The Second Amendment Deals With An Individual Right
Dec 7, 2015 Second Amendment, Tyranny
A piece is posted at Bill Moyers.com by a writer named Dorothy Samuels (the site indicates it was originally posted at The Nation) gives us this writer’s opinion that the Second Amendment was never meant to protect an INDIVIDUAL right to a firearm. She indicates that the Conservatives on the Robert’s Court twisted the words and meaning of the Second Amendment and ignored the prefatory phrase; a well-regulated militia, in order to invent a right out of thin air. Her assertion is that it was well established that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.
[note]I do not agree with her but as an aside, where was her outrage when the Robert’s court, led by John Roberts, codified Obamacare by changing a penalty to a tax?[/note]
Ms. Samuels could not be more wrong. It is important when looking at the Constitution to look at the words the people who wrote it used. It is important to read what they discussed about the document.
With regard to the Second Amendment the Founders were clear that it protected the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt the militia is mentioned and it is important to note that each citizen can be called into service for the militia (at that time men of a certain age). There is no guarantee they ever will but their right to keep and bear arms still exists. If they are ever called they will be properly trained (which is what well-regulated means) to defend the state.
“[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, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
The second phrase reads; “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrase The People means the body citizen. It does not mean the militia, it means the citizens or the people. The preamble to the Constitution starts out We The People and no one is foolish enough to suggest that this means only those called into the militia.
[note]If Ms. Samuels and those who think like her believe that only the militia should be armed then we need a lot more people carrying firearms. Title 10 US Code Subsection 311 defines the militia as;
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. Cornell Law[/note]
Many quotes of the Founders can be found here. It is worthwhile to look at them and see what they had to say about individual liberty and freedom and how firearms kept and borne by citizens was important. Note that the quotes discuss the people and their right to bear their PRIVATE arms.
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one [sic] who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
I would also point out that the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Some extend to industry like the media, institutions like religion and to the states and the people of those states. When it all boils down these are individual rights that are protected for the people from their government. The body of the Constitution already addresses standing armies, the Navy and the militia. If Congress intended for arms to only apply to the militia then it would have addressed it in the body and not in the portion that was designed to protect individual rights.
Ms. Samuels claims her position is well established. I say that the opposite was well understood a long time ago so much so that it needed not to be addressed. However, the common thought was displayed in the Dred Scott decision which reads, in part:
It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went [emphasis mine]. Wikipedia
Now the Scott decision was a horrible one and dealt with slavery. The issue about firearms was only presented as a parade of horribles the court said would happen if Negroes (the court’s words, not mine) were allowed to be free (to be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens). However, it clearly shows that the court was concerned that a ruling freeing Scott would give him the same rights as citizens and among those was the right to keep and carry firearms wherever he went.
There is no doubt that it was well established, contrary to Ms. Samuels claims, that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right so much so it was stated as an afterthought in the Scott decision. It was well known that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one, that was never in doubt. It concerned the court that Scott would be allowed to do that which free men were already allowed to do.
So it is clear that Ms. Samuels is incorrect. She and those who dissented in Heller are the ones on the wrong side of history. Firearms are not responsible for the problems of society.
People are and the response, all too often, from people like Ms. Samuels is to punish those who had nothing to do with the problem.
It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.
All you have to do is read what the Founders wrote and look at the real history of the nation, not the common core crap they are teaching these days.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, dorothy samuels, founders, individual right, lies, Second Amendment
O’Malley Gun Control Plan Dismantled
Nov 3, 2015 2016 Election, Political
As governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley pushed through gun control measures that violate the US and Maryland Constitutions and he assured the morons who follow him that this would make life better and safer. The only thing O’Malley accomplished was to make it tougher for the law abiding. Criminals in Maryland still get firearms and they still shoot people. Led by Democrats the criminals in Baltimore riot and destroy with impunity.
Martin does not dislike firearms. He was perfectly happy with all the armed State Police officers who protected him and his family. He is just not too keen on everyone else having firearms. He is a typical liberal who thinks that he is better than everyone else and that he knows how to run other people’s lives. He is wrong but in his little brain he thinks he is not only correct but that people love him and think he is brilliant.
O’Malley (or O’Moron as I like to refer to him) will unveil his anti-gun platform as he tries to out liberal the other morons running for his party’s nomination. Let us take a look at his platform and dismantle it. Each item of his plan is presented and then I will comment.
