Our Preexisting, Irrevocable & Involatile Right of Self-Defense

“Laws that forbid the carrying of guns…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~Thomas Jefferson

The subject of the 2nd Amendment and our Right to “keep and bear arms” is never going to go away and there will always be a host of uninformed shills hoping to be interviewed by the statist media in order to state unequivocally that no one ‘needs’ the type of weapons that are popular today and that, indeed, there are people out there who are trained and qualified to protect you if the need arises.  Before any discussion of People’s ‘Rights’  the most salient point to make, at the offset, is that police, sheriffs, indeed ANY “law enforcement” folks have ZERO legal responsibility, or ‘duty’ (moral or otherwise) to help, protect or save any person (you) from any harm even if they are a material witness to violence being perpetrated.  Be VERY freaking clear on this!  It’s been litigated numerous times and the courts and the Supreme Court of these united States has ruled (more than once) that police have no legal or constitutional duty to protect you, or your children or your family.

Among the numerous decisions/rulings, Warren v. District of Columbia basically sums it up ruling that a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.“  In other words, police have NO OBLIGATION to protect anyone.  Another seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County.  Other cases include but aren’t limited to Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Davidson v. City of Westminster, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, Hartzler v. City of San Jose, Linda Riss v. City of New York, Susman v. City of Los Angeles, Zinermon v. Burch and South v. Maryland such that it’s established ‘law’ that, quite simply, judicial remedies are not available for the police’s failure to protect any Citizen. In other words, if someone is injured or killed because they expected but did not receive police protection they’re simply shit-out-of-luck as the saying goes because the courts, including the highest court in the land, have ruled again and again, that law enforcement has no legal or moral responsibility to protect ANY individual Citizen.  So, let’s put all this law enforcement “To Protect & Serve” fantasy land BS in the trash can where it belongs before we discuss anything regarding the ownership, possession or carrying of firearms.  Even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren’t), one only need reflect on Broward’s cowards (sheriff deputy Scott Peterson and his colleagues) hiding outside Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018 while seventeen people, most of them teenagers, were gunned down to ask “How’s that (relying on the “Protect & Serve” crowd) working out for ya?”  With all due respect, law enforcement people are nothing more than armed and glorified stenographers, who’s job (let’s be honest), is FAR less dangerous than that of a chauffeur, a farmer or garbage men, according to (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/) insurance companies.  They (law enforcement) invariably arrive after something happened to fill in the blanks of a report that the media and insurance adjusters might read later.

So the aforementioned ‘realities’ dovetail right into the 2nd Amendment but rather than jump into the nuanced subject of ‘guns’, “assault” rifles or related legislation that the talking heads (lying heads) promise will “do something about violence” in our society I want you to realize and FOCUS on the fact that the 2nd Amendment is little more than an acknowledgement of everyone’s pre-existing Right to defend themselves and that the Amendment itself does not a grant the Right but RESTRICTS the government’s ability to, in any way, “infringe” on the Right to defend yourself and your loved ones.  I say again, the 2nd Amendment, like the First Amendment, doesn’t give anyone any rights. Rather, it prohibits the federal government from infringing on rights that are natural Rights preexisting the establishment of government itself.

Sadly, as we know, the statists will tell us that they have the legal and moral authority to ‘regulate’ the 2nd Amendment for the good of society.  They tell us that our ‘elected’ representatives (folks relying on donations from lobbyists and special interest groups, elected by hacked electronic voting machines, and, in some cases, votes from illegal aliens) are serving ‘the public good’ when they restrict just ‘who’ can possess or bear arms or what arms they might purchase and/or use or what fees they will charge you for the ‘privilege’ of bearing arms but what they’re really saying is that you don’t have the Right to defend yourself, your children and loved ones from violence. 

Beyond the ever growing list of persons not entitled to equal Rights under the Law such as veterans who, for whatever reason, were assigned a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf, who are summarily declared “mentally defective” and their Right to defend themselves or their loved ones is taken from them and old folks, collecting social security where their kids handle their affairs (maintain the check book) are similarly deemed by the government incompetent and suspends their Constitutional Right to defend themselves and their loved ones, the latest citizen disarmament plot being hatched (March 2018) will raise the minimum age for rifle purchases to 21 which gives me a Déjà vu of the days of Vietnam when eighteen year olds were expected to suck-it-up and die for their country but couldn’t vote or even buy a beer in the pub. 

