Virginia, Rising

Facebook has a new group.

Virginia, Rising.

The group started a week or two back, and is up to 8000 members suddenly.

The tyrannical Governor’s attacks on the Second Amendment have triggered a response he surely didn’t expect.

Several other states’ citizens have banded together with Virginia in support of the “2A sanctuary counties”.

Everyone is talking about this.

http://sedgefieldpress.com/the-virginia-flashpoint-a-clear-and-present-danger

The only thing is this guy’s article I don’t wholly agree with his the idea of Urban Preppers hunkering down in their own cities.  I DO agree they will eventually be over run.  I don’t agree that “Bugging in” is a bad idea though.  But, this is not the purpose of the discussion here.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/usmc-major-slams-virginia-lawmakers-your-same-mindset-is-what-150-years-ago-led-this-country-into-a-civil-war/

If you’re not following Virginia, you’d better.

If you’re not supporting Virginia, you’d better.

If you are against the private ownership of guns, you’re on the wrong side of history in America.

Lies about the Second Amendment

On 27 March 2018, John Paul Stevens, a former judge, and served as an “associate justice” on the supreme court, wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times.
 
In the article, he made a couple of fallacious statements. The first of these statements goes:
 
“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”
 
First, his OPINION is that this concern is a “relic of the past”. In fact, this concern is precisely why the America people will never be debarred the use or ownership of ARMS. The VERY Government that is attempting to ban guns is doing so because they plan something illegal, immoral or tyrannical.
 
There was no standing army when the Second was created. The official US Army came into being AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified. There was no “national guard” until 1933. So the argument is specious at best, downright wrong and inconsistent with actual, legal thinking either of “that time period” or now.
 
His next misstep comes in the form of a fabrication.
 
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation.
 
In truth, the Second Amendment is not “so understood” by people who actually “understand” the law. In FACT, the Second Amendment DOES PLACE limits – one specifically, on ALL forms of Government in the United States. That limit is places upon the states and the Feds and prevents them from “Infringement”. Period. End of statement.
 
The Second Amendment is NOT a Rights Granting statement. It is an imperative, ordering the government, the courts, the Executive NOT to interfere with the Rights of the People.
 
It isn’t the government granting us a Right. It’s not giving men/women the ability to “change as necessary” those Rights. It is an EDICT against the change of those Rights.
 
That a man show served with the Supreme Court takes this extreme view should be a lesson to one and all that there are people that WISH TO REMOVE YOUR RIGHT to own any sort of arms.
 
The next place he stepped in his own lies is as follows:
 
“When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.””
 
First of all, the NRA is made up of people like you and I. While I am no longer a member of the NRA (they became too Liberal for my tastes). The PEOPLE have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The NRA was founded to keep that right in place. The Gun Owners of America was an answer to the Liberalism of the NRA.
 
The only Fraud here is Justice Stevens. And probably Warren Burger.
 
In effect, this is more proof they want your guns. And also, in effect, in 2008 they overturned that ruling, and you will note that Stevens was one of the dissenters. In other words, he was wrong. And still is wrong.
 
“In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.”
 
The Left LOVES to use the phrase “long settled” or “settled science” as if the last word on everything from everyone has made this decision.  The last word will never be spoken on this, because there will always be “dissenters” of course; and that’s part of the greatness of living in America in the first place.  The ability to have your own opinion and voice it.  However, just because you believe something is “settled” the way YOU like it doesn’t mean it is.  I personally believe we’re at a crossroads and we are about to step into the abyss over this.
 
In reality, in life, both now and 1776, there are people who “feel” as if guns should be outlawed, or the people who own them are “crazy” or “nuts” or “insane”.  Arms are what the Founding Fathers said, and what they meant, and what they wanted for all time.  Not some made up, pretend re-defining of a phrase.
 
The very images of the Musket next to an AR15 is proof enough that some people are so caught up in their “feelings” they can’t grasp simple English.
 
The Second Amendment makes NO distinction on technology, no distinction on types of weapons, but clearly and succinctly states “Arms”.
 
