We should not even be having a discussion on the validity of Americans owning guns. It is our right under the Constitution and any discussion or law to the contrary should be Un-Constitutional. In fact, we believe, that ALL Americans should be able to own any weapon they desire.
Until the 1930's Americans could own any weapon they wanted. They did not need to register it, did not have to get a permit to own it and it could be purchased at the local department store or sometimes even the drug store. Guns were available, easily purchased and somehow, there were few shootings.
Then the "smart ones" decided that we should outlaw liquor which gave rise to the rum runners and the "Chicago" style gangsters with their Tommy Guns. All of a sudden we needed to stop these people from killing each other with these guns that fired "thousands of bullets" a minute. At this point the first gun regulation started and it has been downhill ever since.
Today we are facing a political class, which conveniently excludes itself from obeying any law including gun control(see our post yesterday regarding the exclusion of "any government official" from the proposed assault weapons ban.) Their ultimate idea is an America without guns. Correction: America without guns owned by the common law abiding citizens. The ruling class will still have their weapons as well will the thugs, knuckle dragging neanderthals, and criminals but we have just repeated ourselves.
However, the Founding Fathers knew human nature and how these "smart ones" think, we mean feel, as thinking is not required to be a part of this class. They knew that given enough time, they would want to take this Constitutionally regulated Republic away from the citizens and grant all power to themselves. We are at that point now.
The Feinstein attempt to take away all guns must be defeated, whether it is in the halls of Congress, locally (as in the following post) or by citizen action. We should reverse all the laws that have been passed since the 1930's.
We should allow any citizen to own any type of military hardware up to and including tanks, rocket launchers and if someone wants, an F-16. Why, you say should a citizen own these weapons? Because, he as a free citizen of this country has the right to them!
In 1776, the top line of military hardware was the musket. It was used successfully against the British and Spaniards. No longer were soldiers running around the country with axes or even bows and arrows. They carried the most up-to-date gun and cannon.
The Founders would think no different today. They would want a citizen to have the same equipment as the government as this is the only way the populace can be an effective counterbalance to an overbearing government.
We understand that Supreme Court decisions in the past have ruled against this argument, however, Justices can get things wrong. We saw that in the ObamaCare court case. It is time for the Court to reverse itself and grant Americans the right to defend themselves against the government. The Founders would agree!
Conservative Tom
The Gun Fight Will Be Local
January 25, 2013 by Bob Livingston
PHOTOS.COM
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Communist-Calif.) introduced her draconian and unConstitutional bill to ban weapons with scary-looking features and high-capacity magazines and create a national registry system yesterday. It was classic sleight of hand.
The bill was introduced with sound and fury by a person who has stated it’s her goal to confiscate every firearm in America. It was done in violation of Washington, D.C.’s existing gun laws. Of course, laws don’t apply to the 1 percent (just ask David Gregory). They get special exemptions and specially exempted body guards to watch over them. Over the course of the coming days, the gun grabbers will hail her as a heroine.
The CINO (conservative in name only) Republicans in Congress will wail and gnash their teeth. Threatened by Tea Party challenges from the right and the National Rifle Association, most will not cave.
Senators are already indicating that passing a gun ban will be a tough sell. And Congressional Republicans — who have already alienated conservative Americans by agreeing to an unConstititutional fiscal cliff deal that raised taxes on 77 percent of the population — would be committing suicide by passing more gun laws.
That’s not to say you can ignore Congress. Lawmakers will do all they can to walk the tightrope between what their masters want (disarmament of Americans) and what the voting population and the NRA will endure.
The real gun grab is coming by stealth. President Barack Obama’s (Fascist-Who knows where?) bank, Bank of America has frozen the accounts of two gun manufacturers. Another gun manufacturer has had his liability insurance, held by GEICO, cancelled because his vehicle “does not meet our underwriting guidelines because it is used in conjunction with a company that deals in the weapons industry.” GEICO, of course, is owned by Obama’s BFF, Warren Buffett.
On the State level, gun rights are being snatched overtly and covertly. New York just rammed through a comprehensive gun ban that will allow weapons to be confiscated once the original owner dies. It will also institute a database of gun owners and require re-registration every five years.
In Missouri, the Senate is considering a bill that would require a parent or guardian of a Missouri school student to notify the school board in writing that he or she owns a firearm. Parents of children who commit crimes with guns would be prosecuted as felons.