Ponder for a moment the fact that New Hampshire says it’s legal for a fourteen year old boy to marry a thirteen year old girl while the statists are saying eighteen year olds aren’t responsible enough to acquire a rifle.  The 26th Amendment was passed to resolve that by establishing an 18 year old ‘age of majority’ (full citizenship) to address that and yet, here we are again, in spite of being “Citizens” they’re still unable to have a drink in the pub like other Citizens, unable to purchase a sidearm until they’re 21 years old like other Citizens and now, if the statists get their way, the government will restrict rifles until one achieves 21 years of age.  Illinois just passed their law depriving their 18-20 year olds their Right to own a rifle, ordered them to surrender them, making it a felony charge when they don’t.  We’re back to 18 year olds being old enough to be used as cannon fodder in the statist’s wars but being just as discriminated against as they were before the passage of the 26th Amendment ~ so much for Equal Protection under the Law.

SIDEBAR:

Finally, of course, you also have the tried and true “convicted felon” group,  ever since 1968, as having been the poster children of selectively stripping of Rights from People who ran afoul of the law at some point in their lives.   Now, before any of you get on your high moral horse about “felons” give some thought to just how easily you could find yourself becoming an “evil felon” like, in Washington state, engaging in on-line poker or in West Virginia by (for whatever reason?) teaching a bear to wrestle.  Hell, poaching lobsters is a ‘felony’, improperly importing artwork is a ‘felony’, and sending spam email are now felonies in various states and, as a “felon” you loose your Right to defend yourself, your children or your loved ones in spite of the 2nd Amendment’s restriction that the government “shall not infringe” on that Right.   Yup.  You probably hadn’t noticed that becoming a ‘felon’ is real easy in America.  You can even become a felon by calling in to work ‘sick’ so you go to a ballgame or hit the beach on a nice day.  Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 such a heinous act is “[f]or the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”  Thus, calling in sick when you’re not is defrauding your boss under Federal Statute (a felony) but don’t believe me.  Believe US Supreme Court Justice Scalia who stated, it criminalizes “a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ball game.”  (oops ~ they killed him so I guess you can’t ask him after all)  So, in spite of the government’s own studies showing that only a third of folks who found themselves convicted of a serious crime (31.7 percent) were reconvicted of ‘another’ crime, and about a quarter (24.6 percent) were reincarcerated the statist use this 24% statistic to strip the Rights for 100% of the folks previously in trouble with the law.  This 24.6% of a ‘group’ could be statistically counted on to be ‘bad’ thus they justify depriving the entire group of their Rights that our Constitution instructs the government not to infringe upon.  So much for the very foundation of American jurisprudence that, under our Constitution people are “presumed innocent”.  What they’ve established now is some system of McCarthyistic “presumption of guilt” which is right out of Mexican law.

If you’re okay with that and feel that the government’s statistics and percentages should be more than enough to deprive someone of their Rights under our Constitution then, since blacks commit 52% of crime, you should be perfectly fine with stripping blacks (as a whole group) of their Rights too.  Indeed, according to the 2016 Revised Edition of The Color of Crime, blacks are six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race thus, as a safety precaution, based on those statistics and percentages ‘blacks’ should rightfully be declared to be not “law-abiding” and thus all should be deprived of their Rights, right?  I think not.

I wonder what ever happened to Thomas Jefferson’s public statements such as “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”   Of course now they take your Rights away if someone (angry girlfriend, neighbor, whomever) takes out a ‘temporary’ restraining order against you (not even a crime) or if, God forbid, you’re convicted of the misdemeanor (not felony) of domestic violence or, indeed, any “misdemeanor” which attaches a one year hitch in the house of many doors you’re also stripped of your Rights.  Cancer patients holding a medical marijuana card in a state where it’s legal are Federally Denied Persons and loose their Right to defend themselves, their children or loved ones from possible violence.  Heck, even some convictions for drunk driving qualify you for permanent loss of your Constitutional Rights.  None of these People are, what the statists like to quaintly refer to as “law-abiding”.  Rather than a Citizen, they become a lesser citizen.  What we’re allowing to happen is the creation of a tier system and codifying that there are degrees of citizenship in our society.  Some Citizens will be ‘permitted’ to have  Rights and other groups of lesser citizens who will be denied certain Rights at the discretion of their betters on an evolving and increasing basis.  If these criteria aren’t enough Seattle Police, Broward County, Florida (and other states) have started seizing firearms under some “red flag” law “allows the courts and law enforcement to take away guns from individuals they deem are “dangerous” without any laws at all being broken or charges filed.”  (Google it)  This blatantly removes Rights from people without even any ‘illusion’ of ‘due-process of law’.

