Archive for the ‘States Rights’ Category

Trump, and some things that came from..?

October 25, 2016

There is a viral posting about Donald Trump, and his assassination. It is a rather long essay that just happens to be on target. However, it isn’t true. At least as far as who actually wrote it. Read the whole thing because it is serious thinking from someone that has a very fertile mind. Myself, I happen to think that the obama will be the first President assassinated after he is out of office. The reasons are many, and race is only a minor one.

Bill Bennett: They’d Kill Trump Before They Let Him Be President -Incorrectly Attributed!

Life, in these not so United States is in for some dramatic changes irrespective of who is installed as President…

Election 2016: What it means for life and liberty in these not so United States.

October 24, 2016

What follows is the work of Mia Lee, a long time Facebook friend.

The 2016 Election is probably the strangest and most important one of our time.  Like riding on a roller coaster at Six Flags, there have been many ups and downs, unexpected turns, and sometimes flat-out nauseating moments, and the many issues at stake are equally, if not more, a roller coaster each in itself.  From illegal immigration to the refugee crisis; the National Debt to TPP; Common Core to free college; Religious Liberties, transgender bathrooms.  The list goes on and on, but there are two issues in particular that CANNOT be overlooked, the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court.  Both are vital for the other’s survival and are needed for our Constitution to remain intact.

This election cycle started out with the biggest field of contender, ever.  The winnowing process was a painful one, but slowly, one by one, the playing field diminished, until only two competitors remained; Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  Now I know some of you may be groaning and rolling your eyes right now at the thought of who is left.  Yes, I know, it has turned out to be quite the conundrum, voting for the lesser of two evils as some of you may see it.  I too have been faced with this frightful task, as “my guy” didn’t make the cut.  It’s been a back and forth, conflict of convictions, and soul-searching process.  The one thing that I keep coming back to is this, the 2nd Amendment.  History has shown us time and time again that the loss of one’s right to defend himself, family and home, has been a key factor in Tyranny. We can go as far back as the Bible and see examples of governments and rulers taking away God-given rights of self-defense as a means to control.  Once that control was taken away, it then became very easy to “exterminate” the undesirable and unruly citizens.  Under the guise of “Public Safety”, the Democrats have spread their propaganda, twisted or omitted the truth, in order to further their agenda of oppression and government control.  With the help of the MSM, they have been able to lay their groundwork and it’s just a matter of time before they attempt to change the rules on law-abiding gun owners and American citizens.  At the helm of this crusade, for the last 8 years, has been President Obama.  He has made it very clear that gun control is at the top of his list and will stop at nothing to earn that final feather in his cap.

This brings us to the elephant in the room, who are we all going to vote for.  After considering all the pros and cons, personal and moral views, one thing keeps coming back to the forefront.  The 2nd Amendment.  For without it, we will slowly lose all the other Freedoms and Liberties that are afforded to us through the Constitution of the United States.  This then brings us to our next game changer, The Supreme Court.  With the recent passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch Conservative and advocate for the 2nd Amendment, finding his replacement is even more important. The balance of The Supreme Court is at stake, and with it, the Constitution.  It is now even more important to elect a Republican candidate.  To ensure that our freedoms and Constitutional rights as Gun Owners not be vanquished under the guise of crime prevention and public safety.

I recently read an interview by Chris Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, with Donald Trump.  I believe that Mr. Trump is this country’s best shot at preserving our Constitution and 2nd Amendment.  We know for a fact that Hillary Clinton will only continue Obama’s gun control agenda and even more.  I’m not willing to take that chance.

I’ve included the full interview transcript below for you to read and see where Donald Trump stands on this very important issue.  Remember what is at stake in this election. I f we lose this election to Hillary Clinton, basically a third term of the Obama Administration, we will most certainly lose our 2nd amendment Rights, or Constitution, and the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we know it.

by Mia – the Shooter’s Wife




This year’s race for the White House is like no other in our history. Hillary Clinton has made it clear that if elected, she will come after our firearms freedom on her very first day in office. So it’s no exaggeration to say that the Second Amendment is on the ballot this November. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, to discuss our right to keep and bear arms and what’s at stake in this election for America’s gun owners.