Though ordered by a recent Federal appeals court to create a law that would allow for concealed carry in Illinois, gun grabbers there are rather seeking ways to circumvent the ruling and keep guns in the hands of criminals but away from law-abiding citizens.
States like Texas, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota and South Carolina have bills pending before their legislatures that would block enforcement of unConstitutional Federal firearms laws. Other States like Pennsylvania, Alabama and perhaps a dozen more, have pro-gun rights bills set for their next sessions.
Dozens of local sheriffs have declared that they will defend the Constitution and resist unConstitional gun laws. The real gun fight will go on at the State and local levels.
Meanwhile, the gun grabbers and Obama through his executive orders are Balkanizing America. It seems that disarmament and division are their main goals, and they’re using children as human shields. And don’t forget, they’ve accumulated billions of rounds of ammunition to deal with those who won’t peaceably comply.
Where is your evidence that the Founding Fathers would agree that you have a right to have a nuclear bomb in your garage? Read the Heller case, and produce a counter-argument on Founding Fathers original intent. Do you realize that Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court, and Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy joined? This is the "conservative" wing of the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteImagine if this insane guy's mother had a nuke in her garage instead of hand weapons. He could blow up the whole city.
--David
I saw this posting and although it does not answer your question, it does put the entire situation in a different light.
ReplyDeleteI will keep looking for an answer for you, David.
rpatton
Location
Graham WA
One of the underlying reasons behind the 2nd ammendment (AS I UNDERSTAND IT, your understanding may be different) was for defense of our homes, country and loved ones. Anything that allows others (other countries, terrorists, criminals, our own government...) an advantage undermines my percieved understanding of the 2nd ammendment. Yes there are people who should not be allowed to have guns/weapons and I see that as a people problem not a gun problem. It is not practical for private citizens to own F14s or Nukes or even tanks really, I think in a real SHTF situation these would have to be captured at the expense of a great loss of life in order to be turned against those who would use them against us but it is sort of a moot point to argue whether we should have the right to own something that we could not reasonably afford to own. Should we have the right? certainly...but would that right really do us any good?
David, if you will scour the following source, you will see evidence that even early Justices, believed that there must be armed citizens to prevent government overreach. Any limiitation will only harm the citizen's right for redress.
ReplyDeletehttp://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC1
We also find it interesting that in 1792 all able bodied men between 17 and 45 were REQUIRED TO OWN weapons which were the state of the art in those days. It was not required that they own a horse, a coat of armor, and an axe. It was a musket and ammunition. I believe the government was requiring men to have current military weapons and why should today be any different?
A. Militia Act of 1792
Sec. 1. Be it enacted . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . . That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. .
>....it is sort of a moot point to argue whether we should have the right to own something that we could not reasonably afford to own. Should we have the right? certainly...but would that right really do us any good?
ReplyDeleteYou say you "certainly" have the right. To establish that, you need to produce a counter-argument to the Supreme Court's opinion in Heller. They say you do not have the right to own any weapon you can afford to buy.
As I said before, their standard (based on what the typical militia man would own -- musket, etc.) is "common in the home." That standard rules out nukes, F-35, tanks, etc. -- not because you can't afford to buy them --but because they are "not common in the home." They are nonexistent.
Assault rifles, 100-round clips, etc., however, may or may not qualify. What does "common" mean in the Heller case? Scalia did not give a precise definition, but if only 3% or less of homes have these things, I would not bet on this Supreme Court ruling an assault weapons ban unconstitutional.
--David
I do not have to establish a counter argument if the Scalia argument is not right.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Constitution was written, individuals had their own ships, armed with cannon which were only a small part of the population, does that say these merchants did not have the right to own these ships? That would be wrong!
Less than 3% of the population owned ships, does that mean no one could own ships by your rationale?
If one goes back to the thinking of the Founders--I have added a lot of data on these people to the blog, they were bright, educated and very fearful of government and standing armies. If they lived today or if we could talk to them, I know they would be in favor of the common man owning ANY item the government owned. They knew that without an ability to face down the government, the government had no fear of the common man and therefore would make him a subject.
We are at that point today. We are forced to buy a product, health insurance, by an administration that does not even know what the law says but is making it up as they go.
We have a government that is passing laws NDAA and Patriot Act, that effectively allows the government to jail you without trial or to kill you without any retribution.