So the various folks described above are like the folks below back in their day

in that they are having their Rights of Citizenship expunged.  Our government, like the totalitarian government running Germany at that time, that enacted laws codifying tiers of citizenship and changed what Rights those tiers could expect, are creating American ‘tiers of Citizenship’ just as the nazis did in the 30s.  Back then there were Rights of “Aryans” and then there were rights of jews and other ethnically non-German people.  These “tiers of citizenship”, this depth and breadth of discrimination against people that Germany’s statists enacted are something we like to say, are appalling to us, that in our position of moral superiority, we would never permit or tolerate (here) and yet, today, you have entire swaths of American Citizens who, thanks to the evolving (some might even say ‘arbitrary’) gun laws, are having their Rights of self-defense taken from them by the stroke of the pen in much the same manner.  As Clinton aide Paul Begala said in 1998 “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”  It’s okay to create these ‘lesser’ Citizens because the government has made you scared.  If you’re scared (or if you’re a STATIST) it’s perfectly okay to say this person or that person (or whole groups of persons) aren’t deserving of or can’t be trusted with the same Rights that other people have.  In this way we legally (but not ‘lawfully’) create a neo-apartheid state.

How did we get here?  Pretty simple really.  Folks have really short attention spans, they have few, if any, real principles they’ll stand for (like bearing “true faith” to our Constitution) and generally don’t give a damn about anyone’s Rights except their own.  Without getting into what ‘events’ (shootings) are contrived and what events are real, the short story is that EVERY TIME there’s an “event” the statists push to curtail liberties of people who had nothing to do with the event.  They hurry forth and propose more limits on just ‘who’ can have or utilize their Right (under the 2nd Amendment) to defend themselves and/or what means of defense they’re comfortable with ‘allowing’ you to possess.  For the past few years it’s been semi-automatic rifles and/or semi-automatic pistols and their magazine capacity.  Not surprisingly, the statist won’t admit that regulating a firearm’s bullet capacity is meaningless as evidenced by President Garfield being killed using a five shot Webley revolver, President McKinley being killed using a six shot .32 caliber revolver, Lincoln being killed with a single shot derringer and Kennedy (purportedly) being shot with a bolt action rifle having a six round capacity.  There’s absolutely no need for more than 8-10 rounds in a magazine they’ll say when they want to outlaw standard magazines (even though the Columbine shooters had mere 10 round magazines ~ 13 of them, in fact and the Virginia Tech shooter had mostly 10 round mags ~ in both cases, they just brought a bunch of them and it takes less than 2 seconds to change out a spent mag for a full one.  Limiting magazine capacity (they say) doesn’t infringe on your 2nd Amendment Right. Which is kind of like saying that they’re not taking away your Right to ‘travel’ rather they’re simply restricting you from using anything with wheels.   The fact is, as the sun rises over the asylum (US of A) these statists hope that no one will notice or openly ‘say’ that these laws are nothing more than a capriciously and maliciously hatched back door method to confiscate guns and disarm the Citizenry.  They accomplish it by repeating again and again : “We have the legal authority to do this.  We just can’t show you.  Trust us. We wouldn’t lie to you; we’re the government!” and people continue to drink that Koolaid.

The narrative goes something like this: They frame all their proposals claiming they would never infringe on the Rights of “law abiding” Citizens.  By the use of the term “law-abiding” they’re manipulating you into agreeing with their premise that anyone who ever ran afoul of the law, at any time in their lives, isn’t (currently or ever will again in their lives ‘be’) a law-abiding Citizen and thus, needs to be disarmed and rendered defenseless.  To accept this, as stated above, you have to totally disregard our Constitution’s emphatic mandate that people are “presumed innocent” in favor of the antithesis which is tyranny’s “presumption of guilt”.  My ass, I reply. 