Using procurement contracts to advance gun safety by requiring manufacturers that seek federal contracts to make design changes. O’Malley says the changes will “advance gun safety and improve law enforcement’s ability to trace firearms. These include hidden serial numbers that cannot be defaced, micro-stamping, magazine disconnect mechanisms and other next-generation safety improvements.
The last thing first. Being able to track firearms is only effective for tracking those legally owned. If firearms are stolen or obtained via other illegal means they might be able to track back to an individual but not necessarily the person who used the firearm illegally. As for forcing firearms manufacturers to make design changes in order to secure government contracts, what happens if none of them do so? Suppose the gun makers decide not to make changes and not to bid on contracts for government purchases? What happens when government can’t get firearms because of this insanity? I think fewer government agents having guns is a great idea and would applaud any manufacturer who told O’Malley to pound sand. Imagine a President O’Moron {{{shudder}}} who has Secret Service without firearms because no one would buckle to governmental pressure. The government should not be using OUR money to force compliance. Imagine how O’Moron would react if a contract required a company bidding on a government contract to NOT provide abortion services in its employee health care?
Ending the federal defense of gun dealer immunity by stopping enforcement of a 2005 law that O’Malley says protects irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits by victims and families of victims of gun violence
Irresponsible by whose definition? There are already laws that define how gun dealers must act and how they must conduct business. If they are doing things incorrectly then they should be fined or lose their license. But a blanket statement such as this opens the door for lawsuits based on some arbitrary idea of irresponsibility. Someone could be shot with a legally purchased firearm that was later stolen and an idiot like O’Moron would claim the dealer should have known it would get stolen so he is irresponsible and therefore subject to litigation.
But hey, let’s take this idea a little farther. The government at all levels allows the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those affected by its irresponsible permission for the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government KNOWS people will be harmed by these products and that is why there are warnings on the labels of tobacco and alcohol products. So the government is being irresponsible in allowing these items to be sold. Based on what O’Moron thinks about firearms dealers the government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those harmed by these products.
Strictly enforcing existing bans on gun ownership for domestic abusers and stalkers, to “disarm those convicted for committing domestic violence
This is a tricky one. The first thing that needs to happen is that we ensure people who did not actually commit domestic violence or stalking are not convicted or charged or discriminated against. A single incident that involves two people might be domestic violence or it might not. By all means, if a person is involved in domestic violence then that person (he or she) should not be allowed to own a firearm. But before we take away this right we need to make absolutely certain and there should be a method to regain that right if circumstances warrant it.
The reality though is we already have laws that prohibit these folks from owning firearms. If these people decide they want a firearm they will get one. No law preventing the ownership of a firearm will prevent a person who wants to get one from doing so. Protective orders and orders banning a person from owning firearms are only pieces of paper that will not prevent a person from getting and using firearms. These work no better than gun control laws because those inclined to break the law will do so. This is more of a method for government to define what a person did as domestic violence and then remove guns that way. How will government strictly enforce this as O’Moron wants? It can’t enforce the gun control laws liberals have already enacted. If they could Baltimore and Chicago would be safe places instead of shooting galleries. The best thing to do would be to ensure the victims of such violence can get and carry a firearm for protection. But O’Moron opposes this. Once again, you are not as important as he and his family.
Banning so-called “cop killer” ammunition by working to close loopholes that O’Malley’s campaign says “have made hundreds of kinds of dangerous cartridges available for sale.” The campaign says he will act in his executive capacity as president to tighten current regulations
This is one of those slippery slope deals in that he can ban “cop killer” ammunition and then define all ammo as cop killer. There are bans on the manufacture of certain types of ammo and those laws should be good enough. If manufacturers are making this ammo then they need to be dealt with. But let me be clear, if government agents are allowed to have this ammo then so should the general population. Once again O’Moron talks about tightening current legislation as if that will stop people from breaking the law. It is illegal to buy, sell, possess or use Heroin but people do so every day and no law has ever stopped that. People can buy ammo from other countries and get it in here. If we can’t stop millions of illegals from walking in we sure as hell won’t stop illegal guns and ammo from getting in (though with Obama and Holder it went out of the country instead).
