Second Amendment

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by melbo, Aug 7, 2005.

  1. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    There are two versions of the second amendment in common usage. These versions differ slightly in capitalization and punctuation. See subsection below for elaboration.

    Version 1: "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."

    Version 2: "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."

    In the early months of 1789 it was not clear whether or not the Constitution would be augmented by a Bill of Rights. Supporters of enumerated rights felt that they provided further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, James Madison drafted what ultimately would become the "United States Bill of Rights" and proposed it to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

    The original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the U.S. House was: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to
    render military service in person."

    Debate in the House on the remainder of the 8th focused again on whether or not a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was tabled for a later time. On July 21st, however,
    Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The house voted in favor of Madison's motion, and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, and on July 28th the committee returned to the house a reworded version of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

    The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17th and August 20th. These debates revolved primarily around the "religiously scrupulous" clause. Some representatives feared that the government could declare people to be religiously scrupulous, and thereby disarm them against their will. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24th the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate" A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms
    shall be compelled to render military service in person."

    The next day, August 25th, the Senate received the amendment from the house and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the amendment was transcribed, additional commas were inserted by the Senate scribe:" A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

    On September 4th, the Senate voted to significantly change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause: "A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

    The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9th, slightly modifying the language, and then voting to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was: "A well regulated militia being the security of a
    free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The house voted on September 21st to accept the changes made by the Senate, however the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to": "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."

    It is this version that was transmitted to the states for ratification.

    There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia", and a parallel debate as to whether the presence or lack of this comma influences the overall meaning of the amendment.

    Both the U.S. Senate Journal and the Annals of Congress show the final version of the Second Amendment as not containing this comma. On September 25, 1789, the completed Bill of Rights was written to parchment by a House scribe. In this version, now held by the National Archives, the comma was inserted. All other surviving original texts of the Bill of Rights, including the copies sent to the states for ratification, do not contain the comma.

    Comparing versions of this and other amendments as officially enrolled in the journals, as they were progressively modified and sent between chambers, shows that scribes of the era took liberty with the capitalization and punctuation of text they wrote.

    The U.S. Government is inconsistent in the use of the comma in publications. The Government Printing Office (GPO) has produced versions both with and without this comma, while the Statutes at Large (considered the canonical source for the U.S. Congress) does not include the comma.

    Ratification of the Second Amendment

    The process of adoption by by the requisite number of states was completed on December 15, 1791.

    Modern interpretations of the Second Amendment

    The intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and how the amendment applies in the twenty-first century, is one of the most frequently debated topics in American politics. This debate centers around questions such as:

    • Who does the amendment mean by the "militia"?
    • Who does the amendment mean by "the people"?
    • What "arms" does the amendment protect?

    Distilled to their basics, the two main competing schools of interpretation for the Second Amendment are:

    Standard Model (or Individual Right Model):
    The Second Amendment protects the rights of an individual to own firearms. The militia" of the Second Amendment is comprised of the armed citizenry at large, but in no way is the individual right dependent on being in active militia duty.

    States' Right Model (or Collective Right Model):
    The Second Amendment protects the rights of States to keep armed militias. Because the role of militias is served by the, this protection does not extend to individuals.

    For a more detailed review of interpretations of the Second Amendment, and the debate surrounding them, see

    Executive branch

    Prior to the middle of the twentieth century, the executive branch took no general position on the Second Amendment, presumably due to there being little to no federal gun regulation. As firearms later became a political issue in America, Republican administrations tended to endorse the standard model, while Democratic administrations
    leaned towards the States' right model.

    The first formal written position on the Second Amendment was produced by the administration of President George W. Bush in 2004. That year, his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, issued a memorandum opinion which stated:

    "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." [1]

    Legislative branch

    In 1982, a subcommittee of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported upon their findings. This report included the following opinion: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second
    amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that
    what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."[2]

    Judicial branch

    The federal courts have not widely accepted any single interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Fifth and Ninth Circuits represent two extremes, having respectively explicitly embraced the individual and collective right models.

    The Supreme Court has provided little guidance to resolving the inconsistency between the lower courts, and has not recently granted a writ of certiorari for any case hinging directly on the Second Amendment, though it has let stand appellate court decisions on this issue. Supreme Court cases that addressed Second Amendment and "right to bear arms" issues include U. S. v. Cruikshank [1875] and U. S. v. Miller [1939]. The Miller case has been cited by both sides to support their positions.

    In this case, the high court made the following statement: "The right [claimed in this case] is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the
    Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their
    fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States."