Arms is not a “fire arm” alone. Arms stands for all possible weapons with which to fight, defend and could include bottles, cans, knives, swords, nuclear weapons, tanks and battle cruisers, not to mention AR15s.
 
The Left, I submit has it wrong on all counts.
 
It is unconstitutional to take away our Arms. It is illegal. It is wrong and immoral of Federal workers (yes, Judges are still “workers” in the strictest sense of the word) to attempt to Legislate away our Rights. What’s more, it is out right treasonous of ANYONE in an elected or appointed position to demand or press for the removal of our Natural rights to Self Defense. The VERY ACT of doing so is WHY you have the Right in the first place.
 
In the last paragraph, Stevens makes his clean cut case for banning, although he doesn’t state it in such words.
 
“…would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.”
 
By, Golly, it’s for the CHILDREN.
 
It’s a proven fact that we have less crime where more guns are available to normal, every day citizens. Criminals have a way of finding guns and other weapons all the time, regardless of laws preventing them from purchasing them or using them in crimes. It’s already against the law to commit crimes…..and yet, criminals still commit crimes.
 
The Media too, is culpable here. They refuse to carry stories about the “Good Guy with a Gun” who stopped a crime or mass shooting.
 
Folks, this is all-out war now. An UnCivil War. They want your guns.
 
Act accordingly.
 

Declaration of War – The Left has stated their true intentions

Beto O’Rourke said, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
“We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore,” the former Texas congressman said during the third Democratic presidential debate, hosted by ABC News.
“If the high-impact, high-velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield … when we see that being used against children,” O’Rourke said. He recalled talking to a woman in Odessa, Texas, who had watched her 15-year-old daughter bleed to death after she was shot by a man wielding an AR-15 late last month.
This statement is, without a doubt, a declaration of war on Americans’ Rights and Freedoms.  Guns in the hands of the men and women of this country isn’t just a right, it’s a responsibility, one that as Citizens of this great country, we have duty to observe.
With his pandering comments, he has outted the Left as Gun-Grabbers, something they repeatedly talk down to us about, saying “No one is coming for your guns!”
Well, that part is correct.  The government hasn’t the man power to take our guns.  There are not enough trained people in the US Government, armed or not, to come and take the millions of weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens in the USA.  They can’t even stop CRIMINALS who get them illegally on the streets, so they sure as hell aren’t going to take our guns.
However, this actual “Declaration of War” is exactly what the Left has been awaiting, someone to stick his foot in his mouth, and “make it real” for both sides.  Do you, as an American, sit on your collective asses and say and do nothing now?  Do you wait?  What DO you do?  Let’s continue….
Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit that we are already deep into Civil War 2.0. We have been for some time now. Obama brought on the “Great Oppression” – Bill Clinton and Janet Reno began the process. They demonized “militia groups” because they needed to point at someone as “evil”. The Militia is seen as a “Government Hating” entity, and is made up of mostly white people. (US Census puts whites in the US at roughly 76% of the population, Blacks at about 17%) – thus you will see such a disparity in all aspects of life.
For informational purposes, US Code states:
10 U.S. Code § 246. 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 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 militia then, is made up of all the of people, who are male, 17 years of age up to 45 years of age, and does NOT exclude women, nor those over the age of 45. At 62 years of age, this “old gentleman” has carried his share of various types of weapons, and used them. With the new technology of eye surgery, I now have better vision (especially in my iron sights eye) than I had at the age of 10 years old.
Obama further eroded rights of Americans, if not in deed, certainly in words. “Bible and gun clingers”. What Clinton and Reno started on Ruby Ridge, and Waco have been realized by many as a wake up call about the attack on American’s God Given Rights to defense, not just of oneself, but of the nation.
When the Founding Fathers put together the Constitution, it was meant to create, and subsequently preserve the Republic. “A Republic,” said Franklin, “if you can keep it.” Keep it we will.
Civil Wars do not begin with gun shots. They begin with disagreement. Usually over some political aspect of the country in which they take place. The American Civil War did NOT start over Slavery. While Slavery was certainly one of the main concerns of both side, and has been pushed to the forefront of history, the truth is, each State has rights over it’s own governance, that the Federal Government may not touch. And so too, the People have reserved to themselves ALL RIGHTS not given to the states.
There is a fine balance that is out of kilter now. Some states wish to ban guns. Some don’t. Some in the Federal government want to ban them, while others do not. Above and beyond the State or the Federal governments however, are the Rights of the People.
The Second Amendment is extremely clear.
The Militia, made up of the PEOPLE, the Rights of those People to keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT be infringed.  The phrase “well-regulated” isn’t “government run”, it means “trained”.  People who train to defend the towns, villages and states are the militia, not “national guard”.  The National Guard didn’t exist until 1933
Let us be clear… the Civil War 2.0 started over political disagreement. It will be argued for centuries in the future how, when, why, where and who started it, but it is as simple as the Bill of Rights. No GOVERNMENT, State or Federal MAY touch the Right of the People to protect and defend their homes, state or homeland.
The Second Amendment is the back up to the First. You have an absolute right to voice your opinion of the government, government officials, follow your own religion, or to be a journalist and tell the truth. The Second Amendment is there to protect that first one, and all the others. It’s not the “First” in the list of rights, but certainly as important as the First is.
When a person running for the highest office in the land states, unequovcably, “Yes, you WILL turn in your guns” – that is an open declaration of war against the People of this country. Not the few that own guns, ALL OF THEM.
There will be those that support such a person, and they will, ultimately, be on the losing side of that war.
Today – 14 September 2019 – marks the true beginning of Civil War 2.0. Shot still have yet to be fired (unless you count the Texas, California and Ohio mass shootings, by Liberals and Bernie supporters, which, *I* DO COUNT as first shots). But the war of words just heated to the point of white hot.
Beto O’Rourke called the FBI against Patriots who “threatened” him – they merely asked if he was going to lead the charge to take the guns or send his minions…. so, truthfully, what is a “threat”?
O’Rourke made the first threat. HE personally declared war. Will he become President? Highly doubtful, but Leftists, Marxists and Gun Haters are flocking to the pandering fool, making themselves targets as well.
The Law of Unintended Consequences stands clear. If you poke a sleeping bear with a stick, you’re liable to be eaten that afternoon.
The choice now, is yours, People of the United States. We are the Government. The Government doesn’t control us. We are not going to sit and let anyone take our guns. We will fight. We are already organizing against such a thing.
If the Country wants an Uprising, it will get one.
My humble opinion is that people like this O’Rourke character should slowly back into the shadows, go back to whatever he was doing before, be quiet, hide, and stop poking the bear.

