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
Elected Officials Should Not Have Firearms
Jul 21, 2015 Political, Second Amendment
The draconian rules at the Veteran’s Administration allow a person to be adjudicated as incompetent based solely on the fact the person needs someone else to manage their finances. The only thing needed is that someone has had a fiduciary appointed for them.
There are many reasons a person would have this. Perhaps they suffered an injury that prevents them from properly managing their money. Perhaps they are forgetful for whatever reason. The reality is just because one needs help with finances does not mean they are incompetent and therefore can’t own a firearm.
Given the serious flaws in our school system it is a wonder any graduates can handle their own finances.
The people the VA determines are unable to own firearms have their names entered into the database used for background checks. This is often done as the result of an administrative procedure and the affected person finds out when the letter comes in the mail. Instead of having a court determine incompetency the person must go to court to prove they are not incompetent after the fact.
It appears now as if the government, led by Obama, is working to keep millions of the elderly from being able to buy a firearm. The Social Security Administration has been working in the dark to craft rules on how to report the same things to the database as the VA. Millions of older Americans have a fiduciary appointed and under the ancient rules this will prevent them from owning firearms. The government will deem them incompetent without the benefit of a court hearing.
[note]It is not just the elderly. Many people are on Social Security for some sort of disability and if that includes someone to manage finances those folks could be in jeopardy.[/note]
This is just one more reason to get rid of Social Security and replace it with private accounts that people actually own.
If the inability to manage finances is sufficient cause to deny firearm ownership then no one in Congress or the White House should ever be allowed to own a firearm. None of them are able to manage money and they publicly demonstrate their incompetence each and every day.
Hell, the same holds true for elected officials at the state and local level in many parts of the country.
But why stop with them? If you need welfare then you have someone managing your finances by paying your bills for you. If that is the case then you should not be allowed to own a firearm.
It is time for the VA to change the rules. It is way past time that incompetence in these cases is determined by the courts and not bureaucrats who are paid bonuses for disarming veterans.
And it is well past time for government to stay out of our lives.
For those who think Obama has given up on disarming the people think again. All tyrants disarm the people before they can ruthlessly control them.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Congress, firearms, Second Amendment, social security, white house
Apply Same Sex Marriage Argument To Second Amendment
Apr 28, 2015 Commentary
It works better there…
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today regarding same sex marriage. Two items are at issue here. The first is whether the Court will require all states to allow same sex marriage and the second is whether states that do not have SSM will be required to honor SSM from states that do allow it. If the first one passes the second is basically moot. If the second one passes then it invalidates the first because people can travel to get married and then return to the state that does not allow it.
It appears to be an all or nothing issue.
I read some of the arguments and do not agree with a lot of the pro argument side. There is no Constitutional right to marry. This applies to any kind of marriage. No one has the right to marry period. People have to apply for a license and the state can deny that license for any number of reasons.
The reality is that marriage is something that has been defined as the union between a man and a woman for a very long time. The US even made polygamy illegal thus strengthening the issue of one man and one woman.
The other reality is that marriage has always been an issue that was decided by the individual states. Different states have different rules for who can and cannot get married. You see, there is no right because you need permission.
It is also true that marriage has been seen as a religious institution for a long time. The government got involved for a number of reasons but the basic concept has its foundation in religion.
A state has the right to define marriage so some states have SSM and others do not. It is important to note that the large number of states that have it is no indication that most favor it as many were forced to recognize it even though their citizens voted against it. Activist courts forced them to accept it.
I have read many posts about the issue. People are claiming that this is a basic right and government should not be allowed to restrict it. They claim that people should not be allowed to vote on these rights and they are being discriminated against. They further claim that most of society agrees with it so it should be made the law of the land.
I have already shown that it is not a constitutionally protected item and that states have the right to regulate it (not the federal government). But let us ignore that for a moment and assume these people are correct.
Why not use this same logic for firearms ownership and carry where it would more appropriately apply? The Second Amendment is absolutely in the Constitution and it protects the preexisting right to keep and bear arms. It further states that right shall not be infringed.
But liberals, the very same group that is saying SSM is a right and that it should apply to all states equally especially since most states already allow it (a fact that is skewed by court action) will say that people should not own or carry firearms and that states can decide what they want to do. These are the very same people who will work hard to have this protected right banned.
[note]During arguments one of the justices asked about clergy being forced to perform these marriages if they are made legal. He was assured this would not happen as there is a First Amendment right to protect them. They have ignored the Second so what makes anyone think they will obey the First? Once it is legal Obama and his DOJ will force clergy to perform them under threat of jail. Look at how florists, bakers and photographers who have religious objections are treated.[/note]
Most states allow either open or concealed carry (or both) and they do so without the court forcing them to. People in some states are discriminated against because they can’t do the same thing with regard to firearms as those in a majority of the states. A majority of the population is in favor of firearms ownership and shall issue carry permits. As an aside, I prefer must issue with no permit required. If you pass the check to get the gun you can carry it any way you want.
