Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

04 August 2012

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud


      Every since I was a child; and probably before, there has been a conspiracy in the United States to outlaw private ownership of firearms. My father warned me frequently that, once universal gun registration was the law of the land, the next step would be confiscation. Since the liberal left knows that they would never get away with an outright ban on firearms, they have been slowly chipping away for 60+ years at our basic right to keep and bear arms and protect ourselves, our families, our country and our American way of life.
      Beginning with The National Firearms Act of 1934 that prohibited or severely restricted private ownership of machine guns and moving on to Assault Weapons ban, with the included High-Capacity Magazine ban, the Brady Bill, and many more federal and state laws and regulations, the totalitarian left-wing arm of our government keeps trying to disarm the law abiding citizens of America.
      As every despot knows, the first thing a conquering force must do before subduing a population is to disarm them and remove their ability to defend themselves. Is that what our government has planned for us? To make us into slaves by disarming and oppressing us? If so, they're on the right track. It's what dictators throughout history have done.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."-Mao Tse Tung


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."-Adolf Hitler
 

"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements .... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.-Benito Mussolini
 

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"-Diane Feinstein1

      When the American government wants to help a people or government attain or regain their freedom, the first thing they do is supply the oppressed people with guns. It has been said that the reason the Japanese and Germans never considered an invasion of the United States in WWII is because they knew that so many Americans are armed that they (the Axis) would suffer unacceptable causalities and face armed resistance far fiercer than in any other country. According to Admiral Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the imperial Japanese navy during WWII, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

"And they are ignorant that the purpose of the sword is to save every man from slavery."
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus Roman poet (A.D. 39-65)
Source: De Bello Civili (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1988), IV, 579, p. 216

"The right of self-defense never ceases.  It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart, Philadelphia, December 23, 1791; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 6

"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice; not by instruction but by natural intuition: I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) Roman Orator and Statesman at the trial of T. Annius Milo in 52 BC 2

 
     The Jul 31, 2012 edition of Daily World states “In addition to the need for self-defense, our Founders understood the bearing of arms was essential to protecting this country from tyrannical governments. Fresh on their minds was the revolutionary clash between the tax-happy British government and a population of armed and ragtag citizens with the dream of freedom burning in their souls.”
      Now the would-be slave masters in our government have decided try a new avenue. They have teamed up with tyrants, dictators and murderers around the globe in an attempt to have the United Nations dismantle our constitution through the Arms Trade Treaty.
      On Jul 29, 2012, Townhall Magazine3 reported on the then on-going UN negotiations regarding the Arms Trade Treaty4 which supposedly would only affect international arms trade and have no effect on 2nd amendment rights within the borders of the US of A.
      According to the treaty supporters, our constitution would always override any international treaty. They say “The ATT will only apply to international export, import, and transfer of conventional weapons.5” Besides, didn't the Supreme Court just rule that we all have the right to bear arms and the it is an individual; not a collective right6?  Our government wouldn't possibly try to take away our basic rights would they? 

Let's look at the facts
       The countries that are pushing the hardest for the Arms Trade Treaty are Algeria, China, Colombia, Cuba, the Russian Federation and Indonesia.7 Now there's a list of people who support personal freedom. Yeah...and I'm a famous super model
      It would ”Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp). And “Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.3”
      In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that “Treaty law can override the Constitution.” “Treaties for example…can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” and...A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt signed and implemented the terms of a treaty “...for two years before the Senate acted.” In his defense, he said “The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did.” 8
This U.N. Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target all types of conventional weapons...9
       As of last week, the Arms treaty has failed to pass the UN; at least in part because President Obama feels that he needs to wait for his re-election before he shoves it down our throat. “A Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, also blamed the U.S., saying 'they derailed the process,' adding that nothing will happen to revive negotiations until after the U.S. presidential election in November.10” That sounds a bit like what Obama said to Vladimir Putin, doesn't it?
      The US wasn't the only country that decided not to sign on the dotted line. Russia and China joined the United States in saying that “...they needed more time to consider the issues.11” My thanks to Presidents Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin. Not sure what their real reasons were.