Chris Cox: Mr. Trump, I’d like to begin with an issue of concern to many gun owners. In your 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” you stated that while you oppose gun control, you support the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms — the so-called “assault weapons” ban — and also support a longer waiting period to purchase a firearm. During this election, however, you’ve repeatedly pointed out you oppose gun and magazine bans and only support background checks that are instant, accurate and fair. Would you say your position has evolved on these issues?

DJT: Absolutely. Over the past 15 years I’ve learned a great deal about how we can protect the good people of this country from those who mean to do us harm. Gun control is not the answer — protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens is the answer. Furthermore, gun bans don’t work. Studies were done after the 1994 “assault weapons” ban expired. They clearly showed that the ban didn’t protect anyone, didn’t reduce crime. It just made it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with the firearm of their choice. Like with all things, I believe in what works, and gun bans don’t work.

This year’s race for the White House is like no other in our history. Hillary Clinton has made it clear that if elected, she will come after our firearms freedom on her very first day in office. So it’s no exaggeration to say that the Second Amendment is on the ballot this November. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, to discuss our right to keep and bear arms and what’s at stake in this election for America’s gun owners.

Chris Cox: Mr. Trump, I’d like to begin with an issue of concern to many gun owners. In your 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” you stated that while you oppose gun control, you support the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms — the so-called “assault weapons” ban — and also support a longer waiting period to purchase a firearm. During this election, however, you’ve repeatedly pointed out you oppose gun and magazine bans and only support background checks that are instant, accurate and fair. Would you say your position has evolved on these issues?

DJT: Absolutely. Over the past 15 years I’ve learned a great deal about how we can protect the good people of this country from those who mean to do us harm. Gun control is not the answer — protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens is the answer. Furthermore, gun bans don’t work. Studies were done after the 1994 “assault weapons” ban expired. They clearly showed that the ban didn’t protect anyone, didn’t reduce crime. It just made it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with the firearm of their choice. Like with all things, I believe in what works, and gun bans don’t work.

I have two sons who don’t just believe in the Second Amendment, they live it. They hunt, target shoot, shoot competitively and carry firearms for personal protection. They’re NRA members and so am I. I also have a concealed-carry permit. Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unshakable.

Chris Cox: As you know, the future of our firearms freedom hangs in the balance with the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — the author of the Heller decision — which held that the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. I have a couple of questions related to the Supreme Court, but first, do you agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes?f

DJT: Without question. Unlike Hillary Clinton, I believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right and the D.C. gun ban overturned in Heller is exactly the kind of law the Second Amendment was meant to prohibit. Let me be clear about this — Heller wasn’t about a “reasonable restriction” as Hillary tries to argue — the D.C. law banned guns in the home As a result, D.C. residents were completely defenseless against violent criminals breaking into their homes. Hillary believes that the Supreme Court was wrong in the Heller decision, which she has said many times. She will appoint judges who will effectively abolish the Second Amendment — that’s the stake in this election.

Chris Cox: In addition to the Scalia vacancy, many suggest the next president could nominate three or even more additional justices to the Supreme Court. Will the Second Amendment and the Heller decision play a role in who you decide to nominate to the Supreme Court?

DJT: One hundred percent. I will appoint judges who will preserve our Second Amendment-protected rights — Hillary Clinton will appoint judges who will eliminate them.Chris Cox: There are a number of laws and regulations that gun control groups have been pushing for years. I’d like to discuss a few of them to get your views. First, do you support so-called “universal” background checks?