A new “electronic alert system” to inform local law enforcement officials when those who are prohibited from purchasing firearms attempt to do so. The campaign says the system will be “modeled on the FBI alert system used when fugitives purchase guns” and will help law enforcement officials identify which attempted sales to prosecute
This is Mickey Mouse stuff. What happens if a person is unaware that something in his past prevents him from owning a firearm and he attempts to buy one? Would not it be more prudent for the dealer to inform the person and tell him who to contact in government to see if this can be rectified? Then a notation can be made that the person was so informed and if that person attempts to buy firearms later then the police could be notified? In fact, it might be better for the dealer to inform the police of the first attempt and that the person was notified and then for the dealer to notify law enforcement of any subsequent attempts. If the system were properly annotated and working correctly this would be quite easy. O’Moron is looking for a bigger government boondoggle to further gum up the works.
Requiring the safe storage of firearms in homes by issuing and enforcing federal rules that make clear safety standards for gun locks and safes
Here is the short story. What I do in MY house with MY property is none of the government’s business and I will not be regulated by them. The reality is there are two ways to determine if you did not secure your firearms the way people like O’Malley want you to. The first is for there to be a problem with the firearm (like a child getting it and shooting someone). The second is government coming to check. Government will NOT be checking in my house to see what I do with MY property. Responsible people do not leave firearms in an unsafe manner. Yes, we hear some stories about some kid getting a gun from under a bed and shooting himself or someone else but the story usually involves a firearm that was not legally owned by a person who should not have it. Regardless, if you want to leave a loaded shotgun in the corner of a room, that is YOUR business.
Strengthening enforcement and audits of licensed dealers to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. The campaign says this action includes “conducting background checks of gun dealer employees; ensuring that dealers who have their licenses revoked do not become unlicensed sellers without first liquidating their inventories; and using audit inspections to check dealer inventories for stolen guns
This is harassment of licensed gun dealers. They already have to comply with a mountain of laws and paperwork. They get inspected and they have to renew their licenses regularly. I am fairly sure most, if not all, of this is in place. I would also imagine that a dealer runs a serial number before purchasing a firearm so it would be unlikely that he would have a stolen one in his possession.
Martin O’Moron is an elitist who thinks that responsible people should not have firearms and should have their lives run by people like him, you know, their betters. He is a low life cretin who infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens for political gain and so that he can control them. He is not bothered by the firearms that protect him but he does not want others to have that protection.
Given the rumors of O’Malley’s extramarital affair(s) perhaps he should spend more time taking care of his own life and less time getting in our business.
I do not like this troll and I sincerely hope he is never elected to another office. It is time for him to get a real job and earn money that did not come from the sweat of OUR brows.
To paraphrase George W Bush, you are either with the Constitution or you are against it. If you are against it then you are a domestic enemy. My oath says I have to protect against people like you, Marty….
MOLON LABE Marty, you little twit.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, elitist, gun control, liberal, lies, martin o'malley, moron, statist
The UN Climate Tribunal
Nov 2, 2015 Political
Don’t be confused tribunal is a fancy word for court. The climate NAZIs want to impose restrictions on wealthy countries in order to redistribute their wealth to poorer nations.
China and India are very happy about the prospect because they will be deemed poor nations even though China holds a TRILLION dollars of US debt and produces 17% more carbon than the US (as if carbon output is really a bad thing).
There is no doubt Barack Obama and John Kerry are trying to do an end run around Congress and put this tribunal in place so they can finally claim a victory in the foreign policy arena.
Though I would not call this a victory they certainly would and after their series of foreign policy disasters they need something to point to and claim a victory.
The idea is for the UN to be able to decide climate change issues and who has to pay.
The UN will force wealthy nations (as if any country with $20 TRILLION in debt and $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities can be called wealthy) to pay poorer nations. The UN will decide and we will pay.
According to the proposed draft text of the climate treaty, the tribunal would take up issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.” WND
Keep in mind the taxpayer will fork over money for this.
The UN is a terrible organization and we should kick it out of our country and leave it so we do not have to put up with its terror.
And we should prosecute those in our government who push this on us.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: climate change, extortion, Kerry, lies, Obama, un, wealth redistribution
A Koch And A Smile
Oct 27, 2015 2016 Election, Political
I am sure many folks have heard of the Koch brothers. They are the successful guys who use their money to support candidates they believe in and are the most hated by liberals. They are constantly attacked by the likes of Harry Reid and his ilk and made out to be demons because of who (and what) they spend their money on.
Charles and David Koch happen to support conservative candidates and causes so, to liberals, when they spend their money on these things they are evil and what is wrong in America.