Let’s put this into perspective for you.  In 2014 around 8.6% of our population had a felony conviction which means we’re over 10% today.  Cops, after-all get promotions for felony arrests and most felons never even see a jury rather, they get offered lesser plea bargains instead; which, ensures a conviction for the DA.  Indeed by age 23 nearly one in three Americans will have been arrested for ‘something’.  Using the ten percent figure, looking at the photo below, were there only one person in each car, you’re looking at eleven (11) felons that you have to walk past to get to Wally World represented by the cars herein.   Are these eleven people (once having gotten in trouble with the law) ‘criminals’ and, in-fact, not “law abiding” and apparently here for nefarious purposes?  Or, are they going about their business and their lives as they park here to shop, go to work, or whatever behaving in a perfectly “law abiding” fashion?

The fact is that, one is either  ‘actively’ breaking the law or they are “law-abiding”.  If someone is breaking the law they’re subject to investigation, prosecution and punishment at which point their Rights and liberties are rightfully curtailed.  Unless you’re some statist, if people have not been subject to due process (prosecuted) or found guilty of breaking a law and placed under the control/restraint of governmental authority, they are presumed innocent in America and entitled to ALL Rights and protections under the Constitution.  Either you ‘believe’ in the most basic American article of faith ~ the presumption of innocence ~ or you don’t.  If you don’t then you’re a statist and you ARE the problem.

With such short term memories, what the statists also don’t want you to remember with regard to their latest focus on “assault rifles” is that, once upon a time, there were a hell of a lot more military grade weapons available then there are now but there were no “events” such as those that occur with sufficient regularity to raise any Las Vegas odds maker’s eyebrow.  

In fact, prior to 1934, machine guns were as perfectly legal as any other firearm. You could quite literally order a machine gun from a mail order catalog… and people did.  Thompson Arms and Auto Ordinance were only two manufacturers supplying machine guns to the American public (see the typical period ad below) and there was NOT ONE CASE of anyone shooting up a school.  Absolutely ZERO cases of school shootings while it was completely legal for regular folks (you, me, anyone at all) to purchase and own fully automatic machine guns with 100 round drum magazines. 

After WW2 anyone could buy, own and shoot a 20 millimeter anti-tank gun, be it the surplus German model for under two hundred bucks or the Finnish 20 millimeter anti-tank gun (see ad below) for under a hundred.  Heck, one could even buy/own a 25 millimeter Hotchkiss cannon for $125.00 ~ As with the availability of fully automatic machine guns these anti-tank cannons were available through mail-order to the general public and no one ever used one to shoot up a school, sink a yacht or shoot down an airliner.

So (clearly) it’s NEVER been the availability of military grade firepower or standard capacity magazines that made ‘certain’ Americans run around shooting up schools and neighborhoods.  As you can see from the magazine ad above, not only were anti-tank weapons available to John-Q-Public without any license but one could even buy 50mm ~ 60mm mortars for $20.-$30. and, oddly enough, no one ever laid down a mortar barrage at a school either.  

According to the FBI’s ‘Uniform Crime Report’, there were 374 people shot and killed with rifles in the entire US in 2016. This number, 374, is what all the hub~bub for gun control is about these days.  Four times as many people were stabbed to death and no American statist (yet) is proposing outlawing knives.  The government’s Department of Transportation confirmed that ten times as many people (3,477) died and an additional 391,000 were injured from drivers being distracted by texting and cell phones yet no American statist are advocating outlawing cell phones in vehicles.  There were 10,497 people killed from drunk driving in that same year but no American statist is suggesting reinstating the Volstead Act/18th Amendment banning alcohol or even banning automobiles which are ‘tools’ no different than any firearm.  I wonder why no statist is suggesting depriving the more than one million people arrested for DUI and operating a vehicle impaired (OVI), who might very likely kill someone (some time in the future), of their Right to travel just like they deprive folks who’ve run afoul of the courts their Right (under the 2nd Amendment) to defend themselves and their families.  Out of a population of 330 MILLION people in the US, 374 were killed with rifles ~ are rifles the issue?

