Valued By Free Men


Bear Arms - Founding Fathers vs Dictator Socialists

Justin O. Smith provides an excellent essay on upholding the Original Intent of the Second Amendment in the face of Leftists making the attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment.

 

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. (Legal Information Institute; Cornell University of Law)

 

JRH 1/15/13

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Valued By Free Men

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 1/14/2013 12:22 PM

 

As cold as it may seem to some in light of the aftermath of the murders of twenty beautiful little children at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut… and I was shaken and my heart was torn along with all America… the facts still show that Our Second Amendment right is sacrosanct, it protects all of our other rights and responsible, sane gun owners have prevented many more crimes and deaths than the number of robberies and murders committed by armed uncaring, sometimes unhinged and mentally impaired, criminal and insane thugs. Unfortunately, Obama and the Democratic Party do not feel the same and never miss taking advantage of a crisis, and these political opportunists did not wait even 24 hours before deciding to once again attempt to infringe upon the right of each and every American to “keep and bear arms.”

Our Second Amendment states: “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.”

How different things might have ended in Newtown if only an armed citizen, an armed teacher or teachers and an armed Student Resource Officer had been nearby on that terrible day. People still may have died, but at least the chances would have been better that the assailant would be the only one dying, rather than twenty innocent and precious children.

Banning semiautomatic rifles just because they look like military weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines will not prevent every future horrific act of violence or eliminate evil from our society. In 1927 an insane former school superintendent killed children in North Carolina by detonating an ammonium-nitrate bomb inside their school. Criminals will always find ways to acquire weapons and use them to commit acts of violence.

Vice-President Joe Biden’s gun control commission is on track to offer proposals to the White House and Congress for new gun control laws and regulations shortly before this piece makes print. With his usual gall, temerity and arrogance, Obama stated that if Congress does not act in a timely fashion on this issue, he will enact gun controls by fiat and executive order. Nowhere is there any authority given to the U.S. President to countermand or modify any amendment to Our U.S. Constitution. Some on the Left, such as NY Mayor Bloomberg, are even counseling Obama to regulate guns through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which once again, not only bypasses Congress as the Legislative Branch of government but also violates the U.S. Constitution.

No clause in the U.S. Constitution can be interpreted to give Congress, the President, any of the States’ legislatures or the District of Columbia a power to disarm the people or to control guns to the point that many now aspire. This flagitious attempt to abrogate Our Second Amendment Right… God given… is occurring in plain sight through incremental actions and under a general pretense in blind pursuit of inordinate power. This is what men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Locke had in mind when they gave the American people the Second Amendment in order to prevent such abuse of power, preserve the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, restrain the federal government and keep America and Americans Free… And in his ‘Commentaries on the Constitution’, Joseph Story, the first U.S. Chief Justice, considered the right to keep and bear arms as “the palladium of liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers…”, which deters tyranny and enables the people to  overthrow their government should it prove necessary!

In the ‘Federal Gazette’ June 18, 1789, Tench Coxe wrote: “As civil rulers…may attempt to tyrannize…and…might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (2nd Amend) in their right to keep and bear arms.” No writer of that era disputed or contradicted Coxe’s analysis that the Second Amendment protected the people’s right to keep and bear their private arms.

“Swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #29. Hamilton, like many Americans today, did not view the right to keep and bear arms as limited to only active militia members or the National Guard.

Former Tennessee National Guard commander Richard A. Hamblen was closer to the Founding Fathers’ intent than the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v Miller-1939, which provided most of the rationale for all gun control laws since then. As Hamblen answered charges of possessing nine unregistered machine guns in 2009 (6th Circuit Court of Appeals), he stated, “There are no qualifiers on the Second Amendment. There are qualifiers on the Fourth (also the Fifth), so if the Founders had intended to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, they knew how to do it.” Under the Second Amendment each and every single one of us are well within our rights if we wish to carry Mr. Ronnie Barrett’s world renown .50 caliber automatic rifle down Broad St in Murfreesboro, TN.

