Did you know there can be no gun control?

10thAmendment-350w233hI am going to make a shocking statement… and then I am going to tell you logically why I am absolutely correct.

Neither the federal, or any of the state governments, have any Constitutional authority to enact any law which defines who can or cannot own a gun, who can or cannot carry a gun, where you can or cannot carry a gun, what kind of gun you can or cannot own or carry, or make any other edict which concerns the unique relationship Americans have with firearms.

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to remove that topic from the discussion completely — just as they were wise enough to make sure that no one could alter the words or meaning of the Constitution unless it was done through the Article V process that they provided for.

However, all three federal government branches — the federal Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches — as well as all State governments, have usurped Powers and Authority which they were not granted or were specifically denied by the Founders and the Constitution.

supreme_court_buildingBy interpreting the meaning of the Constitution (which the Constitution does not authorize them to do), rather than ensuring that all US and State Laws conform to the letter of the Constitution, the Judicial Branch has usurped a power which they were not given by the Constitution.

Furthermore, by exercising an authority that they do not have, the Judicial Branch has unlawfully granted the Legislative and Executive Branches a number of powers which were never delegated to them by the Constitution, or were denied to them by the Bill of Rights.

Additionally, the State governments have usurped Powers which they were specifically prohibited from exercising by the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits the States from infringing upon the right of the People to keep and bear arms, yet the States have enacted a multitude of “gun control” laws which are all patently un-Constitutional on their face.

This has been done by means of unlawful Supreme Court rulings which are based upon the exercise of powers that the Judicial Branch has usurped in “interpreting” the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

400299_10151287876466321_1853991989_nThe people of America MUST recognize these usurpations; the American People MUST repudiate these unconstitutional usurpations of power by all three branches of government, as well as by the States, and simply say — in one unified voice — “NO”, we will no longer comply with illegal and unconstitutional laws.

And they need to do so by some stronger “show of force” than posting on Facebook.

What I am saying, in other words, is that there truly needs to be a Revolution in practice — preferably, a peaceful revolution — but this present system of government MUST be returned to the Constitutional Republic instituted by our Founding Fathers.

militia_answer_1_xlargeAs long as we do not, our federal and State governments will continue to spread their unconstitutional message and will continue to usurp the Constitution to the extreme detriment of the American People.

And that, I am certain, will lead to a violent and bloody Revolution that the nation will not survive.

In order to offer further proof of the principles expounded above, I have recently found a very detailed linguistic interpretation of the Second Amendment.  For those who are still a bit skeptical of my reasoning, I include this interpretation below; I believe you will find that this expert’s opinion shows that my analysis is right on the money.


The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

“I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

“The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’, is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

“I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.”

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

“In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.


About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS Twilight Zone episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He’s also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute “paperless books” via personal computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual’s right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.


But when shall we be stronger?

220px-Patrick_Henry_Rothermel“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” – Patrick Henry.

Ladies & Gentlemen, the time has come to stop talking, posting and lallygagging on Facebook and other assorted media.  We are getting nowhere, and no significant number of our so-called “representatives” are listening to us.

abc_nbc_cbsThe main-stream news media marginalizes us, in order to drown out our voices.  They manipulate the news, and determine what the “agenda” shall be by the stories they carry — they claim that they are driven by “ratings”, and simply show what their adoring public wishes to see.  In reality, they carefully craft the mosaic of stories they carry in order to manipulate the opinions of viewers so that those opinions conform to the will of the political demons the media serve — their masters.

The “Leader of the Free World”, the President of the United States, is not a citizen of our nation.  Ample proof of that has been shown, but the main-stream news media has failed to carry that multitude of stories which show how and why this usurper became President through the use of fraud, crime, deceit, bribery and murder — and has maintained his stranglehold on our nation through the use of those same tactics.  When a man cannot uphold the law of the land in his bid to obtain that office, there is no hope that he will suddenly change his ways and become a law-abiding person once he is in office.