Reality aside, statists claim more laws are needed and, of course, their lying press agrees with them.  More limitations set upon the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution; more ‘perfectly acceptable’ regulations set down on your possession of the means of self defense.  Be it the ‘color’ of the weapon ~ black is more dangerous even though guns were always black or blued/parkerized ~ the only thing that’s changed is the use of ‘plastic’ as a material for a weapon’s stock and/or grip where they used to use nicely finished wood, the configuration of its ‘handle’  or the number of rounds it contains, just pass some more restrictive laws and wait for the next event/shooting to go for some more.  The problem for the statists (if the People remember their ‘Civics’ class from school) is when Rights or  liberties are guaranteed by our Constitution, ‘limiting’ or ‘removing’ them through mere Legislation is unConstitutional.  The Highest court in the land has said in the case of Miranda v. Arizona:   “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”   Thus, the legislature can not simply ‘pass a law’ that strips the Rights of a minority and have it be lawful or Constitutional.

People need to be clear that there is a BIG difference between ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’ and to understand the your Rights and the government’s (legislature’s) limitations you need to clearly understand the differences.  I’ve written on this elsewhere but, it’s important so I’ll say it again risking beating a dead horse.  The legislature (federal or state) can pass any law they want, saying anything they want and that’s perfectly “legal” for them to do.  (That’s why they enjoy doing it so often.  It makes a great sound-bite for the evening news.)  Having said that, the Supreme Court ruled in Norton v Shelby (never overturned) that: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed” What that means is merely passing ‘laws’ doesn’t make them binding on the public or “lawful”.  A ‘law’ needs to be Constitutional to be effective.

As I said, the legislatures can pass any damn thing they want but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s “lawful”.  Let’s imagine everyone in Congress loves Trump so much (I’m using him versus Obama because the statists seem to run around with their hair on fire when thinking of Trump) that they sit down on Monday morning and pass a Law Titled “Term Limits” wherein they state “There shall, after Friday, 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 Presidential tenure are articulated, governed and ‘limited’ by the 22nd Amendment to our Constitution which says: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.”  “No person shall be” doesn’t lend itself to ‘interpretation’  by a bunch of legislators or some ‘court’ to mean some people shall, or black guys shall or women shall.  It means “No person shall”.  Sort-of reminds you of the phrase: “shall not be infringed”, doesn’t it?

How about the House & Senate pass a ‘law’ Titled “Executive Office Ascension Bill” wherein they state that the office of the Presidency will be transferred, every four years, to the highest bidder, in an open and public auction on eBay.”  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  Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 4 of our Constitution and, in order to change it, one must ‘Amend’ the Constitution.

How about ‘regulating’ the justice system and trials?  What if the House & Senate passed legislation saying anyone having once been convicted of something that thereafter the only hearing such a previously convicted person could expect would be a panel of three police officers and their judgement would be final?  The public interest would be to cut the expenses within the legal system.  They could claim they were “regulating” access to the courts.  I mean, these folks were convicted once already (for … something);  why should they expect the same treatment or equal-protection under the Law as “law-abiding” Citizens?  Problem is to take away someone’s (anyone’s) Right to a public jury trial one must ‘Amend’ the Constitution.

What do all these goofy examples have in common?  The Legislature can certainly pass them but as Norton/Shelby said, they would be “as inoperative as though it had never been passed” because they run contrary to any rational reading of our Constitution and thus, are unconstitutional acts.  How can they be unconstitutional if they were passed by Congress?  As stated above, the Supreme Court said in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966):   “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Reflect for a moment on the Volstead Act.  Our enlightened legislators, bowing to special interests (of the time) voted to pass the National Prohibition Act which effectively banned alcoholic beverages in the United States.  In the case of ‘booze’ they couldn’t just pass some goofy Law (but they can with firearms, right?), they needed to amend our Constitution by way of passing the 18th Amendment otherwise the Law would’ve been blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional.  Likewise, if a statist wanted to make Trump President-For-Life you would need to LAWFULLY amend the 22nd Amendment rather than pass some goofy ‘law’.  If you wanted to auction the position of President on eBay you would need to LAWFULLY amend our Constitution and if you wanted to subject People to Star Chamber justice at the hands of police tribunals rather than give them a fair trial by jury you would need to LAWFULLY amend the 6th Amendment rather than pass some ‘law’ just like they had to amend the Constitution to make a cold beer illegal.  Why?  Because “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Contrary to popular (statist) belief, in order to ‘change’, ‘amend’ or ‘augment’ the power of government as limited by our Constitution, BEFORE they legislate to abridge its contents, regardless of their reasoning as to why they want to, before violating the Constitution as it’s currently written, one MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution.    They (Supreme Court) were clear in 1960 in U.S. v Mersky: “a statute (law) that regulates without constitutional authority is a nullity even though it be published in the books, recognized by the police and lowers courts, and even though it be unchallenged for decades“.  