    United States v. Miller

    In Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
    guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view." The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of
    "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Therefore, "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is
    any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

    Jack Miller had been indicted for transporting an unregistered short-barreled (sawed-off) shotgun across state lines, in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller
    appealed this conviction to the Arkansas District Court on the grounds that it violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The District agreed with Miller and quashed his
    indictment, and this decision was in turn appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The case was remanded to the lower court for further consideration. However, as Miller was deceased at this time, no further action was taken, and the question of whether a short-barreled shotgun had actual military purpose was unresolved.

    Supporters of the standard model read Miller to support the right of individuals to privately possess and bear their own firearms, while supporters of the States' right model
    read Miller as endorsing the view that the Second Amendment exists specifically to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia.

    Historical quotations

    The documented debate in the House and Senate over the Second Amendment is sparse, especially when compared to debate over other articles of the Bill of Rights. For this reason, contemporaneous writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers are often referenced by those who would better understand the original intent and historical context of the Second Amendment. The following statements were made by various founding fathers prior to the adoption of the Second Amendment, two being during the 1789 debates over its adoption:

    James Madison
    James Madison is considered the father of the constitution, and was the primary author of the Bill of Rights.

    "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." The Federalist, No. 46, 1788

    George Mason
    George Mason is considered the father of the Bill of Rights. Mason wrote the, which detailed specific rights of citizens. He was later a leader of those who pressed for the addition of explicitly stated individual rights as part of the U.S. Constitution.

    "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who
    are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

    "That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe
    Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

    Thomas Jefferson
    "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; 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, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 Others "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by
    partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

    "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

    "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

    [*]"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and
    will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." Tench Coxe, Delegate to Continental Congress, Oct. 21, 1787

    [*]"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright
    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." –Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

    [*]"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend
    our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    --Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

    [*]"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." --Noah
    Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

    [*]"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." --Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

    [*]"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people."--Fisher Ames, Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

    Historical examples of disarmament

    This section explores some examples of the kinds of actions that historically already had been taken, and against which the amendment would have been meant to provide protection.

    [*]Just prior to the American Revolutionary War, British troops were seizing gunpowder and cannons (some of which are fairly well-documented to have been stolen from the British) from armories.

    [*]About 1680, King Charles II of England used the Militia Act to disarm his Whig opponents.

    [*]In 1686, Catholic King James II of England" James II of England made use of both the Militia Act and the Game Act to disarm his "Protestant" Protestant opponents. After he was deposed, the English Bill of Rights 1689 included perhaps the first written articulation of a right to bear arms.

    That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

    NARA | The Bill of Rights: A Transcription Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights"
    U.S. National Archives: Transcription of he Bill of Rights
    2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw"
    Annotated U.S. Constitution – Second Amendment (FindLaw)

    Second Amendment "Fact Sheet" (National Rifle Association)

    Second Amendment "Fact Sheet" (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)


    Right to Keep and Bear Arms (1982 Opinion of the U.S. Senate)

    Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right (2004 Opinion of the
    U.S. Attorney General)

    VPC - Shot Full of Holes - Ashcroft Deconstructed" Analysis of 2004 Opinion of the U.S. Attorney General (Violence Policy Center)

    ""> Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions (Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA)
    AmericanRedoubt1776 likes this.
  2. meyah

    meyah Monkey+++

    Just words.If the 2nd is repealed,

    are you gonna just surrender all your guns? do you know HOW to be maximally effective against Big Brother? The answer is for each of the 100 (maybe) men with balls left in the US to each cost Big Brother 100 Billon $. 10 trillion $ gone, no money left to pay his jbt's, which means he can no longer oppress anybody.
  3. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Organize it and tell us how you plan to lead us, meyah. We are all interested in good ideas....less talk, more action.
    Moatengator likes this.
  4. meyah

    meyah Monkey+++

    there's no reason to organize,

    lots of reasons NOT to do so, like surveillance, snitches, rewards, torture, etc. All that's needed is put the info on how and what to do on the net, see how many guys have the balls and sense to operate ALONE, andkeep their mouths SHUT about what they plan, and what they've done.
  5. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

  6. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Very prophetic eh? A 2006 post...........
  7. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Ok. CATO - you are now the first person who has confirmed that Meyah (aka Gun Kid) had one post that for the first part, up until the question mark made a little sense. I suggest you look up the rest of meyah's rants. Next thing we know, you too, will have a tactical wheelbarrow!

    Enjoy: Meyah's Rants | Page 5
  8. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    I don't give a rat's @$$ about Meyah. Nor was I saying that he is the next Nostrodamus.

