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.
 

“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.”

Disinformation about 2A

They keep saying “We’re not coming for your guns”, “No one is talking about the second amendment”, “We just want GUN SAFETY”, along with numerous other “statements” to distract you and provide disinformation.

Horseshit. They lie.

There has not been a BIGGER lie told in awhile… except maybe “You can keep your doctor” and “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”….Until now.

Taking your guns is the A #1 GOAL of Marxists in America.  They are disguised as “Progressives”, “Maxists”, “Children” and Communists.  Most of these Children are the sons and daughters of “Marxist loving” parents who would do ANYTHING to protect children, except prevent abortion.  But, boy, let a gun be around and they shit themselves.

Below is a New York Slimes article calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

The world is about to change for some people. Make sure you’re on the correct side of History my friends. Lock and Load, Prepare and stand ready.

https://thenccpa.com/upcoming-events/

14 April 2018, All Capitol Cities, and DC – Pro-2A Rally.  Show up.  Or be prepared to fight if we don’t make enough noise.  Pass the word or Pass the ammo.

US Pro-Gun Rallies in all Capitols

It’s time.

April 14th, 2018

All State Capitols and DC.

https://thenccpa.com/upcoming-events/

Be there.  Widest dissemination requested.

 

The second amendment isn’t just about guns. It’s about supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression and the civic duty to act in defense of our families and our communities. From the enactment of the Bill of Rights through most of the 20th Century, the Second Amendment seems to have been understood to guarantee to every law-abiding responsible adult the right to possess arms.

The purpose of these events are to express the numerous and protean ways in which the concept of self-protection and expression related to the Constitution in the minds of its authors. For self-defense is indeed at the core of the Second Amendment and an element in the Founders’ political thought generally.

At the same time it is important to realize that the Founding Fathers’ view of self protection was not only more favorable but also more inclusive than the concept as disfavored by many modern thinkers. To the Founders and their intellectual progenitors, being prepared for self-defense was a moral imperative as well as a pragmatic necessity; moreover, its pragmatic value lay less in repelling usurpation than in deterring it before it occurred.

Modern thinkers feel the need to strip away our natural born right to self-protection by limiting the available weapons that are at our disposal. They blame mental illness without documentation. They blame everything except the sole responsible party, the person involved in the action.

With the support of thousands of American Patriots across this great country, we will assemble at every state capitol at 1pm CDT on Saturday April 14, 2018 to show our support for our 2nd Amendment rights and to support our Constitution as a whole. Please help support us to defend and educate about our founding documents and honor our Forefathers who sacrificed and dedicated so much for us to have the freedoms we do today!

America’s Fall

Today, we older generational people, the “Boomers” as some refer to us in an unkindly manner, are the last of the children of “The Greatest Generation”.  We came after the end of World War II.

Our parents and Grand Parents saw the fall of the 3rd Reich, the Japanese Empire and the rise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic – the USSR.  My father fought in the Korean War, a marine, who survive a massive battle to take and retake some unknown-today hill against Chinese Communists helping the North Koreans.

My wife’s father stood terrible duty in the Aleutians during World War II.  My own family has had military members through out our time in the United States, ranging from the American Revolution, to the War of 1812, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and later events like police incidents in Central America, the Cold War, Afghanistan and Iraq in more recent times.

My family has a storied history in war.  Not because we’re war mongers.  Quite the contrary.  We’re all against war.  But, almost every military man and woman knows and understands something that many today don’t grasp.

We understand the requirement to have a strong military to prevent incursion of Communism into our own environs.  We hold Military Service in a very high regard and do it of our own, free will almost always each of us joining a service before being drafted for some particular fight for Freedom.

As such, we all understood, before stepping into the boots and hefting a rifle the sacrifice we were making, in some cases, the ultimate sacrifice, giving one’s life for the American Way of Life.

We also understand/understood history.  Those stories before us of both war, and how they came into being.  How the Revolutionary War began, why it began, who precipitated it and why America came into being.

Today, we have people unaccustomed to war, and many who have been to war recently who understand that sometimes a war must be fought to keep everyone else safe.

Young people today seem to care little about the past, and are more concerned with protesting to give away their God Given, inalienable, natural rights.

Some see the Second Amendment (and indeed, sometimes the entire Constitution) as a worn, tired, out-of-date piece of parchment not worth the ink with which it was written.  Calls for changing the Constitution abound.  Cries to rescind the Second Amendment are being yelled loudly in the Press and from the Left side of the Political Aisle.

I’m here, not unlike Paul Revere himself, to herald a call to Arms and Warn the Americans that “The Progressives are Coming”.  They are already among us, screaming for things like “Common Sense Gun Laws” and “Gun reform”.

Truthfully, guns don’t require “reforming” as they aren’t evil, didn’t do anything wrong and are simply tools of the trade to the military man, police officer and honest, duty-bound Citizen of the United States to defend himself, his family and his community against transgressions against themselves by either criminals or, God Forbid, the Government itself.

We stand on the very precipice of the fall of the United States today.

The aforementioned Boomers and Millennials are locked in a mortal battle at this point in time. Not a bloody battle (no yet anyway) over Gun Control, the Second Amendment and the “tired, worn out Constitution”.

In less than a generation, roughly twenty-five more years, that youngest generation marching today against guns, against the NRA, against the “evil AR15” and against you my friends, will be the next generation in control of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court.

We, the Boomers, the Cold Warriors, the Afghan and Iraqi Veterans are all that is left to stand up to those children who want to give away the very heart of America to Socialism, and ultimately, Communism.

The Communists warned us, over and over, they would take us over without firing a shot.  But, shots have been fired, against innocents in schools, and cities all over America using the “Evil Black Assault AR15” – a simple, semi-automatic rifle that is no different from a bolt action deer rifle, other than it has a smaller caliber.

Those children of today know not what they give away, know not how many men and women died protecting those very rights they intend to hand over to a future government, to remove those rights from their very own hands.

One generation, mark my words, if we do not turn this trend around now, if we do not reign in the wild accusations from Children, taught to them by Progressive and Marxist teachers in a public school, paid by OUR tax monies, given to those same Progressives and Marxists the Communist’s prophecy will have come true.

We are doomed to die in less than three hundred years.

Today, we wander down the path the Romans wandered in their last days.  Innocence lost, barbarians at the door and living in our own land, as well as our own apathy and ignorance have wrought what we shall soon reap.

This author implores you all, one last time, step up, be heard, fight the loss of this country and the loss of the Greatest Document written by man.  The US Constitution.

I personally swore and oath to protect it, six times in my career.  That Oath never expires and it doesn’t lessen as the years go by, it only calls in a stronger voice to me.

But, I’m one man.  My children learned their lessons well, and will continue in my stead.

Will yours?

I call upon every would-be, wannabe and existing Militia in the United States to stand up, be heard.  Do not back down.  Do not let the Constitution die when we die.

40 Reasons To Ban Guns

40 Reasons To Ban GunsArguments Made By Liberal Lawmakers
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York , DC , Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC ‘s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis ‘ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.

14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”

27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.