Why then do statists believe they can go around the Article V Amendment process when it comes to our Right to defend ourselves, our children or families?  Somehow (apparently?), they contend when Congress passes a ‘Law’ directly inhibiting, limiting, licensing, taxing or even stripping the Right protected by the Constitution with the words “shall not be infringed” from the People that their ‘Law’ infringing on this Right amends the Constitution and must be universally respected by you and I. 

This is what’s called “the color of law”.  Interestingly however, Section 241 & 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting “under color of any law” to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the record,18 U.S. Code 241 & 242 applies directly to those ‘enforcing’ unlawful ‘laws.  The Supreme Court clarified their lack of immunity in Owens v. City of Independence: “Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.” Nor, as they said in Hoffsomer v. Hayes: “The courts are not bound by an officer’s ‘interpretation of the law’ under which he presumes to act.”  Thus, attempting to ‘enforce’ any (Constitutionally) unlawful statute or law places them directly in the crosshairs under the aforementioned US Code.

So, let’s get back to our eighteen year olds being legislatively deprived of their Rights protected by the Constitution.  Here’s how you ‘lawfully’ take the the eighteen year old ‘Citizen’s’ Right away.  First someone (presumably a statist) writes the text of the amendment that you get BOTH Congress & the Senate to AGREE on.  They must agree to the exact wording of and approve the amendment by a minimum of two thirds of each house.  Then you send the proposed amendment to all fifty states to have their legislatures agree to the EXACT wording of the amendment and then approve it (IF their state’s population doesn’t want the change, the chance of passage is almost nil), then they (the states) vote yes or no on the amendment.  Out of the fifty states, the process requires that the states themselves (three fourths of them) need to ratify or approve the amendment.  That’s thirty eight (38) states being required to agree to amend the Constitution.  Not thirty five states, not twenty states (as in the ratification of the 16th ~ income tax ~ Amendment) and certainly NOT merely the legislative branch of the federal government.  The foundational “contract” of our government can only LAWFULLY be changed by this method.  Thirty eight state legislatures have to agree – to take away an eighteen year old’s Right to acquire a firearm.  In New Hampshire alone this means you have to get a majority of 425 people in the state legislature to agree on stripping these Citizens of their Rights.  Good luck with that. 

The statists continue to claim they have the legal authority to ‘regulate’  certain folks and the Rights they’re entitled to… “no rights are absolute” they say.  What pisses me off is this modern,  ~the ends justify the means~ progressive tendency to claim that the court’s duty is “interpreting the Constitution” and that’s where we get into trouble because the job of the court is to insure that laws, regulations and the wielding of power by the government is not in “conflict” with the Constitution rather than twisting words and desires into what you want the Constitution to say ‘today’.  Interestingly, John Adams (our second President) said “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”   As pointed out within the US Court’s own site (http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about), “Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.”   The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.  Notice there’s no mention of their job being “interpreting the Constitution” just making sure laws aren’t “contrary to the Constitution.“

A sad fact of life is that the government statists and their (deep state embedded) media shills can manipulate a goodly number of unthinking sheep with jingoistic nonsense into ‘feeling’ like they should run right out and support the legislature’s “doing something” about violence by restricting the Rights of folks who had nothing to do with the violence they ‘feel’ so terrible about.  I unflinchingly use the words “unthinking sheep” because you absolutely need to be “unthinking” and a “sheep” in order to accept the premise that you can “do anything” about an idiot misusing a tool by restricting non-idiots who don’t misuse the tool from using said tool.  But, as Ron White has said on many occasions: “You just can’t fix stupid.”