Conspiracies, Gun Control and You

I find it disconcerting that people continually bring up conspiracies, and call those of us who, by the way are very well read on some of the subjects, “sheep” and “brainwashed”.

This is a Leftist tactic. Call people names. Make them feel bad. Make them think they are stupid. Look, I’ve been following and in many cases, disproving (even, shall we say ‘disemboweling’), conspiracy theories) for a very long time. Perhaps longer than some folks visiting here have been alive.

I even ran a site called “Anomalies Network”. I was the forums administrator and one of my jobs was to take apart conspiracy theories and show the holes. I don’t have as much time these days to do that – but suffice it to say that almost every stupid theory out there, from 9-11 to Illuminati has been pretty much disproven.

People, however persist on these things because it gives an air of mystery.

Let me explain what is wrong with this…. it is distracting. It keeps people in an uproar over the wrong things. It takes the focus off the most important things in life, including but not limited to taking care of your own, your family, yourself, your friends and your future.

Right now, there are things that are SIGNIFICANTLY more important than “George Bush caused 9-11”.

  1. Pedophilia… of EPIC proportions.
  2. GUN CONTROL
  3. Socialists, Communists and Muslims in Government
  4. Fighting the good Fight

Choose your battles wisely and carefully. Of all of those things above, Gun Control is the NUMBER ONE MOST IMPORTANT point of the four.

The US Government is onto the pedo rings, and they are taking them down. But, it answers what has happened to so many children who simply vanished over the years.

Socialists and Communists and Muslims in Government will work itself out, or it won’t.