DJT: There can never be a so-called “universal” background check, because criminals obviously ignore gun laws. That’s what makes them criminals. The research shows that they find someone with a clean record — a “straw purchaser” — to get a gun for them. Or they get a gun from the black market. Or they steal it. We also know that background checks haven’t stopped the mass shooters we’ve seen. In each case, they either passed a federal background check or stole the guns they used.

Under current law, purchasing a firearm from a dealer requires a background check, whether in a store, at a gun show or anywhere else — but some want to take that a step further so that even if a firearm is transferred from a father to a son as a gift or between lifelong friends on a hunting trip, the federal government has to intervene and approve the transfer in advance. That burdens law-abiding citizens but doesn’t impact criminals. I don’t support that.

Chris Cox: What about gun owner licensing and/or registration?

DJT: I don’t support restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens by creating a national government registry. One thing that gun control supporters never point out is that gun control costs us lives every day. Every time a law-abiding citizen has their right to defend themselves taken away, they are put at risk. That terrible tragedy in New Jersey — Carol Bowne, who was killed in her own driveway while waiting for a gun permit — is a tragic example of how gun control costs lives.

But the American people get it. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans continue to be opposed to invasive restrictions on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They believe, as I do, that all of us have the right to defend ourselves and that the government should not be in the business of taking that right away, any more than we would let them regulate and restrict any of our other core freedoms out of existence.

Chris Cox: After the recent tragedy in Orlando, Fla., President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their allies tried to distract attention away from their failed terrorism policies by calling for more gun control. In addition to calling for a new ban on semi-automatic rifles and for expanded background checks, they pushed for a proposal to ban people on secret government lists from purchasing firearms. What’s your position on that issue?

DJT: Terrorists should not be able to buy guns, legally or illegally. Period. We must make sure that doesn’t happen, and we all agree on that goal. At the same time, we have to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans. These are not mutually exclusive ideas — we can do both. Unfortunately, Obama and Hillary will do anything to distract attention away from their failure to stop the spread of ISIS and defeat terrorism. They also don’t want to talk about the threat, not only of terrorists with guns,

but terrorists with explosives — like at the Boston marathon bombing — and terrorists with trucks — like in Nice, France — or terrorists with any other means of attacking our people. They want to disarm Americans but continue policies that allow terrorists into our country.

Chris Cox: President Obama has made a habit out of using his “phone and pen” to implement gun control through executive orders, bypassing Congress and the will of the people to advance his anti-gun agenda. All presidents have used executive orders at some level, but none have gone to the lengths that Obama has on gun control. Do you have any plans with respect to executive orders on guns if you win the election?

DJT: First, I will undo President Obama’s executive orders on guns. Second, I will look for ways to restore the Second-Amendment-protected rights of law-abiding citizens, by undo ing restrictions put in place by the Obama administration’s federal agencies and pursuing avenues that protect Americans constitutional rights in ways that make us all safer.

Chris Cox: You came out early in the primaries with a position paper on the Second Amendment, including your support for Project Exile — enforcing current gun laws against criminals with mandatory jail time. Is that something you’ll push for if elected president?

DJT: I think the major failure of gun control supporters is the constant push for new gun laws instead of focusing our efforts on prosecuting violent criminals. Federal prosecutions under Obama have plummeted, and all he does is ask for more gun control. It makes no sense. Project Exile was a program that had great success because it’s simple — if you’re a felon caught with a gun or committing another crime with a gun, there’s a mandatory sentence of at least five years waiting for you. And those cases are prosecuted in federal court. When you see violent crime exploding in a place like Chicago, it’s ridiculous that they aren’t taking those criminals off the streets with the laws already in place. I’ll make that a priority in a Trump administration. My Justice Department will focus on prosecuting violent criminals. We will make it happen.

Chris Cox: Is there anything else you want our readers to know about this election?