    I was pointing out that his post was almost verbatim of a few that has been posted on here in the last couple of days. Jump to conclusions much? Are you drunk again?

    I don't know what your problem is with me, but it has already cost the Monkey $20 a month for calling me an 'idiot.' Just say the word and you won't hear from me again.

    BTW, I like how you tend to chew out fellow monkeys that disagree with you, but tone it down for your fellow mods. Keep up the good work.
  9. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Sorry for the offense, Cato. There is no reason you should know that Meyah and Gun Kidd are the same person since they date back so long. Just kind of amazed that you actually dug up a thread from so long ago. I regret that my short note in "jest" offended you so greatly and that you felt like I was calling you an idiot. Please accept my apologies.

  10. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    This may be a long read but very important to read it thru and let it digest

    Whether or not you own a gun and whether or not you believe in gun control,
    if you are an American you should read this.

    For those that care....

    The author:

    Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime
    fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan, grew up in the Indiana,
    Illinois, and Texas, and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State
    University in Big Rapids, Michigan. Garrison is a Crime Scene
    Technician in West Michigan. His research in the fields of crime scene
    investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in
    forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."

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

    Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

    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

    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

    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

    This 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

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

    I 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

    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.

    It is not my right, at that point, It's 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

    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 cannot 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 Patriotic Americans take XXXX 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

    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 cannot 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.

    You 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

    Are you willing to die to take my guns?

    Moatengator, tacmotusn and BTPost like this.
  11. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

  12. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    And it begins ......
    Chicago Gun Confiscation Underway
    It would be highly appreciated if the assholes who commence confiscation operations, could please wear red uniforms or blue UN helmets so that the true Patriots could have clear targets and limit collateral damage to the greatest extent possible. The truly innocent should be protected as much as humanly possible while exterminating the traitorous bastards attempting to enforce an unconstitutional law.
    oldawg likes this.
  13. Pop_45

    Pop_45 Monkey

  14. AmericanRedoubt1776

    AmericanRedoubt1776 American Redoubt: Idaho-Montana-Wyoming Site Supporter+

    It is not the Bill of Needs, but the Bill of Rights... God-given, inalienable, intrinsic, inherent.


    This is my favorite Bill of Rights graphic:


    Molan Labe. Long live our Constitutional Republic.

    Thank you George Washington:


    NRA Life Member; also member of Gun Owners of America of America,
    NRA-PVF | PVF Home
    , Second Amendment Foundation Second Amendment Foundation Online, Home | Calguns FoundationCalguns Foundation, California Rifle and Pistol Association | ,, NSSF - National Shooting Sports Foundation, Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Permies: a big crowd of permaculture goofballs, Survival Podcast Member Support Brigade, Wolf Pack member at – Survival Blog, Prepper Website, Tips, Guides, MD Creekmore, Permaculture Homesteader, Minister. westernredoubt - YouTube, American Redoubt (AmericaRedoubt) on Twitter, Jefferson Franklin (Redoubt) - Google+, American Redoubt | Facebook uploadfromtaptalk1376469601886.
    tacmotusn and Pop_45 like this.
  15. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    well, can't get gun control through congress?
    Issue an executive order instead.
    White House announces new action on gun control -

    White House announces new action on gun control

    8/29/13 9:48 AM EDT

    With no chance remaining for a legislative solution on gun control, President Barack Obama on Thursday targetted the issue for the first time in months with a pair of executive actions.
    The moves, along with the morning swearing-in of Todd Jones, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, mark a fresh push to spotlight presidential efforts to fight gun violence in the face of congressional inaction.
    The ATF will now require background checks for all guns that will be registered to a corporation or a trust, the White House said.
    One Obama order, the White House said, will close a loophole that allowed felons and other people prohibited by federal law from purchasing a gun by registering it to a corporation or a trust.
    The White House said more than 39,000 requested to register a gun to a corporation or a trust last year.
    Obama’s second order will stop authorization that allows the re-importation of military-grade firearms that had been sold to allies or given as military assistance.
    The White House said the government has approved requests to re-import more than 250,000 military-grade firearms since 2005.
    Obama met Tuesday at the White House with a group of mayors, but the prospect of advancing his legislative agenda to expand background checks for gun purchases was barely mentioned.
    Instead, Obama and the 18 mayors discussed gun violence reduction programs that are working in the cities but said he can offer little in the way of federal aid.
    Obama told the mayors that they “were not being invited to be told about a new program, and we should be realistic given the fiscal situation the country is in,” Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said.
    Barrett said Obama told the group he still supports the background checks bill that failed in the Senate in April but did not dwell on its insufficient political support.
    “I don’t want to give you the impression that that was a major part of the meeting,” Barrett said. “He wanted to see what was happening in cities and what was effective in cities — he was much more in a listening mode than in a speaking mode.”
    Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to swear in Jones from the White House at 10:15 Thursday morning.
  16. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Executive order? [finger] Molon Labe
  17. AmericanRedoubt1776