Debra Maggart failed to retain her seat in the Tennessee House of Representatives after blocking a bill allowing people to keep guns locked in their cars in parking lots; and, while fairly recent Supreme Court rulings, District of Columbia v Heller-2008 and McDonald v Chicago-2010, upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right rather than only a collective militia right, they have failed to address the Framers’ Original Intent to allow all Americans to carry their arms in an unrestricted environment. Regardless of this truth, most states require a “fee” (registration or background) in order to obtain a “license” (concealed carry license) before keeping and bearing a firearm; a federal and/or state “tax” (firearms/ammunition sales “tax”) is always levied at the time of a firearm transaction: A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a Constitutionally protected right, Murdock v Pennsylvania-1942, and requiring licensing or registration of any Constitutional right is itself unConstitutional, Follett v Town of McCormick SC-1944. Any citizen’s license to openly carry any handgun or rifle in public is the U.S. Constitution!

As the debate on gun control continues, it will be interesting to hear the Left-Progressive Democrats’ response, as they attempt to reconcile their desire to take our guns with the Darling of the Left and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s 2010 statement that the individual’s right to bear arms has “binding precedent” in the Supreme Court and “is settled law”. And, as late as December 22, 1012 even Obama mouthed the words of political expediency, “Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms,” but that is not what his record shows, nor is it how the Left has misinterpreted this amendment for a long time.

As an American citizen, I repudiate the Progressive Democrats’ view on the Second Amendment and any attempt to ban semiautomatic weapons that have perfectly legitimate uses, under the guise of conducing (sic) our safety. One does not become something other than American in order to solve American problems, especially once one understands the uniqueness of our free institutions and the freedoms found in America… unknown in any other land. And this is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our Founding Fathers forged a land “conceived in Liberty”, they did so by “watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of Tyrants” with musket and rifle. They reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions and to keep them from establishing a free nation as a nation of armed men. And… when they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against government interference. All Americans should give proper recognition and respect for this right most valued by Free Men!

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?” -Tench Coxe (Pennsylvania Gazette Feb 20 1788)

 

By Justin O Smith

_____________________

© Justin O. Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Assault on the Second Amendment


1st American Rev - Gun Rights

Mark Alexander very, very much defends the Second Amendment.

 

JRH 1/13/13

Please Support NCCR

************************

Assault on the Second Amendment

‘I Will Not Comply’

 

By Mark Alexander

January 10, 2013

The Patriot Post

 

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.” –Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Patriots, I call on you to pledge: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as ‘endowed by our Creator,’ enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Sign the 2A pledge!

 

Though tens of millions of American Patriots have already said it, the time has come for one of us to go to the mountaintop and shout it so the whole world can hear it.

 

I hereby make this public declaration: In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will “support and defend” Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

 

What does this mean?

 

I will neither register with, nor surrender to the government, any weapon in my possession. I further declare that I am not in possession of weapon, weapon component or ammunition that has not been lawfully acquired for lawful purposes, including defense of self and family, home and property, and most importantly, defense of Liberty in accordance with the Second Amendment.

 

I have spoken with my family and our Patriot Team about the potential consequences of this public declaration, both for our families and for our company. They fully understand the implications of my very public declaration of civil disobedience in defense of Liberty and Rule of Law. They understand that I have and will abide, first and foremost, by my oath to support and defend our Constitution — the very oath that Barack Obama and his NeoCom cadres have solemnly sworn, but stand in abject violation of same.

 

Since publishing the first issue of The Patriot Post more than 16 years ago, I have made clear that one constitutional prohibition on the central government trumps all others, and that is the proscription against federal infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

 

Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote, in his eminent “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

 

Story was James Madison’s appointee to the High Court, and Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

 

Just after Obama’s re-election, I warned that he would attempt to render neutral the only substantive obstacle between Liberty and his avowed political agenda of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” — the Second Amendment.

 

I noted that, per their standard political playbook, the socialists and their Leftmedia promoters would wait on some tragic murder spree, and, in keeping with Obama’s game plan to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” use that event as fodder to seize guns.

 

A month after writing those words, a mentally deranged sociopath used a firearm to kill children and adults in a Connecticut elementary school. Before the bodies of murdered children had even been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary, Obama was, shamefully, stacking their coffins to use as a soapbox for his latest and greatest assault on the Second Amendment — a renewed effort to not only ban the future sale of many defensive weapons, but register them in order to eventually confiscate them.

 

Obama has framed this debate as a contest between “public safety” and the NRA — those who “cling to guns or religion” — and insists that the Second Amendment was instituted to protect “hunting and sport shooting.” He has called for a so-called “assault weapons” ban — I note “so-called” because it would more accurately be described as a “defensive weapons” because such arms are purchased, first and foremost, for defense not assault.

