Radical Islam, not “assault weapons,” were responsible for the tragedy in Florida earlier this month, a furious Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert informed his misguided colleagues late Wednesday.
As 50 Democrat lawmakers entered the 12th hour of their House floor sit-in for gun control, Gohmert evidently found himself no longer able to listen to the lies and misinformation being pushed by the left.
During a speech full of leftist anti-gun talking points from California Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman, Gohmert stormed the House floor and demanded to know why his colleagues didn’t want to have a conversation about radical Islam.
“Radical Islam killed these poor people!” Gohmert shouted.
Unfortunately, the Democrats present weren’t interested in allowing the Republican’s opposing views to ruin their anti-firearm propaganda demonstration and shouted him down. They shouted accusations that Republicans want to put guns in terrorists’ hands through opposition to the no fly – no buy bill, which even the ACLU has said is a disaster.
“It appears the gentleman is afraid to vote and afraid to debate,” Sherman said. “And given the weakness of his arguments and his position, his fear is well founded.”
The Ninth Circuit Circus Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 on June 10 that the 2ndAmendment never protected the right to carry concealed weapons. Of course it did until the 1840s, when state courts began restricting concealed carry, arguing that the right to carry was not being infringed if one could carry openly.
The majority on the 9th Circus determined that the California concealed-carry permit law – the state’s law requiring concealed carry permit petitioners show “good cause” to receive a permit was the law being challenged – did not infringe on Californians’ 2nd Amendment rights because the 2nd Amendment does not include the right to carry concealed.
So Californians should just carry openly, then.
But laws that require a person “show cause” to exercise a right are capricious and arbitrary. They do nothing to deter criminals from carrying weapons in secret and make criminals out of people who have no criminal intent.
Just a couple of weeks later, in the wake of the Orlando Pulse Nightclub false flag shooting, President Barack Obama, presidential candidate SHillary Clinton and their Fabian Marxist, gun-grabbing , totalitarian cadre (including some pseudo-conservatives) launched into a full-on gun-grab assault on the people.
The mantra from the gun-grabbing crowd is that no one “needs” to have what the gun grabbers have termed an “assault weapon.” The term “assault weapon” is a fictional term with no real meaning as it’s based on cosmetic standards set arbitrarily by the political class.
And the notion that a class of people who obtained their positions based on the sole qualifications that they have a superior ability to con people out of their money and could finish first in a popularity contest have the moral authority to determine what other people “need” is ludicrous.
In other words, the whole of the gun grabbers’ argument is fiction based on double-speak and argle-bargle. Gun laws will not reduce crime and have the sole purpose of enslaving the populace. And the gun grabbers admit it. Here’s what Congressman Henry “Ratface” Waxman (Communist-California) said on MSNBC in 2001:
If [gun owners] are militia people who think they’re going to defend America from Americans by having these weapons, and using them for that purpose, I don’t think they ought to have them… If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!
So what did the Consitution’s framers have in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment? It reads:
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.
Gun grabbers love to focus on the opening clause, “well regulated Milita.” Their claim is that those words restrict the right to own weapons to the militia.
So what did the Founders mean when they penned and approved those words? As Thomas Jefferson suggested in a letter to William Johnson, “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
According to An American Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. II by Noah Webster, published in 1828, the definition of “regulated” is this: “adjusted by rule, method or forms, put in good order, subjected to rules or restrictions.”
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives one more definition dating from 1690 and relating to troops: “properly disciplined.”
So well regulated, to the Founders, meant a group of troops put in good order and properly disciplined. So who were these troops?
The word “militia” is a Latin abstract noun meaning “military service,” not an “armed group,” and that is how the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term for army or soldiery was “volgus militum.” So they did not mean a standing army or a regular national guard.
The Militia Act of 1792 further defines it as the whole people, particularly, “every able-bodied man” from age 18 to 45.
Remember that the Founding Fathers had just participated in a bloody revolution. They feared a standing army. When there was a need for an “army,” men came from the surrounding area, bringing whatever weapons they possessed, to be led by a man or men with previous military service. Sometimes the State provided them with weapons, ammunition, horses, etc., if they did not have their own.
As Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts put it: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
In his An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787, Webster wrote: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
Tench Coxe described the militia this way: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
In a speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, George Mason said: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves … and include… all men capable of bearing arms. … The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle,” wrote Richard Lee as The Federal Farmer.
“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it,” Lee also wrote.
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” said Patrick Henry during the Virgina Ratifying Convention.
It’s clear the Founders intended that everyone be armed — not just for hunting or for self-defense, which were givens, but to protect themselves from tyranny.
Finally, what is meant by “infringed”? Again, back to An American Dictionary of the English Language, this time Volume I:
“Infringed—Broken; violated; transgressed.”
Further, infringe is defined: “To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done. To break to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as to infringe a law. To destroy or hinder; as to infringe efficacy.”
Liberty lovers should see the 2nd Amendment as inviolate. Not only will the laws being proposed by the gun grabbers infringe on the 2nd Amendment; but many, if not most, of the laws already on the books infringe on the Amendment as well.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant Americans the “right to keep and bear arms.” That right is held by all at birth. What it does is acknowledge that right and restrict any infringement upon it by government.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights was written to restrain government, not the people.
GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is certainly no 2nd Amendment advocate’s dream. In fact, I’m not at all uncomfortable betting he’d sign new gun control measures into law if elected.