US_Congress_02Our political “representatives” are just as bad, if not worse.  With very few exceptions, Senators and Representatives accept bribe after bribe, and cannot honor their promises under any circumstances.  The first year of any politician’s service is often the last time they utter an honest word or actually do the People’s work throughout their entire career; once they “learn the ropes”, they no longer work for any purpose other than that of lining their own pockets and maneuvering for further financial gain.

supreme_court_buildingThe one branch of the great government established by our Fore-fathers that is charged with the wisdom of our nation, the Judicial Branch or Supreme Court, has gone from being the supreme arbiter of the Constitution — ensuring that all legislation enacted by Congress conformed to that great blueprint of Liberty — to being the “Great Rubber Stamp”.  The Supreme Court is now nothing more than an accomplice in the theft of Liberty — these elite crooked lawyers and scoundrels do nothing more than figure out how that great document can be “interpreted” so as to allow the scoundrels of the Legislative Branch to enact any legislation they see fit which has the net effect of driving the nation into deeper and deeper poverty, further oppressing the People whom gave life to this once great and noble social experiment, and entrenching themselves even further into the certainty that the People can no longer drive them from their lairs in the halls of Congress.

Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_StatesOur Founding Fathers would no longer recognize the government they created — it has so altered itself that it is simply too late.  There is no longer any hope of being able to seek redress for the innumerable injuries that the criminals, frauds, usurpers and snake-oil merchants who inhabit the “District of Colombia” have inflicted upon the People of America; these appeals fall upon completely deaf ears — ears which hear nothing unless it rustles like currency or jingles like peices of silver and gold.  They care nothing for the well being of their constituency, the very men and women who sent them to the Capitol to do battle for them in the arena of Liberty — they care only for their own physical, financial and political well being.  So long as they enrich themselves, they are happy and satisfied with themselves.

jesus-money-changers-templeIt is long past time for America to rise up as one voice, as one clenched fist, and drive the money-changers from the temple of Liberty just as Christ drove the money-changers from the temple of God.
When, America… when are the Patriots finally going to take back this nation and re-institute Liberty??

As Patrick Henry said… the time is NOW, while we still have the means to do what must be done.  The only thing uncertain is our resolve…

My resolve is firm… how is yours?

Lets do this!!


In this current debate that is raging, regarding the need for new laws regarding guns, everyone is forgetting the most basic point — that the “Emperor has no clothes on”.

No one, except God Almighty himself, has the authority to make any law which infringes upon the People’s right to keep and bear arms.

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms is a Right given to all of humanity by their Creator, no matter what name he is called by; that principle is one of the things guaranteed to Americans by the language used in the 2nd Amendment; it does not GRANT Americans that right — it is a full, complete, and blanket PROHIBITION against the State and Federal governments enacting any type of law that keeps any American from buying or owning any gun or other type of arms, no matter who they are. The Constitution makes no distinction — “…the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”.  It does not say, “…unless you have been convicted of a felony”, nor does it say, “…unless you are mentally ill” — it says, “…the Right of the People…” with no distinction made as to WHICH PEOPLE.

10thAmendment-350w233hAmericans have lost touch with the true meaning and structure of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the charlatans in the political arena have taken full advantage of that.  These documents were written as a firmly set boundary which the government was constrained to not stray outside of.  The only powers which were awarded to the government were clearly and specifically “delegated” to the United States; any statement made in the Constitution or Bill of Rights which stated that something could not be done was a prohibition of that power from being exercised by the States.  The Tenth Amendment was written in such a way that it reserved everything that was not SPECIFICALLY delegated to the United States or SPECIFICALLY prohibited to the States as belonging to the People (the general population of the States).

In other words, if a power was not SPECIFICALLY granted to the United States, it COULD NOT exercise it.  Likewise, if a power was not specifically delegated to the United States and was not SPECIFICALLY prohibited to the States, it was reserved for either the States or the People.  BUT — if a power was not SPECIFICALLY granted to the United States and it was SPECIFICALLY prohibited to the States, then that power was reserved for the PEOPLE only.

This is the point with the Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY prohibited the States from exercising any power which infringed upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.  And, since the Second Amendment did not SPECIFICALLY delegate that power to the United States, then the United States has no authority whatsoever to exercise any authority or power that infringed upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

In a nutshell, people, there is no one on this Earth who can stop you from owning or carrying a gun if you want to except yourself.  God gave you that Right, and neither the United States government or any State government has any authority, right, power to make any law keeping you from the free exercise of that Right.

supreme_court_buildingBut, you say that the Supreme Court has ruled this, and they have ruled that — and they have ruled otherwise?  Maybe they have… but do they actually have that authority granted to them by the Constitution?