 

Obama claims, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting…” If by “hunting” he means hunting down those who offend Liberty, then he is correct.

 

Some Leftist governors and legislators have already adopted Obama’s “hunting” misinformation memo. New York’s Andrew Cuomo proposed “the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation” this week, asserting, “We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away peoples’ guns. I own a gun. I own a Remington shotgun. I’ve hunted. I’ve shot. That’s not what this is about. It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles. No one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!”

 

If, by “risk of high-capacity assault rifles,” he means risk that they might be used for their intended purpose — to defend Liberty against the tyranny of socialist politicos and those who do their bidding — then I understand his concern.

 

The fact is, these weapons, which Obama and his cadres want to eradicate, account for only a tiny fraction of homicides in the U.S. Obama and Biden know that — which is why they have reframed their gun ban rhetoric around saving a few lives rather than many: “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking,” said Biden.

 

According to the FBI’s public safety statistics, almost 10 times as many people are murdered annually with knives, hammers and bare hands than are murdered with the type of weapon used in the Connecticut attack. Furthermore, from the time the Senate first banned so-called “assault weapons” in 1994, through the expiration of that ban in 2004 and to the present day, the number of such weapons held by the people has increased by 2.5 million, while murders have dropped by almost 50 percent. In other words, more guns equate to less crime. But Obama is not one to let hard facts interfere with his sacred socialist agenda.

 

So, why all the focus on so-called “assault weapons” — what is the Left’s real agenda? (That question was rhetorical.)

 

Patriots, this contest is most assuredly not between public safety and the NRA, but between Leftists and Essential Liberty.

 

Benjamin Franklin spoke timeless words to this contest: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In the case of those who would give up Essential Liberty for nothing more than the perception of a little temporary safety with more gun prohibitions, they will, ultimately, lose both.

 

In addition to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed “comprehensive” ban on a long list of defensive weapons, which she plans to reintroduce in two weeks, Obama appointed Joe Biden to be his executive branch lightning rod for this subterfuge.

 

Three weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder, who once suggested “we should really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” implied that Obama might use an executive order to undermine the Second Amendment. This week, Joe Biden confirmed that, saying, “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required. It’s critically important that we act.”

 

On that note, enough is enough.

 

Liberty is “endowed by our Creator,” not determined by executive decree or congressional legislation or judicial diktat. Liberty is an innate human right. It is a gift from God, not from politicians.

 

I have, herein, publicly declared that I will not comply with any executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates our Constitution, or the innate human right to defend self and Liberty. I know that there are tens of millions of Patriots who are, likewise, committed. As our Founders affirmed in the last line of the document codifying their rejection of tyranny: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

 

Fellow Patriots, I can handle the consequences of my very public declaration of intent to reject Obama’s assault on the Second Amendment. I am not asking you to make the same public commitment, though I know most of you would step up to the line.

 

However, I am asking you to join me in your pledge to affirm: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as “endowed by our Creator,” enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

 

Please make that affirmation today and encourage others to do the same.

 

Sign the 2A pledge!

_____________________________

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2013 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

 

Protect Life, Liberty and Property from the Left


Careful What Wish For - BHO toon

John R. Houk

© January 10, 2013

 

I do not own a gun however I am not pro-gun control. I am a gun rights kind-of-guy along the lines of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

 

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.

 

Leftists like to point out the part that says, “A well regulated militia”. This is as if militia equals a Federal government administered military. The next part brings greater context: “being necessary to the security of a free state”. The implication is that citizens of a sovereign State in the USA can ban together to aid in protecting their State.

 

The Revolutionary War was fought largely by a volunteer army to throw off the oppression of an unjust British government. The British chased that Blue Coat American army all over the place. In the mean time the British deprived Americans of their Private Property as well as confiscating weapons so they could not be used against the British army.

 

The Right to Bear Arms is the right of the “people”. Thus this excludes government control of civilian weapons because those civilian citizens have the right to protect their property from an oppressive government (whether foreign or domestic) or crime.

 

President Barack Hussein Obama is about to use the excuse of crazy people perpetuating massacres as a reason to limit the kinds of arms private citizens can own. Just like everything else this President has down to move the USA slowly to transform into a Socialist society like Europe, this President will eventually confiscate American arms just like the European nations have deprived their citizens to own fire arms.