If the Supreme Court decides that marriage is a right and that the federal government can define it and thus allows SSM to be the law of the land in all states then it only follows that the same should hold true with regard to firearms.
The Court should immediately invalidate all state gun laws and issue an order that all states will be must issue.
The Second Amendment, unlike any kind of marriage, is a right protected by the Constitution.
Funny how liberals always call things they want rights and then say everyone has to give in and honor them while they continue to ignore the G-d given right to keep and bear arms.
I think the SCOTUS will allow SSM. They clearly have no sense of Constitutional rule as evidenced by their decision on Obamacare. Our society is on the decline and will not be around much longer. SSM is one more thing needed to ensure the demise of society.
I do wonder though why states would even obey the ruling. Just tell the feds you won’t do it. What will they do? Tell the SCOTUS you don’t agree and do your own thing.
Obama has been doing that so it is not like he could object.
He certainly has not suffered any consequences of his refusal to obey…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: agenda, gun control, lies, rights, same sex marriage, scotus, Second Amendment
The Second Amendment Is The Permit
Mar 2, 2015 Second Amendment
The West Virginia senate passed a bill that allows its citizens to carry firearms concealed without any kind of permit from the government. The issues is known as Constitutional Carry in that the only thing a law abiding citizen who is not otherwise disqualified from owning a firearm needs to be able to carry it is the existence of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
WV joins several other states that have done the same thing by recognizing that the existence of the right is the only thing needed to exercise the right.
No one should need a permit or a license or any other government approval in order to carry any firearm that the person is not disqualified from legally owning.
[note]”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.”[/note]
Yes, there are people who cannot own a firearm because they are felons or they are mentally ill. Those folks can have their rights restricted because they either have shown they are not to be trusted or they do not have the ability to understand and exercise the responsibility that goes with owning (and carrying) a firearm.
All others should need nothing.
WV is in the process of ensuring the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Constitution, is not infringed.
No one has to jump through government hoops to exercise any other right and the same should be true for the Second Amendment.
There are plenty of states that have a lot of work to do in this area but it is good to see some of them leading the way.
Ever notice the places with the most stringent gun control suffers the most crime and the most violence (often from the very firearms that are “controlled”)? WV recognizes that criminals will not obey any law passed and that law abiding citizens should not be burdened with laws that do nothing to stop crime.
People should be free to carry or not.
That would make the country a much safer place.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitutional carry, criminals, law abiding, Second Amendment, west virginia
Why Shop At An Unsafe Mall?
Feb 28, 2015 Second Amendment
The Mall of America has a policy that bans guns from its premises. Law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry firearms on the property (or at least inside the mall itself) but this policy will do little to stop lawbreakers from entering the mall with firearms and causing all kinds of destruction.
There are threats from terrorist groups where lone wolf terrorists have been asked to attack malls in the US and the Mall of America is on the list of targets. The solution the mall has come up with is for the law abiding to leave their firearms in their cars or at home thus making them sheep.
[note]People who shoot back have a better chance of survival when attacked by a bad guy with a gun.[/note]
What will the mall do? It might hire private security or police officers might be assigned to the property. Neither is effective. Hundreds of law abiding gun owners with their guns are a much more deadly foe than cops or security guards scattered throughout. Besides, wouldn’t it be better if the cops were out patrolling the streets?
The mall has basically told would be attackers that the place is a shooting gallery and invited them in. If it had instead published that it wants and encourages gun owners to carry on the property would be bad guys would think twice before attacking. Bad people do not like to attack those who can and will fight back. They like to pick the weak and unprotected. This is why mass shootings happen at places where guns are banned like malls, theaters and schools.
You have never seen a mass shooting at a gun show.
My suggestion is to avoid the place and any other that does not allow people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. If you are not able to protect yourself then you will not be safe. The government and private businesses are unable to protect you and if you are harmed they will not take responsibility for your injuries.
If enough people stay away from the mall to cause it financial distress and cite the gun ban as the reason the mall’s management will quickly change its mind. If not then a lot of anti gun folks will shop there in their deluded world where they think they are safe. Let them be the targets. Stay home or shop where you are encouraged to carry your firearm.
America was founded by people with guns and our history includes armed people ensuring their own safety and the safety of their neighbors. Instead of being the Mall of America perhaps it should be the Mall of un-American Values…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: anti gun, firearms, law abiding, lies, mall of america, Second Amendment