Sandy Hook, Gun Control & The REAL Argument

 

With the Sandy Hook thing and the government’s promised (illegal) response we’re rightfully seeing a huge outpouring of ‘rhetoric’ from gun owners and Constitutionally minded Americans.  I use the term “rhetoric” because damn near all of the blogs, posting, comments and subject matter woefully MISSES THE MARK on this subject.  Yes, you’re ALL missing the point and folks had best redirect their efforts and their time into the real question revolving around our Second Amendment as well as the rest of the contents of the Bill of Rights and that is – are ANY of their past or proposed “laws” lawful and binding on Citizens or the states?

A blatant example of the nonsense constantly bantered around is the goofy obsession over the wording of the Second Amendment by the term “militia” in the context of the Amendment.  The “militia” were the state’s irregular forces that could be called up by the federal government in a time of crisis.  Therefore, the meaning of the phrase “a well regulated militia” reflected the fear that the aforementioned “militia” needed to be counterbalanced, out of necessity “to the Security of a Free State” when/if they were under the command of the federal government.  That ‘counterbalance’ required the clear and articulate phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  That said the obsession over this wording makes everyone go round and round over terms like “militia” and “people” thus who had the Right?

I see the goofy petition emails asking folks to weigh in on the question “Does The Second Amendment Confer an Individual Right”, like any of those bozos in Washington listen to us or ‘petitions’.  Wake up folks -the SJC of the United States has already answered that question in the 2008 Heller case (http://jpfo.org/pdf02/heller-opinion-07-290.pdf) as “Yes” and the Department of Justice concluded in their own report titled the “Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right”, having 103 pages, with 437 footnotes to the Attorney General, (http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf) that, in fact, “the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right”.  So, the government themselves admit that we have a “Right” to keep and bear arms so this question is moot.  Thus the People and the government both understand the FACTS.  The “People” have the Right to keep and bear arms and the government is PRECLUDED from changing that fact by the phrase “shall not be infringed”.

So, the real question is how can they license that Right, regulate that Right, tax that Right, ‘limit’ that Right, or, in any way, remove that Right by legislation, Executive Order or any other crafty method thought up in Washington DC?  Simply put, THEY CAN NOT without amending our Constitution.

Let’s ponder my point in the simplest manner.  How about the House & Senate pass a ‘law’ Titled “Term Limits” wherein they state “There shall, after January 1st 2013, be no term limits placed upon the Office of the Presidency.”  This is clear and to the point.  The term of the Presidency will no longer be limited to two four year terms.  Simple, right?  Lawful, no.  Why?  Because the terms allocated to the Presidency are governed by our Constitution.  In order to ‘change’, ‘amend’ or ‘augment’ the term of a President Washington MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution.

How about the House & Senate pass a ‘law’ Titled “Executive Office Ascension Bill” wherein they state that after January 1st 2013 the office of the Presidency will be transferred, every four years, to the highest bidder, in an open and public auction.”  This is clear and to the point.  The office of the Presidency will no longer be attained by some quasi-democratic election but transferred to the highest bidder. Simple, right?  Lawful, no.  Why?  Because how a President attains office is governed by our Constitution.  In order to ‘change’, ‘amend’ or ‘augment’ how a President attains office Washington MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment (indeed ANYTHING with regard to the Constitution or Bill of Rights) is no freaking different.  If those nitwits in House & Senate wish to  ‘change’, ‘amend’ or ‘regulate’  any aspect of what’s written within our Second Amendment, Washington MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution.  Simply ‘legislating’ the words “(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.” as they did in their bill titled H.R.3355 in 1994 or again in 2013 doesn’t make their legislative changes to our Constitution lawful any more than their legislating making Obama the President For Life would.