Fighting the Good Fight – the thing that is most near and dear to your heart, whatever that might be, is nothing if you don’t have the freedom to fight. I fight against censorship constantly, to the point I’ve been banned from Social Media in some areas. But, I’m STILL HERE, aren’t I?

Gun Control – isn’t about guns, it’s about CONTROL.

The NRA, GOA and a couple other organizations have more or less folded under pressure from the Left. And from internal pressure of those who think it easier to “get along to go along”.

Gun Control affects us all. Cops, Military, Fire Fighters, and Civilians. A weapon in the hand of a trained individual is worth all the cops in the world if they are 6 minutes away.

Controlling the guns – a plank of the platform of the Leftists in Congress (Beto O’Rourke for example) is absolutely his highest and most important point of order. Bernie Sanders is right there with him.

These two men have one thing in Common. Socialism.

Which, eventually, leads to Communism.

American can NOT become Communist, while the men and women of this country stand up and firmly say “NO”. And to do this we MUST in unison, stand say, “You Shall NOT infringe our Right to keep and bear Arms”.

Stand up. Call your Congressional Reps and tell them in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, attempting to remove our weapons, or access to them, absolutely, unequivocally means WAR.

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment

by Rick Donaldson

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.

A simple, yet profound sentence, one which has meant and still means the most to the United States and Freedom from Tyranny throughout two hundred plus years as a Country.

The Second Amendment was ratified on December 17, 1791, along with the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment protects that entire Constitution, and all the other Rights.

The phrasing seems to upset those who hate guns because they can not fathom things in any terms other than the “here and now”, or understand times of old, equating everything they read with current technology. But, “guns” are not what that Amendment was written about anyway. Read on.

There have been debates for at least two decades on the meaning of the word militia. The phrase has been bandied about by Right, Left, Center, Libertarians, Progressives, Democrats, Republicans and many others. All of them have tried to convince others what the word “militia” means, or that the phrasing precludes or includes things it does or doesn’t.

People have made comments about this or that “clause” and how the words work together, or don’t work. Or work differently than we are led to believe.

What ALL have failed to do is understand the time period, the history and the men and women of that time period.

In the 18th Century, England and other countries, while many had standing armies, also all had militias. The United States’ Colonists had “militias”. They did not have a “standing Army”. In fact, there was NO ARMY when the Revolutionary War began. There were militia groups and some more organized groups ended up becoming the Army we know today. The US Army, as we know it today didn’t come into being until 1796. Five YEARS after the Constitution was ratified. There was no “National Guard”. There were only militias. Militias are explained later.

In those times, and today, codified into US Code, a militia is defined as all able-bodied males between the ages of 16 and 45 years of age. And no, we’re not forgetting the ladies either, (US Code states 17 – 45):

10 U.S.C. § 311 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 10. Armed Forces § 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 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.

Militias

In 1776, there was no standing Army. The states didn’t want a standing Army. George Washington was against a Standing Army as were many other of the Founding Fathers.

Even so, the MILITIA consisted of well-regulated young and older men.

Each town or jurisdiction, usually counties, had their own militia, made up of able-bodied men and boys who showed up on a regular schedule to the “Town Square” or some other handy location to practice shooting and some limited tactics. These groups were everywhere and they answered to some person, in general a male, who was their “local commander”. He might be a blacksmith, or a tailor, or even the mayor of the town.

The phrase “well-regulated” simply meant “Trained”. It didn’t mean “governed by the government”.

So the phrasing of the Second Amendment is actually quite simple, not complex, and it’s not hard to understand. No “interpretation” is required.

The PEOPLE made up the militia, so, “A well trained militia is necessary and being made up of the PEOPLE, their right to keep and bear arms WILL NEVER be infringed.”

The militia was then, and is now, the people. The people are the militia, and the government is constrained from touching rights to keep and bear arms. Period.

National Guard

The National Guard did not come into being officially until 1933. So, it was NOT the “National Guard” of which they spoke. It was NOT a standing Army, which they did not want.

Technology

Fire arms were muskets. But other weapons were not. Swords are weapons, and while there were no AR15s, no technological requirements for or against any sorts of weapons are found in the Amendment.

Instead we find the word ARMS. Not FIREARMS. Not Swords. Not guns. Not cannons. Just the word “Arms”.