    AmericanRedoubt1776 American Redoubt: Idaho-Montana-Wyoming Site Supporter+

    Here is what I just faxed off to support our Right to Keep and Bear Arms: August 28, 2013
    Dear California Assemblyman Richard Pan (FAX: 916-319-2109, Phone: 916-319-2009,

    Since this is a national Civil Rights issue, I feel compelled to contact you. I request you to take a stand against perverse interpretations of our Constitution whereby good citizens could be registered, finger-printed, harassed, even arrested for owning certain categories of firearms and/or ammunition devices that were previously legal.

    Please do not vote for unconstitutional laws and personally encourage your fellow elected representatives to vote against any "gun grabbing" California Assembly and Senate Bills, especially those in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file such as: Senate Bill 47, SB53, SB374, SB396, Assembly Bill 760, SB567, SB108, AB169, SB293, SB299, AB48, and. For details, please see: CA Legislative Info and Contact Tools. Please strongly support AB134, AB249, AB871.

    I have also written our sheriffs, since historically, sheriffs are the last line of defense of the Citizens and the Constitution, and as such they have resisted unconstitutional pushes to disarm and vilify the citizens of their counties. Please visit this website of the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officers Association: Growing List of Sheriffs, Associations and Police Chiefs Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control | CSPOA - Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and Legal Opinion: Sheriffs Not Out Of Line To Refuse To Enforce Laws | CSPOA - Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. As an elected chief peace officer, I ask that you join with other courageous sheriffs across this Constitutional Republic ( – see enclosed letter) and resist this move with their same enthusiasm and commitment.

    A huge campaign of disinformation on guns is pushed daily on our TVs and devices. It has nothing to do with public safety or preventing mass shootings of innocent people. No gun law would have stopped Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary – violent criminals will always break laws and be violent with all kinds of devices – they don't need guns. Thomas Jefferson said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

    If we truly wish to increase public safety, then we should make laws whereby immediate armed responses by good civilians are allowed and encouraged – now that will save our children and stop these senseless massacres by madmen. "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals." (President James Monroe, November 16, 1818) "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." (Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright of the Supreme Court, June 5, 1824. 1824. ME 16:45).

    No, this “gun grabbing” movement is more ominous in nature, and it ties into an alarming political change in the United States – the exact kind our wise Founding Fathers worried about. "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them…" (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380, June 14, 1788)

    George Washington said in his Farewell Address, September 17, 1796, "If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

    In other words, in order to change the Constitution, there must be a formal Amendment to the Constitution, not just a law passed by Congress or an Executive Order or a judiciary interpretation. Such a gun-grabbing Amendment cannot be done however in order to disarm the Citizens, since the Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments) are RIGHTS, not privileges and cannot be taken away from peaceable Citizens by usurpation. Supreme Court decisions (interpretations of the Second Amendment) D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) support our God-given, intrinsic, inherent, inalienable, moral right to bare arms for self defense.

    "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…" (Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87, February 6, 1788).

    “The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt” (criminal; villainous) “could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” (William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 125-26, 2d ed. 1829. Mr. Rawle was appointed as a U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington.)

    Thus, neither the voters, (Citizens), nor their elected representatives, nor the Judiciary, nor the Executive Branch, can make a “law” to revoke or restrict the inalienable right of peaceable Citizens to be armed for self-defense. This is why Thomas Jefferson stated, "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thus, "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646, June 25, 1788).

    "The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of" those rights. (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789). This is why America is a Constitutional Republic, not merely a democracy, where the majority mob rules and may usurp inalienable rights from individuals.

    The progressive political agenda, which does not respect the Constitution or its Bill of Rights, seeks to completely disarm the American people over a number of years in order to inflict their plan for America to become like socialist Europe. "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 bands of regular troops…" (Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" 1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)

    The proposed so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” (AWB) and its associated bans (magazines larger than 10 rounds) will make great inroads to this flagitious attempt (criminal; villainous) at disarming law-abiding Citizens. In doing so, it could threaten public safety and perhaps even rule-of-law as its enforcement is attempted. This could lead to civil unrest or even worse as many refuse to comply with such unconstitutionality (Second Amendment) and seizure of private property (Fourth Amendment).
    I and millions of others wish to prevent this and work to preserve rule-of-law in this country.