     Although it isn't getting a whole lot of press, there was another reason that Obama decided not to try to sign away our constitution. At least for now. According to The New York Times [July 27, 2012] A large group of senators sent a letter to Obama assuring him that the treaty stood a snowball's chance in hell(sic) of being ratified. It takes at least 67 senators to ratify a treaty and 51 of them signed the letter.
      Don't think that's the end of it though. Whether Obama wins or loses in November, he will have nothing to lose by trying to persuade a lot of senators to go along with him. AND... if the Dems lose a lot of senate seats in the election, the lame duck session is liable to feel that they have nothing to lose either and push to get it ratified before January restores some sanity to congress and the White House.

      In the meantime, Liberals in congress are launching a parallel attack at our ability to keep our country free by continually aligning all gun ownership with sporting use. How many politicians and vocal gun-grabbers have you heard say “Give me one good reason why anybody needs a magazine that holds 30, 40 or 50 bullets to hunt a deer?” As I and many others have said over and over, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting ducks. Or deer. Or target practice and competition. The reason we need as many rounds as possible at our disposal is to help level the playing field a bit if we have to defend our country from enemies without or within. Reloading takes time; time that costs lives in a firefight.

      In the July 31st edition of USA Today Dennis Henigan, vice president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is quoted as saying there is no viable civilian use for large-round (sic) magazines. "It's rare that anyone has to fire 33 rounds in self-defense.12" He's absolutely correct. And as long as criminals and people bent on harming Americans and America know that many of us HAVE lots of guns and ammunition, our odds of having to use them will remain low. The US military has hundreds of nuclear warheads and it's rare that they have ever had to use them due primarily to the deterrent affect. Thank God.

      Let's face the truth. Whiny, nanny-state, we-know-what's-best-for-you liberals have for decades been trying to – and slowly succeeding in their attempt to completely outlaw private ownership of firearms and remove our capacity for self-defense. We the people need to remain ever-vigilant and let our elected officials know in no uncertain that we will not tolerate the usurpation of any part of our constitution by another country or some international group of do-gooders. Or any body else, for that matter. At least for now we have not only the ability but also the will to resist. With lethal force if necessary.


At least that's my opinion. What's yours?



For an entire page of very quotable quotes regarding the need to be – and remain armed, see: Notable-Quotes
Want to know what some congressional representatives consider to be reasonable gun control? For quotes...and a real insight into the liberal mindset, see: "Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns."




Citations

7 Fake Treaty or Real Treaty?



Have a conspiracy you'd like me to research? Got a question about crypto?  

Write your question or comment HERE and I'll do my best to find and post the 
answer.

If you wish to unsubscribe from this blog, please send an email to pyrate02@gmail.com with the word “UNSUBSCRIBE”in the subject line.


22 March 2012

CITIZEN OR SUBJECT?


      It seems like my monthly postings keeps coming later and later in the month. I do apologise and next month I'll do my damnedest to have it to you by the 5th. This time I really do have a valid reason, though. Two, actually.
     First, there are so many things going on I was having a hard time deciding which one deserves the time to research. I finally settled on this month's topic, sat down to write it and that day my wife had a heart attack. A trip to the ER and the fear of possibly losing my best friend put everything else on hold. While we were dealing with all that that entails, my computer crashed. I thought I had everything backed up. That's what I get for thinking; I didn't double-check the output of my back-up program. There is a lesson in there somewhere.
      BTW; my wife is ok now. Making a few life-style changes and slowin' down a bit but back home and doing well.
      So now I have redone all of my research for this month's topic: The 2nd amendment and some recent court cases and decisions about it.


Here it is in all it's simplicity and glory. 
Amendment II
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.

      This simple, one-sentence part of our constitution has caused more controversy than almost any other legal statement in the history of our great country.
Let's get a bit of historical context.
      A lot of people in this country think that we should have European-style gun laws. They point, quite correctly, to a direct correlation between the very restrictive European laws and most of Europe's very low incidence of gun violence. What these good citizens completely ignore is over 300 years of history and culture.
      Most European countries are hundreds, if not thousands of years old. In their entire history the military were the only ones allowed to posses any more armament than a dagger. Ordinary citizens were simply forbidden from possessing weaponry. That is all they know.
      On the other hand, since the first explorers and settlers landed on America's shores; a century or two before we became a sovereign nation, EVERYBODY had a gun. They (guns) were an absolute necessity for survival both from a view of self defence and for putting food on the table. Even the Quakers and Pilgrims all had guns. Our entire history has been written with the average person being armed.
      In that light, any attempt to disarm our population succeeds only in either disarming the law-abiding citizenry or – if they refuse to give up their ability to defend themselves and their families - making criminals out of them. On the other hand the bad guys, by their very nature, don't pay any attention to the laws in the first place and they keep their guns. Or get more of them. I seriously doubt that any law passed anywhere has ever made a criminal give up his gun.