Last week, Trump offered support for legislative actions to ban Americans placed on the government’s no-fly list from purchasing firearms. This is a policy agenda that Hillary Clinton has also vehemently endorsed.
It shouldn’t surprise you that both are on the same side of that particular issue, though. As I noted earlier this year:
Over the years, Trump has spoken out in support of so-called common sense gun control measures proposed by politicians on the left. And back in 2000, Trump blatantly stated his support for increased gun control measures in his book The America We Deserve.
“I support the ban on assault weapons and I support slightly longer waiting periods to purchase a gun,” he wrote.
The problem with supporting a push for no-fly/no-gun laws is that anyone who’s paid even a little attention to the controversy over the government’s no-fly list in recent years knows that it is tremendously flawed and inaccurate.
As the American Civil Liberties Union pointed out last week: “[T]he standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error.”
The ACLU filed a lawsuit over the list in 2010 on behalf of “U.S. citizens and permanent residents who the government banned from flying to or from the U.S. or over American airspace.”
“Our clients, among them four U.S. military veterans, were never told why they were on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off it,” the ACLU said.
That both mainstream candidates support the idea of using this flawed list to bar people the constitutional right to bear arms is depressing. So, is there a better option?
Well, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson’s campaign says he is totally against using the list for the purpose of gun control.
“Gov. Johnson believes Second Amendment rights are too fundamental to be denied without due process, and being put on a list arbitrarily by the government is certainly not due process,” Johnson campaign communications director Joe Hunter said in a statement to The Daily Caller.
That’s good, until you consider Johnson’s running mate, former Republican Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. His gun control record is abysmal if you happen to like the 2nd Amendment.
Here’s a nice little summary from The New York Times, circa 1993:
Mr. Weld, a Republican who will run for re-election next year, called for a statewide ban on assault weapons — a proposal he opposed during his 1990 campaign — as well as a waiting period for buying handguns and a prohibition on handgun ownership by anyone under 21. His proposed legislation would also limit the number of handguns an individual could buy and would impose tough penalties for illegal gun sales and gun-related crimes.
“The purpose of this common sense legislation is to remove deadly guns from our streets and to take weapons out of the hands of many teens who themselves are becoming deadly killers,” the Governor said.
Boy, that all sounds really familiar. It’s unlikely that a Libertarian administration would pursue a gun control agenda (it’s unlikely that we’ll ever know, too). But Weld’s recent excuse for his gun control shenanigans is still less than satisfactory.
“I was deeply concerned about gun violence, and frankly, the people I represented were demanding action,” he said. “Sometimes, governing involves tough choices, and I had to make more than a few. Today, almost 25 years later, I would make some different choices. ”
So what’s a 2nd Amendment supporter to do?
Don’t wait around to see who’s going to be screwing up the country from the Oval Office by next year— start a healthy dialogue with your state and congressional representatives right now. Let them know gun control is non-negotiable if they want your vote. With statehouses and Capitol Hill packed with 2nd Amendment supporters, there’s at least a chance the probable executive and judicial assault on gun rights ahead of us will be met with some balance.
May 9, 2016 4:59 am
The Social Security Administration has announced the details of a new rule that would bar many receiving federal disability payments from owning firearms.
The proposed rule is part of President Obama’s push to tighten gun laws while bypassing Congress. News of the plan to add some Social Security recipients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, was first uncovered by theLos Angeles Times last summer and has faced fierce opposition from gun rights groups ever since.
President Obama announced in January that he was officially ordering the Social Security Administration to start the process for implementing the rule.
The rule would require the agency to report recipients with a representative payee who meet certain criteria to the NICS, thus keeping them from being able to legally purchase or posses a firearm. Currently there are millions of recipients who have their finances managed by a representative payee, but most of them will not be reported to NICS under the proposed rule.
That represents a significant retreat from the policy that was originally floated. It was first reported that the rule would mirror one implemented at the Veterans Administration, which affects all veterans with a representative payee.
Though Social Security’s rule limits the scope of those banned from owning firearms compared to the VA it would still potentially target a larger group of people. Tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans could be affected.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has been backing Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah’s unconstitutional executive orders to impose gun control. Now she’s telling us just how much it’s going to cost, $80 million!
On Wednesday, Lynch told Congress, “I have complete confidence that the common sense steps announced by the president are lawful.”
Lynch said that Obama’s actions are “well-reasoned measures, well within existing legal authorities, built on work that’s already underway.”
Of course, the problem with what Lynch said is that the truth is that Obama’s actions are completely unlawful. First, and foremost, no authority has been given to Congress nor theExecutive Branch to engage in these actions. Second, the Second Amendment is clear in that there is not to be an infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear armsfor the purpose of their civil duty of being part of the constitutional militia.
At least one senator verbally stood up to Lynch.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), chairman of the subcommittee Senate Appropriations Committee panel that oversees the Department of Justice said, “The department is on notice. This subcommittee will have no part in undermining the Constitution and the rights that it protects.”
President Barack Obama, frustrated by Congress’ inaction on gun control, will meet with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday to discuss ways of reducing gun violence unilaterally through measures that do not require congressional approval.
Obama, in his weekly recorded address, said on Friday he has received “too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids, to sit around and do nothing.”
He has repeatedly urged Congress to tighten gun laws. His calls grew louder following the 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, and again after mass shootings in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and San Bernardino, California in recent months.
“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” Obama said in the address. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.”