So, gun owners and Constitutionally minded Americans, Oathkeepers, LEOs and members of our armed forces (not to mention the social fascists legislating in Washington and our state capitals) need to get this straight and I quote the Supreme Court of the United States: Where rights (liberty) secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them.  Rights contained in our Bill of Rights can NOT be altered accept by Constitutional amendment.  As such, any ”Laws” made to regulate or limit, license or ban or in any way alter our Constitution short of a Constitutional Amendment pursuant to Article V are ILLEGAL under our Constitution.

Please, for Christ’s sake, STOP all the unrelated, nonsensical and round-about rhetoric and discussions that these fascist in DC and their media want to get you to engage in that can be ‘spun’ to make you look like a nut-case and FOCUS on Article V.

A free peopleshould have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. – George Washington

Image

A simple letter (not email) to your Representative (if you really believe they represent you or give a flying rat’s ass what you think) should simply inform them that if they wish to curb the individual Right articulated in the Second Amendment, require licenses for “arms”, ban possession of certain “arms” or outlaw certain “arms” then they MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution.  If they do not ‘amend’ the Constitution then there will be no compliance with their ‘laws’.  If agents of government attempt to enforce laws limiting the Second Amendment passed outside the Amendment Process then said agents of government will be resisted with force, as is our Right under the Declaration.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Sandy Hook, Gun Control & The REAL Argument

  1. Maggie Bailey says:

    It strikes me, with all the shootings that go on in America, that you are in more danger of being shot at random by some maniac, who has the “right” to own a gun and has got it quite legally, than from your own government, but it seems you can’t see that.

    • mildlypissed says:

      Hi Maggie, Thanx for taking the time to comment.

      Actually the statistic (according to the National Safety Council) is that Americans are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist however, that really wasn’t the point of my piece.

      Shootings, stabbing and all kinds of bad things happen and they will happen regardless of the inanimate object used to help the perpetrator.

      That doesn’t change the fact that the government, much as they might try to convince folks that they have the authority, can not ‘amend’ the Rights spoken of in our Constitution or any part of the Constitution simply through the stroke of a pen but rather they must comply with Article V. This is covered in any Civics class although I’m not sure they even teach this stuff in public schools anymore.

      If the government intends to break the highest law of our land in order to pass laws they’ve decided they want, then the People of this nation have no requirement to obey these laws any more than a US soldier needs to obey an unlawful order under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Indeed, they are REQUIRED to disobey such orders.

      We, as Americans, can NOT allow or condone the government violating our Constitution to pass laws they think they want to pass. To do so states quite clearly that the United States is not a country of law but little more than some broke banana republic.

  2. Russell says:

    To add to what mildypissed has stated:
    The problem is not in the weapon. The problem is in allowing mentally unstable individuals access to those weapons. Admittedly, He could have and may have done a lot of harm using a baseball bat. But access to a semi-automatic rifle increased the damage he was able to do.
    The Solution is not to remove the Firearms.
    The solution is to restrict the movement of such people to controlled environments.
    The reason people like the Sandy Hook killer are runnning loose is simple. Our Government has systematically reduced to near nothing the old methods and locations of such restriction.
    Granted, there were valid occurences of abuse in such institutions. The Solution is not to eliminate the institution but to place oversight on the system so those abuses cannot happen.
    They took the less costly path and we are reaping the reward of that choice now.
    So don’t take my guns, Fix the system for caring for the mentally ill.
    Benefit: eliminates the massacres and leave the Constitutionally assured rights of the people alone.

    • Maggie Bailey says:

      I am not suggesting that the government should take your rights away. I am sure there are plenty of peaceful, law-abiding people who own guns. The trouble is, anyone can get hold of them, and it is not just mentally ill people or habitual criminals who shoot other people. Sometimes it is done in anger, in the heat of the moment. As you say, a lot of people are shot by police in the US, which is shocking, but not surprising; it is all too easy for people to get trigger-happy when they carry guns habitually, not just the police. I am not suggesting the govt should completely disarm the population, but they do need to make it much harder for just anyone to be able to get a gun. I am afraid the ease of access is a lot of the problem, no matter what you think. I don’t agree that people need guns for self-defence; I am a woman, and if I am walking alone in a dangerous area, I don’t feel I need a gun to defend myself, or to keep one at home! There are always pepper sprays, personal attack alarms, self-defence classes, etc, that people can use if they are worried about being attacked.