Alexander Hamilton, who believed in a strong central government, nonetheless said in Federalist 33 that any law passed by Congress that was not enacted “pursuant to its constituted powers will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” 

What’s far more troublesome than unthinking sheep or even statists is the seemingly sane and thoughtful people out there that ‘accept’ the contorted and convoluted premise that the government’s legislatures are somehow empowered to amend  our Constitution with legislation while ignoring the Amendment process under Article V of the Constitution.  Many people seem ‘okay’ with the government  totally ignoring the Supreme Court again and again and again as in (Norton v Shelby) that instructed quite plainly: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed” or, when the the Supreme Court in (Miller v. U.S.) instructed “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.”  or, when the the Supreme Court in (Sherer v. Cullen) instructed “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of the exercise of constitutional rights.“ or, when the the Supreme Court in (Murdock v. Pennsylvania) instructed: “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.” or, when the the Supreme Court in (Miranda v. Arizona) instructed so damned clearly that: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” or, when the the Supreme Court in (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham) instructed:  “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”  Essentially, when the government/statists ignore all of these very clear instructions and gets away with amending our Constitution by legislative fiat rather than the Constitutionally ‘lawful’ process they feel (probably rightly) that they can look at words such as “shall not be infringed” and go about openly infringing without any fear of repercussions or blowback from the public who feel they must keep their comments or reaction in the ‘politically correct’ sphere.  Why ~ I wonder?  

How, does one nuance or ‘interpret’ “Thou Shall Not”… or “shall not be”?  Indeed, how does one change the word and meaning of NOT into ‘can’ because the government wants to say they “can” have the authority?  Honestly, one can’t without pulling some ridiculous interpretive legal gymnastics while totally disregarding not just the original intent of our Constitution but wholly disregarding logic and the instruction/guidance of the Supreme Court in MANY other cases involving protected Rights. 

Allowing legislatures to selectively remove the Rights of groups/people they have ‘selected’ or ‘targeted’ is, simply put, a breach of the “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment.   The government can not ALLOW laws to be passed or enforced which protect some Citizens while expunging the Rights of other Citizens and still maintain it is a “nation of Laws”.  It’s okay for the US statists to “regulate” the Rights of certain groups of its Citizens but it’s BAD when, in 1935, Dr. Werner Best, Chief Legal Advisor and second in command of the German Gestapo issued a directive saying “Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety” and they went about disarming them.  Go figure.

So let’s sum this up shall we?  Because bad people, acting illegally, occasionally threaten and/or kill innocent people, statists claim “something needs to be done about gun violence” and the availability of the tool (sidearm/rifle) that the nut job used during his illegal act.  Their convoluted logic is that to “do something” about the bad people, acting illegally it’s appropriate to pass laws that either take away the Right of self defense from people (not the nut job) or to outlaw the tool (sidearm/rifle) from from folks who had nothing to do with the illegal act (mayhem & murder) that got the statists wound up to begin with.

They develop an ever expanding list of (according to them) bad or generally irresponsible folks that maybe, sort-of, sometimes ‘could be’ statistically said to have a propensity toward being ‘bad’ (not that they were but that they ‘might be’) at some time in the future and, in spite of the fundamental American rule-of-law being one of “presumed innocence” they declare them second class Citizens unworthy of ‘equal protection under the Law’ as dictated by the 14th Amendment such that their basic Right of self-defense, protected from infringement under the 2nd Amendment is taken from them.  They implement this social policy even though no where in our Constitution is there any provision for lesser tiers of citizenship where some are granted Rights and others are denied Rights.

This ever expanding group of second class, less-than-Citizens consisting ~(for now)~ of eighteen year olds, retired people, war veterans, people having gotten in trouble with the law at some point or, nowadays, anyone law enforcement (in their infinite wisdom) deems “dangerous”, in any number of States, without any laws at all having been broken or charges having been filed, are disenfranchised and expected to rely on others (law enforcement) to protect them and/or their loved ones, even though, as stated above (with citations) that it’s been long established that police or any government agency has no legal obligation or responsibility to protect anyone (let alone second class citizens) from any harm or violence that might befall them and, even were they inclined, national statistics show the average response time for them to even show up is between 8.5 and 11 minutes, when the average interaction time between criminal and victim is 90 seconds such that you or your loved ones are dead or raped 7-9.5 minutes before the armed stenographers even show up.  

As posited above, they do this by making an ‘end-run’ around our Constitution and take away the People’s Right to self defense.  They pass ‘laws’ which they claim are lawful but amend the Constitutional protections that are the foundation of ‘lawful government’ in contravention to what it says and what the Supreme Court has declared in Miranda ~ “there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them” and no one seems to ‘react’.  I would note that the lack of reaction or outrage does NOT translate to these actions being less than treasonous to the founding principles of our country.