 

This President is about to take a shot at the Second Amendment by attempting the Presidential power of the Executive Order to begin to take away the gun rights of American citizens to protect themselves from criminal acts  as well as from foreign and corrupted domestic governments.

 

Americans – We the People – need to stand against the intentions to track and disarm citizens depriving of the right to bear arms to protect Life, Liberty and Family.

 

Ann Coulter’s recent article is what started me on the path of indignant thinking concerning our government’s attempt to assault the Constitution.

 

JRH 1/10/13

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Doing the research the N.Y. Times won’t do

Ann Coulter helps out Old Gray Lady with digging up actual facts on gun control

 

By Ann Coulter

January 9, 2013

WND

 

In Sunday’s New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing.” She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: 1) anecdotal observations; and 2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

 

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.

 

Instead, Rosenthal’s column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: “I recently visited some Latin American countries … where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.”

 

So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock’s crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.

 

Here’s a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn’t cause the crime; it’s a response to crime. On Rosenthal’s logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them.

 

(In any event, the Lott-Landes study didn’t recommend armed guards, but armed citizens.)

 

Rosenthal also produces a demonstrably false statistic about Australia’s gun laws, as if it’s a fact that has been carefully vetted by the Newspaper of Record, throwing in the true source only at the tail-end of the paragraph:

 

“‘After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. … Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent …,’ said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation.”

 

“Ms. Peters” is Rebecca Peters, a George Soros-funded, Australian anti-gun activist so extreme that she had to resign from the International Action Network on Small Arms so as not to discredit the U.N.-recognized organization – which isn’t easy to further discredit.

 

Could the Times’ public editor weigh in on whether unsubstantiated quotes from radical activists are now considered full and complete evidence at the Times?

 

It would be as if the Times headlined an article, “Abortion Increases Risk of Breast Cancer” with the sole support being a quote from Operation Rescue’s Randall Terry. (Except Terry would have evidence.)

 

Whether or not the homicide rate went up or down in Australia as a result of strict gun-control laws imposed in 1997 is a fact that could have been checked by Times researchers. But they didn’t, because facts wouldn’t have given them the answer they wanted.

 

Needless to say, the effect of Australia’s gun ban has been extensively researched by Australian academics. As numerous studies have shown: After the gun ban, gun homicides in Australia did not decline any more than they were expected to without a gun ban.

 

Thus, for example, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the homicide rate has been in steady decline from 1969 to the present, with only one marked uptick in 1998-99 – right after the gun ban was enacted.

 

The showstopper for anti-gun activists like Ms. Rosenthal and Ms. Peters is the fact that suicides by firearm seemed to decrease more than expected after the 1997 gun ban.

 

But so did suicides by other means. Something other than the gun ban must have caused people to stop guzzling poison and jumping off bridges. (Some speculate that it’s the availability of anti-depressants like Prozac.)

 

Curiously – and not mentioned by Rosenthal – the number of accidental firearms deaths skyrocketed after Australia’s 1997 gun ban, although the law included stringent gun training requirements.

 

It turns out, until the coroner has certified a death as a “suicide,” it’s classified as “unintentional.” So either mandatory gun training has led to more accidents, or a lot of suicides are ending up in the “accident” column.

 

Most pinheadedly, especially for a graduate of the Harvard Medical School, Rosenthal says: “Before (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings.”

 

Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn’t even track mass murder as a specific crime category.

 

After Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” killers slaughtered the entire Clutter family in Holcomb, Kan., the murder rate in that quiet farming town went up 400 percent in a single year! Was it Holcomb’s big showing at the 4-H club competition that year?

 

Totally unbeknownst to Elisabeth Rosenthal, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach “control groups” at Harvard?)

 

New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia’s gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia’s mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand’s was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.

 

The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth – including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.

 

While it’s true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.

 

The only thing Australia’s strict gun-control laws has clearly accomplished is increasing the amount of violent crime committed with guns immediately after the ban took effect. Of course, Times reporters don’t have to worry about violent muggings, rapes and robberies because they live in doorman buildings.

 

For those who can’t afford fancy doorman buildings, bad journalism kills.

_______________________

Protect Life, Liberty and Property from the Left

John R. Houk

© January 10, 2013

______________________

Doing the research the N.Y. Times won’t do

 

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.