      So that brings us to this months' topic. What have the courts been deciding recently in regards to the 2nd amendment?

#1 Until 2008, probably the biggest point of disagreement about the 2nd amendment were the first 4 words. Does the statement: “A well regulated militia” refer to the individual or to the national guard? That question has finally been settled. At least for now.
      On 6/26/'08 in District of Columbia v. Heller1, the supreme court held in part : The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home.
      Arguably, the most important part of this decision was 1b that reads:
“The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defence. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicised standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. “
      That reminds me of the old adage: “An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed one a subject.” Obviously, that is what our wise [er than me] founding fathers had in mind.

#2 On June 28th, 2010, the supreme court ruled on McDonald v. Chicago2 , expanding on DC v Heller and stating that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to individual states as well as the Federal Government. In a nutshell, that means that states have to follow the federal constitution as well as their own and that federal trumps state.
      In explaining the Chicago decision, Justice Alito stated "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

#3 A Maryland law restricting carrying outside the home has been struck down. U.S. District Court Judge Benson E. Legg has declared the requirement forcing those applying for a gun-carry permit to show that they have a "good and substantial reason" to do so "impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms," as guaranteed by the Second Amendment3." The judge went on to say: "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

#4 In Colorado, if you have a valid conceal carry permit, you can now carry even on a University campus. Thanks to the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus you can now protect yourself, at least in Colorado, from campus shooters4.

      At least 8 states have passed so-called “Firearms Freedom Acts”; laws that state “ any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.5” FFA s are an attempt to eventually end federal control over all gun laws within an individual state. South Carolina has actually done just that. In 2010 a bill was introduced in their state legislature which would effectively nullify all gun registration laws within the state6. Several more states are considering similar laws. How these laws will hold up to constitutional scrutiny is any body's guess


      In the news lately due to the shooting in Florida of an un-armed teenager, are the so-called Castle Doctrines7 of several states. A Castle Doctrine is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution. At least 22 states have some form of Castle Doctrine, with a few going even further and instituting a "Stand Your Ground" law8. These laws state that you have no duty to flee from an aggressor and that you are justified and indemnified from civil or criminal prosecution for using deadly force, even if you're in a public place and had a chance to leave and avoid the confrontation.      
     Stand Your Ground laws (sometimes known as "Make My Day" laws) are especially controversial; particularly in light of the Zimmerman shooting9.

      The Federalist Papers consist of a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison explaining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America.
      In the Federalist papers # 46, founding father James Madison put the entire need-to-be-armed subject in context when he wrote: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms”10.

      Although many people in the last hundred-or-so years have tried to say that the need to maintain a militia of “all males physically capable of bearing arms” is no longer valid since we have the national guard and a constant standing army, the courts keep upholding an individuals' right to own guns. As one Supreme Court justice-whose name I can't remember- put it (I am quoting from memory so this is a paraphrase) “The 2nd amendment is there in case the courts, military and law enforcement forget about the other 9.”
      Former president Bill Clinton not withstanding, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting ducks. It is a vital part of our way of life; necessary to keep a free people free and to guarantee that the Federal Government won't decide to throw out the constitution and turn us all into subjects and serfs.


At least that's my opinion. What's yours?

To keep an eye on upcoming court cases involving the 2nd amendment to our constitution, visit the Second Amendment Foundation's web site at:
For the complete text of the Constitution of the United States, visit:
If you would like to download and print a nice-looking copy of the Constitution and/or our Declaration of Independence, go to:


Citations

1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/huge-court-victory-for-expanding-second-amendment-rights-by-saf/
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

If you wish to unsubscribe from this blog, please send an email to pyrate02@gmail.com with the word “UNSUBSCRIBE”in the subject line.