      • mildlypissed says:

        Hi Maggie, Again, thanx for taking the interest to respond. Your point appears to be availability of firearms. Certainly these tools are pretty common but they are only tools. In 2010 around 500 people were murdered with rifles, about the same number of people die from falling out of bed. Yup, the actual statistics are, according to the Center for Disease Control, that falling out of bed accounts for 1.8 million emergency room visits, over 400 thousand hospital admissions resulting in 450 deaths each year while, according to the FBI, in 2010 (http://www.fbi.gov/about- us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-
        2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls), only 358 people were murdered by rifles. (one might note that 540 murders took place with clubs and hammers in the same time frame as well) Given the statistically equivalent death rates ascribed to both these inanimate objects (beds & rifles), the obvious question arises – shouldn’t that nitwit Feinstein submit a bill regulating and/or outlawing beds (or hammers) since they result in even more deaths than rifles?

        Unfortunate things happen in the world and we can’t stop them from happening by banning/outlawing either beds, hammers or firearms. That said (back to the point of my piece), the government is trying to do an end-run around the founding Law of our nation. They are trying to convince some of our People that they are acting on their behalf by violating our Law, our Constitution and their Oath to “protect and defend the Constitution” and to “bear true faith” to it by passing legislation that rewrites the Constitution in direct violation of Article V. This path is ‘criminal’. If you (or anyone) looks up the statutes covering ‘Treason’ within 18 USC you will see that violating the very basis of our Republic, in the manner they are attempting, is Treason.

        If they wish to outlaw, ban, regulate or license a Right which they are clearly ordered by our Constitution “shall not be infringed” then they must do so by amending the Constitution NOT through legislation. Again, “Comply with Article V.”

  3. Maggie – guns are going to be available no matter what. If you start putting tighter laws on the good guys the only people who will have them are the bad guys – you can take that to the bank! Oh wait no you can’t – because the bad guys will be in there robbing it – with the guns you didn’t want the good guys to be able to get! Grrrrrrr!

    Also as far as mentally ill people getting guns(or anyone else for that matter) and doing harm good god how many times do I have to say this to people before they actually listen, when a person is hell bent on causing harm – they will cause harm. No matter what weapon they have to use.

    Had Adam’s mother not had those guns he would have found another way to carry out his plan. He would have found another source for the guns or god forbid built a car bomb – because hell we all know you can’t find instructions on how to do that on the internet if you want to right? Then how many would have died that fateful day? I can tell you one thing for sure – NO ONE could have hidden from a car bomb.

    The bottom line Maggie – is Adam would have found a way.

    • Maggie Bailey says:

      Not necessarily. Sometimes these murderous rampages are just the result of a passing madness. If Lanza had found it hard to get hold of a gun, he might have abandoned the idea of a massacre, or at least put it off till another day, by which time his crazy fit may well have passed! A gun is a LETHAL weapon (think about this, people, what it really is) that is capable of killing or seriously injuring a lot of people in a very short space of time. These maniacs know this, that is why they give in to the temptation – they know they can kill a lot of people before they get stopped or killed themselves! It’ s the ease of access, and ease of mass killing, that is a very large part of the problem behind these shootings (it’s probably not the only factor though. But it really hugely aggravates other factors, like mental illness). None of you are taking into account how human psychology works, if you don’t understand this. Your argument about how anyone can find a way to do anything can also apply to your government – you think everyone having guns will protect you from them , but they can find a way to kill you/subdue you if they want, guns or not. It was you who mentioned bombs, but your government could drop a bomb on you any time, if you try to resist them! Can you tell me how your guns are going to help you then??? Sorry, you people may mean well, but you are so irrational and paranoid, you haven’t thought this through at all!