DJT: This election means everything for the future of our country. Not just gun rights, but also many other issues. The Supreme Court will be shaped for a generation by the next president. Our standing in the world will be shaped — at a critical and dangerous time — by the next president. And the Second Amendment itself hangs in the balance with who we elect as the next president. Your freedoms are hanging by a fraying thread. Every freedom-loving American must vote, and they need to get their friends to vote. We can’t let the freedom secured by those in uniform be surrendered at the ballot box. I promise your readers, and all of America’s law-abiding gun owners, that when I win the White House with your votes, our Second Amendment rights will remain protected and I will do all in my power to advance the cause of freedom.

Source: October 2016 Shooting Illustrated, NRA, Chris Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director


N0 Hillary, you got all wrong… Again.

October 20, 2016

Hillary Clinton just can’t seem to get things correctly, and that is when she isn’t just plain telling lies.

She blabbed about our nuclear readiness. Having sworn to  protect the nation more than once in the past she did, as matter of fact commit an act of treason on national television.   Don’t expect anything to be done about that though given the current administrations refusal to enforce the law. As well as the vaunted character of the FBI which blatantly has become politicized.

Then she blames Russia for interfering with our election process. Read about that HERE.

I am not a big fan of Donald Trump. He is at best a populist, albeit a very smart and capable one. Here is the problem with that. It is a form of political correctness. Which is also known as democracy. Which is nothing more than a form of mob rule. This was well addressed some time ago in The Federalist Papers. No, we do not live in a democracy, thank God! We live in a Constitutional Republic, with a Bill of Rights that is supposed to protect us all from government oppression…

Today we have ex post facto law, and the taking of rights forever for less than felony infractions of law. Laws and regulations that are made by bureaucrats according to political correctness, and pseudo science, and politicians such as potty mouth Hillary Clinton that believe and act as if they govern by divine right.

That needs to change…


And about that pesky 2ed Amendment…

September 29, 2016

This is stolen from a Facebook Friend Cary Cartter, who posted it as follows.

A blogging friend, Douglas Gibbs, teaches Constitutional Classes in California. Here’s his 2nd Amendment guide:

Lesson 14

Militias and Standing Armies

2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility. Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.

In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that. The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.

Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.

In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.

The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.

The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 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.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If “shall not be infringed” applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.

The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.

If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.

Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.

The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia.” The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today’s culture recognizes it as meaning, “A militia under the control of the government,” or “regulated by government agencies,” or “managed by federal law.”

All of the above definitions are wrong.

As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word “regulated” does not mean “controlled or restricted by government.” The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Webster defined regulated as: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that the word “regulate” in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of “regulated,” revealing that today’s most common definition was the “least used” definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.

Since “regulate” did not mean “to control and restrict,” but instead meant “to put in good order,” that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.

The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes.

To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow. The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The word State, in that instance, means “individual, autonomous, sovereign State.” In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.

“Necessary to the security of a free State.” A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State. Security against whom? A foreign invader? Isn’t that what the standing army was supposed to be for? Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their “security,” and to ensure that security is for them to remain a “free State?”

Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government. Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.

“… can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?

Arms – Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.

Collective Right – Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.

Declaration of Independence – The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.

Individual Right – Rights held by individuals within a particular group.

Organized Militia – A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.

Original Authority – Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.

Regulated – To make regular; to put in good order.

State Sovereignty – The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

Unorganized Militia – Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Questions for Discussion:

1. In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?

2. If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?

3. Is a militia necessary in today’s society? Why?

4. Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?

5. In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States. How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?

10 USC § 311 – Militia: Composition and Classes, Cornell University
Law School:

McDonald v. City of Chicago, United States Supreme Court:

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution (Philadelphia 1787), The Federalist Papers:…/noah-webster-an-examin…

The Tree of Liberty Quotation, Monticello – TH: Jefferson Encyclopedia:…/The_tree_of_liberty…(Quotati…

Washington, D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States Blog:

History: No, it’s often not what we were taught in school

September 13, 2016

This being just one example…

Words of wisdom from and internet friend

June 9, 2016

Here is a guest post from my wonderful friend Tex Reynolds, as fine a writer as you’re likely to find, a true Patriot and a staunch Conservative. 