Arms are ANY and ALL weapons that are known to mankind able to be picked up and used as offensive or defensive weapons. These are not limited to handguns, or rifles.

The Second Amendment doesn’t mention sports rifles, doesn’t mention hand guns. Thus arms are not LIMITED by this definition. Even if you want it to be. It’s simply not.

Weapons of war, weapons of any sort, including pitch forks, shovels, hammers, knives, swords, ballistas, catapults, bows and arrows, slingshots, firearms and “you name it” are included in this definition.

Infringement

Infringed – means “changed, removed, taken away, watered down” and you SHALL NOT INFRINGE. Shall and Shall not are special words. Shall is an IMPERATIVE word. Meaning MUST. When placed with NOT, it changes the imperative to the opposite. If you SHALL do something, you MUST do it. It you SHALL NOT do something, you must NEVER do it.

Thus, another way to say this is, “A well trained militia is necessary since militias are made up of the PEOPLE, their right to keep and bear arms WILL NEVER be infringed.”

Literacy

This is so simple, even a literate child in the 1700s could understand it. Perhaps that is because they were literate and those who wish to limit or ban, or infringe up on the right to keep and bear arms work themselves through many gyrations to do so. Or perhaps they are simply illiterate?

Today, everyone wants to change the meaning, adding in complications to the phrasing, instead of boiling it down completely. English majors, writers and professors have all weighed into the Second Amendment, and nearly all of them trained in Liberal Arts colleges will attempt to change the meaning of the Second Amendment to meet their personal opinions.

It just doesn’t work this way.

Simply put, the Right of the People of the United States SHALL NOT have their Right to Keep and Bear Arms infringed. The US Government, and the STATES may NOT touch that right. Ever.

Read it now, knowing what has been explained, and see for yourself just how simple this phrase is, and know that it’s meaning was to convey to us 243 years later, the exact, same meaning it conveyed in 1776 through 2019.

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.

Men and women of the United States, Citizens, and those who have stated their intent to become citizens make up the militia, organized, unorganized and in some cases, the “disorganized militias” and you have an absolute right to keep and bear any Arm you wish, be it a rifle, a handgun, a musket or a cannon.

This writer will proudly bear both his rifles and swords, in addition to his Pen, of which is sometimes been stated to be “mightier than the sword”.

“Reasonable Restraint” – is a misnomer

I do not know the author of this piece.  But, most of it appears to have been written by one person, with others contributing.  PLEASE READ THIS, understand it, and pass it on.  It is extremely important in the debate about “gun control”.

There will be no compromise on the Second Amendment.  Here’s the article:

“Regarding the governments ability to impose “Reasonable Restraint” which has now become the mantra of our government. Supporters of the Amendment claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter thateven if that were the case, the federal government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a “declaratory and restrictive clause” to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its power” to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Another way to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment is re-write it through the preamble:

“Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear Arms.”

The preamble and original intent of the Amendments has been suppressed by the institutions of government because it would expose their usurpation of power and perversion of Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

By advancing the myth that the Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the federal government has been able to convert enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The federal government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the federal government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the federal government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on federal power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the federal government possessed the authority to nullify them?

When the federal government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Federal Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can’t be limited or taken away.]

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging that people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle that government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief that individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the federal government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on federal power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on federal power are being replaced by government decree.

Opponents of the Second Amendment always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendment by asserting that rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the federal government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows that the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.”

NRA Statement

Fairfax, Va.— Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, released the following statement on Tuesday after retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens advocated for a repeal of the Second Amendment:

“The 97-year-old retired justice has long held the opinion that American citizens do not have the individual right to own a firearm for self-protection. Emboldened by the mainstream media, the gun-control lobby is no longer distancing themselves from the radical idea of repealing the Second Amendment and banning all firearms. The protestors in last week’s march told us with their words and placards that the current debate is not about fake terms like “commonsense” gun regulation. It’s about banning all guns. The men and women of the National Rifle Association, along with the majority of the American people and the  Supreme Court, believe in the Second Amendment right to self-protection and we will unapologetically continue to fight to protect this fundamental freedom.”