No, they do not.  If they did, they would have struck down any and all attempts to exercise that power by the United States, instead of rubber-stamping bad laws by “interpreting” the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to mean the exact opposite!

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2:

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

Do you read, at any point, where the Supreme Court is given any authority whatsoever to “interpret” the Constitution or Bill of Rights?  No, you do not.  That is because it does not exist.  Our Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in such a way that it could ONLY be modified in ONE way — the way that they specified in that document, and NO OTHER:

United States Constitution, Article V: 

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

The Founders considered the Constitution and Bill of Rights as “perfect” documents — documents which should not be altered for light or transient reasons.  In order to accomplish that, the Founders gave us only ONE way to alter the words, meaning or application of those documents.  They did not, at any time or place, delegate any authority to the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution or Bill of Rights — why would they?

It is ludicrous to think that, after they had taken such care in designing these documents and providing a single method by which to improve, add to, or alter them, that the Founders would allow a single branch of the government to enjoy unfettered power to alter the meaning!  The very thought that they would entrust the very meaning of the documents they labored over for years to a single branch of government — a government they sought to keep in line with a three-tiered system of checks and balances — is in complete violation of that very system of checks and balances!  This would be akin to playing a football game with 3 referees, but only one of the referees had the power to change the rules of the game at any time as he saw fit!  No, folks, it just doesn’t work that way!!

The true authority of the Supreme Court is NOT to “interpret” the meaning of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  Their true authority is to interpret all laws enacted by Congress and the States to ensure that THEY conform to THE CONSTITUTION — not the other way around!!

But yet, this is exactly what they have done.  The Supreme Court, for over a century, has “interpreted” the Constitution and Bill of Rights to their deaths — they have so changed the meanings of the documents, that Congress now thinks that it can enact any law it wants with impunity.

charters_doc_image_8.1.1Many legal scholars hold up the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison as the “end all & be all” that allows the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution — WRONG!  They ignore the fact that the Supreme Court was never given that specific authority by the Founders, and the Constitution contains no grant of this authority at all.  And, if they are correct, that would mean that the Judicial Branch usurped a power not granted by the Constitution in  doing so; but, in point of fact, they are not correct.

In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, the supremacy of the Constitution was absolutely upheld in the same ruling that upheld the legal principle of “Judicial Review” — the principle that the Supreme Court had the authority to review cases where the laws of the United States conflicted with the Constitution.  The Supreme Court was STILL not endowed with the authority to alter the meaning of the Constitution by “interpretation”.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 177–78:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.

400299_10151287876466321_1853991989_nPeople, this is where we need to draw the line!  The Constitution and Bill of Rights mean the exact same thing NOW as they did when they were adopted by the fledgling United States of America — not a jot or title less!  Thousands of “laws” enacted by Congress over the past 170 years are completely and totally unconstitutional, null and void on their face because they fly in the face of the Constitution — and yet they are still enforced?

The bottom line is that we have been too trusting; we have placed far too much faith in our elected representatives to observe the Constitution and to do what it right.  We have misplaced our trust in Congress’ honesty, and allowed them to corrupt our perfect system of government.  In reality, it is our Congress who has so perverted the America of our Fathers, and turned our nation into a place that the Founders would never recognize.

When we, as a society, start making concessions in the application of the 2nd Amendment — what is next?

Is the next step that the 1st Amendment only covers this religion or that religion?

Or maybe the 4th Amendment really only means that the government can’t search your house without a warrant if you are not a Mormon, or maybe a Catholic?

Where does it stop??

Where do we draw the line??

I say that we draw the line a long way behind where we are today — at the place that the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution — and not an inch less; with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, folks, it is ALL OR NOTHING because once we start giving an inch, the government will take the rest.

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Re-Blogged from: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?


I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

supremeThis is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

founderspicI could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much  in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

soulonfireIt is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

thinkingYou must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?