      • mildlypissed says:

        You mention that the government can “drop a bomb on you anytime, if you try to resist them!” That’s quite true Maggie. Indeed, I found it very curious that the last gang of Census people were determined to upload the coordinates of the front door of every US ‘residence’ they visited last time around into the GPS system. Damned strange unless you have some understanding of military ‘systems’ however, again, the point remains, are you comfortable allowing the government to violate our Constitution to disarm the People illegally no matter what the hell their reasons are?

        Daniel Webster once said: “Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

        You may be comfortable with a well meaning Ruler but some of us prefer a Constitutional Republic. Some of us even swore an Oath to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith to the same”. That Madam, is the point of this piece. Will the government be forced to Comply with Article V or act illegally to rewrite our Constitution by way of fancy legislation that the Supreme Court says can not be done?

      • Maggie Bailey says:

        You haven’t answered the question as to how guns are going to help you if your government drop a bomb on you! Isn’t your Constitutuion about 250 years old? So a lot of it is archaic and does not apply to the present day! It sounds like it is time for it to be rewritten, or at least amended (that’s what this clause you are so fanatical about is, after all – an AMENDMENT. Meaning a change. Meaning that the document can be changed!) It’s time it is brought up to date – by the democratic process, of course, public referendum, etc.

  4. mildlypissed says:

    Maggie,

    You state: “Isn’t your Constitution about 250 years old? So a lot of it is archaic and does not apply to the present day!” By saying “your Constitution” you exclude yourself from its applicability to you which, I think, demonstrates your ‘sentiments’ towards this subject. By referring to it as “archaic” and that it “doesn’t apply to the present day” your opinion of it becomes sadly even more clear. You reference my being “fanatical” but what I’m actually saying is that there are lawful procedures for pursuing change in ‘our’ Constitution and our society. These procedures must be followed or a very large portion (one third) of our population may well decide they won’t recognize the change being proposed by mere legislation and/or the government’s authority over them any longer. If that happens the fuse will be lit for a general rebellion or civil war.

    You go on to say “It’s time it is brought up to date – by the democratic process, of course, public referendum, etc.” which, again, reflects your lack of understanding of the foundation of the law and our nation. The Constitution is not subject to “public referendums” or popular vote any more than Congress, on their own, by passing legislation and the president’s stroke of a pen, can amend it without using Article V . If it were and somehow a majority in Congress passed a law getting rid of something like the 19th Amendment which made women equal to men with regard to voting and having a ‘voice’ in government you would be okay with that? Would you be open to 500 or so people in Congress taking away the Rights of women to vote and have a voice in government where they are half the people in the United States or would it be okay if it were done via a “public referendum”?

    Perhaps it’s only okay to take away other people’s Rights as long as they leave your Rights alone…

    • Maggie Bailey says:

      I am British by the way, that is why I said “your” Constitution. We don’t have an automatic “right” to bear arms in this country (and, not surprisingly, we have far, far fewer gun-related deaths!) We respect other people’s right to live without the fear of some maniac, who has obtained the gun quite legally, jumping out and shooting them at random. That has hardly ever happened in this country, but it happens frequently in yours. Other people’s lives and safety and peace of mind should be more important than everyone’s “right” to own a lethal weapon. And you still haven’t answered my question: how will your guns help you, if your government decides to drop a bomb on you?

      • mildlypissed says:

        Maggie,

        You’re “British” – that explains allot.