The left never complains about the evil man George Soros and his money. Soros has spent millions upon millions of dollars for liberal causes and no liberal ever questions the way that money is spent or declares that Soros is what is wrong with America. George is Jewish but he pretended to be Christian and helped confiscate Jew’s property for the Nazis. He also broke the Bank of England by manipulating the currency.
He is an evil man but since he spends his money on liberal/progressive causes he is cherished among the left.
The Koch brothers, to the left, are horrible people who want to see people die so they can earn more money.
Never mind the fact that the Koch brothers employ 60,000 people and produce products that we need. I know that liberals don’t care for toilet paper (from those who say we should use one sheet to those Occupy Wall Street types who just crap where they want) but the civilized among us are happy it is available. Even liberals can’t get by the fact that Dixie cups and Brawny paper towels make life better. The funny thing is their company makes some of the parts that are used in smart phones. You know, the devices liberals take pictures with to decry capitalism…
The Koch’s produce many products that make our lives better and they employ a lot of folks who work hard, earn good money and pay taxes.
Yep, they have to be bad because they are successful.
Charles Koch recently discussed his views about being demonized in order to clear the air.
He is tired of being a villain for spending his money as he sees fit.
I don’t blame him. It is HIS money and he can spend it how he wants (and if he wants to give me a million dollars I would not be unhappy about that). I don’t care for Soros and will have a party when he finally leaves this place but he can spend his money as he wishes.
Mr. Koch’s charitable donations equal about $305,000 per day ($111 million last year). You never hear about that when he is being demonized.
The reality is America needs more people like the Kochs, who want everyone to succeed, and fewer like Soros who want to increase their wealth at the expense and misery of others.
Liberals hate the Kochs because they are the American Dream. They have succeeded and spread their wealth around while providing good paying jobs for a large number of people. They are proof that you can make it in America.
Liberals can’t have that because they want people to be slaves to the government plantation, particularly a government plantation run by liberal task masters.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: conservative, freedom, koch, liberalism, lies, money, progressive, Soros
Does Obamacare Cover Federal Assault?
Oct 19, 2015 Obamacare, Political
Obamacare was passed in order for government to control more of our lives and the real reason many Republicans won’t really fight to get rid of it is because they like control as well. When government controls your health care it controls you (and when it takes away your firearms it completely controls you and you have no means to resist).
Obamacare is so wonderful that it had to have penalties built into it to force people to join. It was sold on the promise that it would not affect those who had insurance but many folks ended up losing the doctors and insurance coverage Barry Obama promised them they could keep. Those who figured it would not affect them were suddenly caught up in the mix and were subject to the rules and penalties.
Let me be clear, regardless of what Chief Justice Roberts calls it, the money paid for noncompliance is a penalty. Obama ran around the country screaming that this was not a tax and he even chided George Stephanopoulos for suggesting it was a tax at which time Obama enthusiastically informed him it absolutely was not. It is a shared responsibility penalty.
The law called it a penalty and Chief Justice Roberts and those who sided with him got it wrong. It is a penalty for not buying something government wants you to buy (even the linked article below calls this a “federal penalty”).
[note]How would liberals act if the government passed a law that forced everyone to buy a handgun (to curb crime which has a major economic impact) and then fined (oops, taxed) them if they did not?[/note]
But back on target. Those penalties are now coming into full swing (they were lower in the beginning) and many folks will be socked with a pretty big bill from the IRS if they do not have insurance.
This amount will either be added to what they owe or deducted from their refund. Either way many folks will end up losing money simply because they did not purchase something they did not want (or could not afford).
Obamacare needs to force people, even those who are young and healthy or able to pay out of pocket, to sign up in order to pay for everything it promises.
The Obama regime plans to remind people of this penalty during the upcoming enrollment season. The idea is to scare people into signing up because without those folks paying in for things they might not want or need the entire thing goes belly up.
The idea of lower costs is out the door as premiums are going up again next year. Perhaps those without insurance are causing the problem but the more likely reason is that this federal monstrosity is very bloated and expensive.
It has to be in order to make the government bigger, to control our lives and to achieve the liberal goal of wealth redistribution.
No one should be forced to buy what they do not want or to pay for things for other people. But, people should pay their own bills if they end up needing medical care (payment plans work for more than cars and cell phones).
Last year the total amount of penalties collected by the IRS was 1.5 BILLION dollars. I only hope that most of it affected liberals who supported Obamacare.
I also hope the larger penalties will affect them as well.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.