These groups of well established ‘second class citizen’ above are, of course, only the beginning.  The statists goal, the ‘end game’ as it were, has always been complete disarmament of the civilian population just as they’ve done in other countries, at other times which has proven, again and again to be historically tyrannical or genocidal in their purpose.  Indeed, in his work “Death by Government” R.J. Rummel noted that prior to the 20th Century, 170 million civilians were murdered by their own governments.  Historians tell us that during the 20th Century perhaps as many as 200 million civilians were murdered by their own governments.  As such, a prudent man might want to retain his Right of self-defense.  Just saying…

These ‘elements’ ~ call them statists, leftists, fascists or just plain idiots ~ keep floating the same disarmament nonsense again and again and again, the goal of which, as stated, is to render the population defenseless.  They claim it’s their right to have these positions and to act towards implementing these goals.  They say they have the moral high ground.   These statists have attempted to undo the protections provided by the Second Amendment for years and always, there’s someone telling us we should remain civil, discuss the ‘differences of opinion’, entertain some kind of ‘give and take’ by accepting some of their positions and proposals as acceptable in the hope of a negotiated ‘reasonable’ settlement with these people who are adamant in their belief that they have the right & authority to disenfranchise you unConstitutionally. 

Let’s replace the subject matter being negotiated (your God given Right to defend yourself and your loved ones, not to mention defend ‘Liberty’) with the concept of pedophilia where your son or daughter are the specific target of the of the people advocating for the other side.  You’re expected to remain civil, discuss ‘differences of opinion’, entertain some kind of ‘give and take’ by accepting some level of access to your son or daughter.  Perhaps they promise not to have actual intercourse with your son or daughter if you allow for their “reasonable” access to them.  Would you entertain such a “reasonable” position or would you shoot the SOB in the face?  What sane individual (with children) would tell you that you should’ve been reasonable or that the twit with the .45 caliber hole in his/her face had a  right or authority to insist upon such access to your kid? 

Your Right (everyone’s Right) to self defense (bearing arms) involves the very same cut and dried decision.  You’re either willing to let these people have their way with you and your loved ones or you’re not.  If you’re not, then you need to make very clear that there will be NO negotiation, NO ‘reasonable’ infringement of your Rights, NO give and take and NO acceptance of their ‘authority’ to “regulate” the Right of self defense.  Isn’t the popular phrase these days “No means No”.  If they insist ~ then DEFEND yourself and your loved ones.

Simply put, would a cop wait for an armed assailant, brandishing a weapon, appearing ready to fire to actually shoot him or his partner before acting in self preservation?  Would any government wait until an anarchist group burns the Capital, brings down the government and actually overthrows it and our Constitution before acting in self preservation?  If you’re reasonable and your answer to these questions is NO then ask yourself if the Citizenry (us regular folks) need to wait for some rogue statist element to completely  and unlawfully disarm them in obvious contravention of the Constitution prior to totally trampling our Constitution or should they ‘act’ against any proposed usurpation of their Right of self-defense before they’re marched into cattle cars?   These people, (satatists) by advocating and actively working towards your disarmament, are directly threatening you, your children, your family and your country while those tasked with protecting your Rights, complete idiots who couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel, do nothing.  If you think the People of the united States, for some misbegotten reason of ‘political correctness’ or because some bootlicking media misanthrope tells you these ‘people’ have some right to their opinion, that good People need wait for the hammer to fall, then clearly you’re some Moonbeam who needs to put down the Tide Pods and stop snorting the condoms.

I don’t see they deserve any better than the “armed assailant” facing the cop mentioned above or a fate any different than any armed “anarchists”, because, when our Constitution is no longer the foundation of our system of government, when Oaths sworn to “support and defend the Constitution” and promises “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” are blithely disregarded, then truly, the Barbarians are at our gates.   Will it really take the statist revolutionaries burning your homes, rounding up your family members and putting you/yours in cattle cars before you realize you can’t afford a further step ‘back’?  People have a moral Right and obligation to defend themselves and their families from such barbarians at the gates…

For the record, I apologize for being long winded here but in order to understand the blatant illegality of what’s being perpetrated/done with regard to the People’s (everyone’s) Right to defend themselves and their loved ones requires more than a four paragraph sound-bite piece.