We have a government that has set up camps to "protect" people from others.
We have a government in the name of the Department of Homeland Security that has purchased 1.5 billion 40 caliber, jacketed (human killing and rounds not used for practice) rounds when only 90 million rounds were used last year in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We have a government which refuses to balance its budget or for that matter pass a budget.
We have a government that prints money out of thin air and has no plans to curtail it.
We have a government that has allowed its citizens (Ambassador and aides) to be killed and will not come forward and admit that they made mistakes.
We have a government that sends troops and fighter aircraft to foreign lands without Congressional approval.
We have a government that is out of control and we are arguing about what guns, ammunition, and clips that a citizen should be able to own? Seems to me they already control us. We are their servants!
>Less than 3% of the population owned ships, does that mean no one could own ships by your rationale?
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is not "my" rationale. I am just telling you what the Supreme Court used as their standard for what is protected under the 2nd. Amendment. Cannons and assault weapons might be statistically comparable in terms of what percentage of the public owned them in the time periods (1790 and 2013, respectively). So, were/are they common in the home? That depends on how you define "common." I don't think it is 100% predictable
how this Court would apply its Heller standard to an assault weapons ban.
However, I am quite sure that they would not uphold a claimed constitutional right to own ANY weapon you could afford to buy. You seem to be arguing that the right is absolute, and extends to nukes, tanks, jet planes, etc.
Personally, I am with Scalia, et. al. on this one. I don't want my neighbor to have a nuclear bomb in his garage. He has a right to own a gun for personal protection, but not a device that can blow up the whole city. The collective right to basic security of everyone in the city overrides his desire to own a nuclear bomb. Owning a nuclear weapon or biological/chemical weapons is a "moot point" for you or me, but not for any of our growing number of multi-billionaires in this country who could afford to buy anything they want.
--David
It means that anyone can own a ship, a cannon, an AR15, a jet, a nuke bomb. That should be our right, however, with the Roberts Court and with the Chief Traitor at the head of the Supreme Court, who knows how this court will rule.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that if a "Heller" type decision came to the court, it would rule that private citizens have NO right to guns! Roberts has been compromised and will vote with the liberal wing for the new few years.
>My guess is that if a "Heller" type decision came to the court, it would rule that private citizens have NO right to guns!
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose anybody is free to "guess" anything he pleases. But there is no rational basis for your guess. If you would read the Heller opinion with an open mind, you would see that the Supreme Court unambiguously affirms your right to have guns in your home. I don't know why you are talking about Roberts here. The five justices in the majority in Heller were Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.
--David
The Heller case is dead with Roberts now on the liberal side! Once a similar case comes to the Court, Roberts will vote against guns. That is why I am talking about Roberts. He is a turncoat, an embarrassment to the country.
ReplyDeleteRoberts has been co-opted by the Administration to vote the way they want him to vote. He no longer is free to vote the way that he feels.
Some say that he had a fraudulent adoption of his two children. He did something illegal to get them. We don't know if that is the story or if there is something else. But he definitely is not a Conservative anymore.
As I said, all five of them joined in the opinion written by Scalia. If Roberts is no longer a "conservative," then what say you about the other four? The Heller case absolutely affirms your right to guns in your home, and Roberts signed onto that decision along with the other four.
ReplyDeleteJust watch how Roberts votes on the affirmative action case in Texas. Wanna put down a bet on that one?
--David
--David
David, please count. When Roberts defects to the other side it will be 5-4 for their side and it will not matter a whit what Heller says. The court no longer uses American cases for precedent!
ReplyDeleteFor the foreseeable future most cases (especially those the Regime wants going one way) will be settled 5-4--with the 5 being with the Regime.
What affirmative action case in Texas are you referring and what is the Administration stand?
ReplyDeleteFisher v. University of Texas
ReplyDeleteI guarantee you that Roberts will vote with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy on this one. I would be surprised if the Administration would agree with them, so that kinda blows away your theory that Roberts will favor the Administration on cases henceforth.
--David
Why are you picking a very meaningless case--it could result in a $100 verdict --Fisher's application fee as she has already graduated from another school.
ReplyDeleteThis case is nothing like ObamaCrapCare or gun regulation, so using this case as a litmus case of my theory is ridiculous.
Obama would not want to use that case to push his ideas when guns and other cases will be much more important to him.
I stand by my theory.