    That means we (you and I) protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

    According to the Federalist Papers and other historical documents which I have frequently quoted herein, the wise and compassionate Founding Fathers unanimously supported the right of the Citizens to own the same military firearms as the American standing army (as evidenced by the above quote by Noah Webster) in order to maintain a balance of power. None of the Founding Fathers mentioned the Second Amendment right as referring to hunting. Americans are entitled to own semi-automatic firearms with their “high-capacity” magazines in order to resist possible tyranny. "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,... in the several kingdoms of Europe,... the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers # 46: Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Historical Documents (American Memory from the Library of Congress))

    Thomas Jefferson said, "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." Even with semi-automatic weapons we are outgunned. This isn't some extremist notion but a lesson simply born of history. Our Bill of Rights was specifically included by our Founding Fathers who had the foresight to protect this important God-given Right of self-defense and being armed. It ranks only behind freedom of speech in importance.

    The Second Amendment also ensures that the government answers to the people and prevents the destruction of personal liberty which we are seeing right now with the past Bush and current Obama administrations. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, Book III at 746, § 1858.

    To preserve our constitutional rights, specifically the Second Amendment, I implore you and your agency to become more vocally committed to the protection and defense of our gun rights. You have been elected to do so and I believe your Oath includes the commitment to protect and defend your Citizens and the Constitution of the United States.

    The Second Amendment ensures that the other nine Amendments of the Bill of Rights will be protected. Thomas Jefferson said, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

    In this spirit, I hope you will not enforce, support, or vote for any Federal or State gun bans, waiting for a judicial overturning of such a decision for you to act in defense of the Constitution. Widespread institutional law enforcement opposition to these proposed laws could derail these rights violations before they happen.

    Please watch this video by Nutnfancy which inspired me to write you:

    Even to Arms: Sheriffs Refuse Gun Laws!

    To Sheriffs who like AWB (Winder): Sheriff Winder Reconsider Letter
    To Sheriffs who oppose AWB: TNP Nutnfancy Sheriff Support Letter

    Although this California Sheriff’s Association statement is good for California: (

    This statement Montana Sheriff’s Association statement is stronger: Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Wyoming’s is stronger still:

    And Utah Sheriffs Association is the best worded defense of the Constitution: - see attached letter.

    The Utah Sheriff's Association statement exemplifies the spirit of America. They wrote to President Obama, "Lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality."

    Many sheriff departments have sent a strong message of resistance to this potential Constitutional violation – I hope you will join them with the same zeal, determination and integrity.

    Sincerely, A Concerned American,


    NRA Life Member; also member of Gun Owners of America of America,
    NRA-PVF | PVF Home
    , Second Amendment Foundation Second Amendment Foundation Online, Home | Calguns FoundationCalguns Foundation, California Rifle and Pistol Association | , Gun Owners of California, NSSF - National Shooting Sports Foundation, Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Permies: a big crowd of permaculture goofballs, Survival Podcast Member Support Brigade, Wolf Pack member at – Survival Blog, Prepper Website, MD Creekmore, Permaculture Homesteader, Minister. westernredoubt - YouTube, American Redoubt (AmericaRedoubt) on Twitter, Jefferson Franklin (Redoubt) - Google+, American Redoubt | Facebook
  18. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Nice letter, but you would be, personally better served, to MOVE out of Kommiefornia, to a Constitutionally aware State. like Alaska, or even Montana, where folks do not have to put Political Pressure on their Legislators to Uphold the Constitution. I fear you letter ,will fall on Deaf Ears, or run into a Stone Wall. When they come for your weapons, and are knocking o your Door, it will be to late, to assert your Constitutional Rights, that they will not recognize. Your state is LOST, already and has been for a DECADE.... .....
    AmericanRedoubt1776 and tulianr like this.
  19. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    While I agree with the vast majority of the letter, I take exception to the bolded phrase. I have a good familiarity with the Constitution and would like to know where you get the idea that the first 10 amendments are somehow sacred and not subject to the amendment process. Nothing in the Constitution (including amendments to date) puts any limitation on the scope of future amendment. Since we (and the constitution) agree that judicial interpretation does not change what is or is not there, we nust accept that any of those guarantees can be wiped away with the amendment process.

    This is one of the reasons that we must be very careful throwing around the idea of a constitutional convention route to strengthening the guarantees. If we give citizen level approval without it being amendment specific we put ourselves even more at the "mercy" of elected representatives.

survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary