom or be defeated by them.

Liberty and the RKBA

My Response To Beto

My sincere thanks to Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, who finally admitted what most of us have known all along. Hell yes, they want to take our AR-15s and AK-47s!

And when that doesn’t work and the violence continues, they will be back for our other semi-automatics, pump-actions, bolt-actions, revolvers and anything else that goes bang and could put a hole in a would-be tyrant.

You cannot compromise with someone whose end goal is diametrically opposed to yours. You can only defeat them, or be defeated by them. So here is my response to Mr. O’Rourke:

Liberty and the RKBA

The Third Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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 Purpose of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Even many who admit to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment declare that it is an anachronism, a throw-back to an earlier time and no longer relevant today. We live in an enlightened civilization and the notion of tyranny in America is silly! And besides, the idea of the people standing up to a despot is ludicrous. One democratic lawmaker (Eric Swalwell) even suggested that the people would be hopelessly outgunned since the government has nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Recent events should convince us that now more than ever before in our nation’s history, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is indispensable to maintaining our free state. It is only the millions of arms in private ownership in America that have kept the forces of tyranny at bay to this point. An armed population is the last line of defense for liberty, and when our government succeeds in disarming us our days of freedom will be numbered.

Imagine a government-required license before starting a church or holding a prayer-meeting. Imagine a government-required background check before being allowed to speak at a public rally. Imagine certain types of unpopular political speech being banned by government and we’re just about there. Why have we tolerated so many restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms when we would never (and should not) tolerate the like when it comes to freedom of speech, assembly, religion or any of our other fundamental rights granted by God? Because “…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” But to continue quoting the Declaration of Independence, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We’re not quite there yet, but when our government determines to finally destroy that last line of defense, “a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism” will be evident. Freedom-loving Americans will never surrender their arms. Doing so will be surrendering our children and grandchildren to slavery.

Liberty and the RKBA

The Second Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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 Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not about hunting, target shooting or even defending your life or your home. Although these pursuits are certainly protected by that same right, they are not what the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now we are constantly hearing about “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war,” and too often I hear gun owners and self-proclaimed supporters of the Second Amendment declare that “no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47!” And one democratic candidate for president finally just admitted it: “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”

The intent of the Second Amendment’s writers is clearly demonstrated in the use of the phrase: A well-regulated militia. The word “militia” comes from the same roots as military and militant and that means fighting wars. Of course, many have tried to define the term “well regulated militia” as the equivalent of today’s National Guard, but both history and just a little thought will inform even the most casual reader that this argument is spurious. The founders clearly wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and nowhere in the constitution or any founders’ writings was the phrase the people used to describe anything other than the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is nothing less than the right of American citizens to retain the means of overthrowing their government should it become necessary. Therefore, “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war” are exactly the kind of “arms” that the Second Amendment is talking about.