        Hundreds of years ago we resolved a little argument with our brethren in Great Britain such that we might establish a Constitutional Republic and a government with the mission statement concisely articulated within our Declaration of Independace. Jefferson wrote ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thus we see the ‘purpose’ of government and the people we hire (elect) are mandated and directed as to what their JOB and their duty is.  They exist for the purpose of securing and protecting our “unalienable Rights”. Their “duty”, their mandate, their purpose and their responsibility, to those who grant them authority (the People), is to protect our Rights.  This doesn’t mean that ‘they’ granted us these Rights.  Rights aren’t gifts from a government to a Citizen, thus, it’s not in their power or authority to limit or take away those Rights through all manner of regulation, law, entitlement to others or sending you a bill by way of increased taxation for the enjoyment of these Rights. Being “British” it is, understandable that you might tend to be a bit ‘cavalier’ with our American Rights and have only a cursory understanding of our system of government, our culture and what we stand to loose if our government is allowed to continue to act outside the law and, indeed, illegally.

        I note that after you Brits effected your gun ban in the UK, gun crimes rose by 40%.  In Australia, after their gun ban, armed robberies went up by 69%, assaults with guns went up by 28%, gun murders went up by 19% and home invasions went up by 21%. These are hard FACTS and don’t think the statists in Washington don’t know these statistics and that their proposed bans and legislation will have zero effect on these incidents of crime.  So what is reality here?  The reality is they want the People disarmed.  The Second Amendment is the most important Right of Americans in that it was placed in the Constitution in case the government ignored the rest of your Rights.  Our Declaration is no less valid today (with the present government) than it was when Great Britain was determined to usurp our Rights and have their way with us. It warned: “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” We are, unfortunately, reaching that point again when a growing tyranny threatens the Rights of the American People and thus we are determined to retain our Right to self defense.

        As to crime committed by guns I would ask you if you have the remotest idea how many times each day a private Citizen in this country STOPS a crime or act of violence BECAUSE they are carrying a weapon? Every thirteen (13) seconds. So, I think we Americans are doing a swell job packing iron. I noted an interesting bumper sticker the other day “If more sane people were armed the crazy people would get off fewer shots” and therein is true gun control.

        Regarding your obsession with my response to what good my guns will do when the government drops a bomb on me, none at all Madam, It may however, just piss off the other 100 million, well armed gun owners here in the United States enough to prompt them to have a discussion with the fascist clowns who dropped it.

  5. Marton says:

    I guess the cat got her tongue….Its funny when people like her tell us over here how our country should be but when it comes down to it how many people are trying to get into this country and how many are trying to get into hers….

    • mildlypissed says:

      Actually the cat hasn’t “got her tongue”; I do.

      When foreigners start referring to us as “fanatics” and admonishing us to “give up our Rights” so that others might live in peace I need to draw the line. I don’t give a rat’s ass what outsiders think of us – this is our country and we’ve seen how well they’ve made out after their gun bans. This subject is about the government having to comply with our Constitution via Article V, IF they think they have the support, to throw our Rights under a bus.

  6. Thonmas Zuba says:

    Boatmantz Says
    Dear Maggie.
    I guess you have also forgotten, that if it was not for this Country and their out dated constitution You would not be joining in on this conversation about individual rights. You wouldn’t have any.
    You would not be called Britain, You would be part of Germany!!!

    • Maggie Bailey says:

      But we are not, because we also fought in World War Two. We didn’t have a choice – it was that, or be invaded. However, we are now much more progressive in our views here – most people here don’t own guns, and don’t want or need to own them. That is because we have a much safer society than yours – we respect people’s rights much more, i.e their rights to life. I am removing myself from this thread now anyway, no point in keep arguing about this.

      • Thonmas Zuba says:

        Just like you. No thanks for your freedom at the cost of thousands of our people along with all the other allies. Just leave turn up your nose and have a cup of tea.

      • Maggie Bailey says:

        I am fairly certain we did acknowledge the part all the Allies played actually! I don’t know why I am still receiving alerts, I removed myself. It is not “turning my nose up”, it is staying out of conflicts, being peaceable. It seems a much more sensible way to live than always having to “defend” yourself. You don’t, if you just stay out of trouble. That is usually the case here in Britain anyway. Just saying! Gooddbye.

  7. Thonmas Zuba says:

    Have a great day Maggie. I’m sure we would all like peace. It was good talking to you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s