Huffington Post writer defends riots at Trump rallies as ‘violent resistence’ (sic)

Is this “free speech”? There is a difference between being able to speak out on one’s beliefs and using violence to quash the rights of others.

According to Wikipedia:
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.

In the past seven years we have seen progressives use (abuse) semantics and twist the actual definitions of words, often using a word while meaning that word’s antonym. They use honesty meaning prevarication; transparency meaning secrecy; openness meaning obfuscation; work meaning golfing, compromise meaning capitulation; freedom meaning subservience; respect meaning disdain; and unity means division; etc. They accuse others of doing of acts that they, themselves are actually guilty.

Supposed journalists, those who should have a basic working knowledge and vocabulary ignore what it is occurring, instead using their bully pulpits slathering praise on those who would destroy America.

For decades we have witnessed the planned moral decline of this Nation.

We have allowed liberals to dominate our education system and dumb down the populace. We have allowed the eco-freaks to preserve our natural resources so that they now can be stolen by foreign entities. We have watched as multinational agro companies decimated our family farms so they could control food supplies and use those food supplies as weapons of power. We have watched politicians compromise principles and allow the watering down of our Constitution. We have watched a legal system that favors the rich, gives more rights to the criminals and ignores the victims.

We have watched faux preachers establish their private earthly kingdoms while ignoring the Heavenly Kingdom. We have watched our Country become a world joke and now we watch as the anarchists, the communists, the socials and provocateurs use violence to silence us.

Now there are people who are willing to stand up and resist the further destruction of our Nation, are you one of them? This country was founded on religious principles but designed NOT to be a theocracy. Stand up for America


About the idiot in chief and transgender bathrooms

May 15, 2016

There is a lot of concern about this bathroom controversy, and rightly so. The POTUS really stepped on his clit with this one, and that is putting it mildly.

Actual transgenders have been using the bathrooms of there sex reassignment for years, and nobody cared. Why? Because they were already “switched” for lack of a better term.

What concerns most of us are the perverts that will be pretending to be a transgender in order to further their twisted wants and desires…

The Department of Justice can do what they want, so can our idiot in chief. So can the parents etcetera of those affected.

This is how. Say, some lunatic molests your son in the bathroom. You, being a decent parent, shoot the jerk. You go to jail for whatever charges the obamanites can dream up. Jury Trial, no deals… We the people, in front of God and everybody find you not guilty, and the Jury Foreman rips the prosecutor a new anus…

Done deal!

Election 2016: Yet another dog and pony show

April 30, 2016

This seems to becoming thematic. No real candidate that is taking the nation as the top priority. Another ego contest compounded by lie after lie. As usual both sides are waving the flag, and as usual? Not a damned thing is being said about protecting the rights of individuals. Every damned solution put forward is nothing more than more laws expanding the government.

Supreme Court: Second Amendment protects “all bearable arms” – HUGE Victory for Gun Owners, Again!

March 23, 2016

We have been saying this for years. It would appear that others think along the very same lines!

Full Story

John Kasich: Anti-gun “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”

March 20, 2016

Comes word, from the Center for Responsive Politics, that Leftist billionaire George Soros, through his Soros Fund Management, is one of John Kasich’s top financial contributors.

This can hardly be a surprise.

Kasich and Soros share two important traits:  (1) their desire to mess up the Republican selection process for devious motives, and (2) their absolute hatred for the Second Amendment.

Kasich’s antipathy towards gun rights is no secret to anyone who’s watched his career.  Make no mistake about it:  When we are winning by a large margin — when we don’t need John Kasich’s vote — he’s usually there to give us a big, wet “Don Corleone kiss.”

But when the vote is close and the future of the Second Amendment is at stake, “Godfather John” usually leaves us a severed horsehead in our bed. 

Thus, Kasich famously joined a gaggle of fellow-RINO’s and cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms.  For this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton.

Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system where roughly 95% of denials are “false positives.” Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if you’re illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, you can never get your record corrected.

In 1999, Kasich voted to retain restrictive gun ban in Washington, D.C.  Not only that, Kasich joined the effort to pass 90% of Clinton’s anti-gun agenda as a form of “gun control lite.”

Elements of the Kasich/Clinton agenda included:

(1) Provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms;

(2) A gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and

(3) Mandates to require you to “lock up your guns.”

Had Clinton been successful in passing his post-Columbine anti-gun agenda, it would have provided a legislative platform which could easily have eviscerated the Second Amendment over the last decade-and-a-half.

But Kasich’s efforts to outlaw guns — drip-by-drip — continues to this day.

Kasich continues to be a chief advocate of actual or de facto amnesty, claiming that enforcing our immigration laws would be “inhumane.”

Of course, if Kasich gets his way, the legalization of 11 million illegals will have the same effect on the American electorate that the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty had on California. The country as a whole would become deep “anti-gun blue.”

And, of course, Kasich was one of the first RINO’s to legitimize the anti-gun ObamaCare program by bringing its massive Medicaid segment into his state.

Now, all it will take is for Obama to do a computer search of Kasich’s Medicaid beneficiaries for “PTSD,” “Alzheimer’s,” and other “mental defectives,” and the gun rights of tens of thousands of law-abiding Ohioans could be jeopardized.

And all of this was done by Kasich’s particularly nasty form of politics which he is now trying to morph, incredibly, into his “Mr. Nice” act. 

These actions, of course, reflect the hatred for guns by Kasich’s patron, George Soros.

You may remember that, when Soros launched his campaign of “exposes” designed to destroy the conservative movement piece-by-piece, his first target was Gun Owners of America — which Soros viewed as even more dangerous than the Koch brothers.

But perhaps as bad as Kasich’s anti-gun record is his determination to destroy the GOP selection process for personal gain.

Surely, even the vainglorious Kasich understands that, the longer he stays is the race, the longer the “divided field” makes it easier for an establishment candidate to hijack the process at the convention.

Polls have shown — here and here — that Ted Cruz would beat Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

But by becoming the REAL “chaos candidate,” Kasich helps destroy the Republican Party by throwing the nomination to someone who is despised by the grassroots. In so doing, Kasich does the bidding of his master, George Soros.

Ted Cruz would be the natural one to aggressively call out anti-gunner John Kasich for his anti-gun record.

Please contact Ted Cruz and urge him to expose Kasich.  Let’s not let Kasich pull the wool over the eyes of American voters.


Tim Macy
Gun Owners of America

P.S.  While you cannot use GOA’s Legislative Action Center to email Senator Ted Cruz — unless you are a constituent of his — you can easily contact him through his webform.

So simply copy-n-paste the pre-written letter below into Senator Ted Cruz’ webform and urge him to expose Senator John Kasich’s anti-gun record.

—– Pre-written letter for Sen. Ted Cruz —–

Dear Senator Cruz:

Thank you so much for your strong defense of the Constitution — and in particular, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Gun Owners of America has informed me that John Kasich has a long record of supporting gun control, including the following:

1) Kasich cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms, and for this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton.  See:

2) Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system which is now blocking a percentage of legal gun purchases.  Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if someone is illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, they can never get their record corrected. See:

3) In 1999, Kasich voted to retain restrictive gun ban in Washington, D.C.  See:

4) Also in 1999, he voted for provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms; for a gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and for mandates to requiring people to “lock up their guns.”  See:

With John Kasich deciding to remain in the presidential race, I think it’s important for someone on the national level to expose his anti-gun votes.

I hope you will continue to point out Kasich’s anti-gun positions.



%d bloggers like this: