text:
Tag Archives: gun control
The Democratic Party is the Greatest Threat to America
In a nutshell, this is what the Democratic Party wants for American citizens….. This is what it believes government can impose on us —
It wants open borders – to allow the uncontrolled immigration and smuggling of drugs into our country to overwhelm our system and our services and to poison and kill our children. It wants to continue allowing drug traffickers to make drugs readily available on our streets and on our college campuses, and to allow dangerous and brutal MS-13 gang members to terrorize our communities and neighborhoods. These are all simply non-important, non-crisis-level collateral problems caused by the more righteous decision to ignore immigration laws and do what is "moral.
As it allows more and more criminals and drugs into our country, it wants at the same time to confiscate firearms and to outlaw most of the common guns (205 of them) that citizens purchase and acquire to defend themselves, their families, and their homes. [Dianne Feinstein has already introduced the bill, co-sponsored by a slew of Democratic Senators, and Democratic states are already enforcing gun confiscation laws, other gun control laws, and Red Flag laws].
And then for the coup-de-grace…. in return for providing no safety or national security, for increasing the level of crime in our country, in our cities, and towns, and in our communities, and for taking away our most essential of human rights (the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and to defend against government tyranny), it wants to jack up our federal income tax rate to 70% to pay for all the freebies that will be provided to those who don't work, who don't want to work, who are not "comfortable enough" in their poverty, who are having more and more kids without being married or being able to afford them, and who pour into the country illegally.
Don't be fooled by their rhetoric or their feigned concern for morality or compassion. It's about one thing and one thing only – growing the voter base for the Democratic Party. A party that prides itself on everything unpatriotic, unnatural, and illegal must grow its votes by increasing those bases. They despise our Constitution and our laws; they despise our traditional values and they despise our sense of nationality and "America first."
A government that offers no protection, no security of rights, and nothing of real lasting value is one that is no different from Rome's "bread and circuses." Like the history of the Roman Empire, a government that just treats man's basic urges and distracts him while the country falls into a downward spiral, is one that signal's the country's eventual demise.
Democrats are the biggest threat to our country and to our Constitution. They are bad for you and bad for America.
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged confiscation of guns, Democratic Party, Diane Rufino, entitlements, free stuff, gun confiscation, gun control, Illegal Immigration, increased taxation, open borders, plunder the rich, raise taxes, Soak the Rich, socialism, tax the rich, tax the wealthy	| Leave a reply
A Proposed State Sovereignty Resolution Re-Asserting the Tenth and Second Amendments
Posted on April 1, 2018 by forloveofgodandcountry
by Diane Rufino, February 21, 2018
The following is a proposed State Sovereignty Resolution that I wrote and proposed to my legislators in the North Carolina General Assembly. I feel very strongly that the General Assembly should make it clear that the people's right to have and bear arms is safe and secure in our state.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE SOVEREIGNTY RESOLUTION
A Bill Announcing the Intention to Nullify any and all Unconstitutional federal Gun Control Bills that the State of North Carolina and its People believe to be an Infringement of their Natural Rights of Self-Defense and Self-Protection as Recognized by the Second Amendment
The State of North Carolina asserts the following
A warm attachment to the Union of the States, to which it had pledged its loyalty in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, the compact that created it, and to that end, it has a duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of that Union, because only a faithful observance of them can secure its existence and the public happiness;
Its recognition and respect for the lawful and constitutional process for altering the terms and meaning of the Constitution, including the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, which are the two procedures listed in Article V (the Amendment Process);
The Second Amendment recognizes that a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed;
The Second Amendment also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed;
The Second Amendment recognizes the natural right of Self-Defense and Self-Protection, both on behalf of the State ("a free State," by the way) and of the individual;
The Second Amendment doesn't grant these rights but rather, it protects them, without condition or limitation, from the reaches of the federal government, especially the US Congress and its law-making power;
The phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is clear and instructional on its face;
To affirm the point above further and to support it greater, the States specifically included a Preamble to explain the reason for the ten amendments to the new Constitution (amendments that were demanded by them and without them would have jeopardized and prevented the ratification of that document. The Preamble reads: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution";
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes abundantly clear that the Constitution established a federal government of limited powers, and that in those limited objects of government, the federal government is limited even further by the ten amendments added (ratified by 3/4 of the States) on Dec. 15, 1791;
Just as the Supremacy Clause asserts the supremacy of the federal government with respect to the powers delegated to it, which are "few and defined" (Federalist No. 45, written by the same man, James Madison, who authored the Constitution), the Tenth Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights assert the supremacy of the States with respect to the powers reserved to them;
That one of the reserved powers of the State is the responsibility, the duty, to prevent unconstitutional federal laws, policies, executive actions, and court opinions from infringing on the rights of its people;
The Second Amendment has a very purposeful history; the rights recognized were not rights pulled out of thin air but rather stem from Natural Law and the concept that certain rights are endowed by a Creator (inherent in our very humanity);
Our Founders were not talking about hunting when they demanded that the Second Amendment be added to the Constitution; they were concerned about the freedom of the individual, and also the populace in general, to be armed in the face of a powerful and aggressive government – one that may send out a standing army in times of peace, one that may try to enact laws for gun and ammunition confiscation, and one that may eventually try to outright or effectively disarm its people;
The history of England, and indeed the history of many other nations, teaches us that when individuals are unable to defend themselves and their rights, they essentially have no rights. Rather, they have temporary permission from government to exercise rights until they somehow pose a serious threat to those in power.
James Madison once said: "If Men were angels, no government would be necessary." But what if it was the federal government that was not the angel? The Second Amendment is the contingency plan in such a case;
James Madison also wrote (in Federalist No. 28): "If the representatives of the People betray their constituents, there is no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government";
In addition to the natural right to defend one's life and property, as well as those of family members and perhaps fellow citizens who are vulnerable, there are other components of self-defense and self-protection other than the actual confrontation and neutralization of a violent intruder or attacker, that the people recognize – one being DETERRENCE;
Gun-Free Zones, homes without effective firearms, and individuals of sound mind disenfranchised in their right to have and bear arms serve as attractive targets for criminals and evil-intentioned, mentally-disturbed individuals;
The State of North Carolina, under the Tenth Amendment and according to compact principles, reserves the right to determine when the federal government has over-stepped its constitutional bounds with respect to legislation on gun control;
The State of North Carolina will NOT comply with any federal gun control law or policy that hinders or burdens its citizens in their free exercise of the natural right of self-defense and self-protection recognized by the Second Amendment;
In furtherance of its DUTY to prevent unconstitutional or abusive acts of the federal government on its citizens, and in furtherance of its DUTY to prevent the God-given and Natural rights of its People, the State of North Carolina will interpose using whatever means necessary to ensure that such gun control laws or policies (including judicial opinions), or any laws, policies, or court opinions for that matter in violation of the Constitution generally or the Bill of Rights specifically are not enforced in the State.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
I posted a closely-related article, with commentary on the Second Amendment, prior to this one – https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/04/01/keep-the-second-amendment-secure-in-north-carolina-2/
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged 10th Amendment, 2nd amendment, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Diane Rufino, firearms, gun control, gun control laws, guns, inalienable rights, interposition, model state sovereignty resolution, NC State Sovereignty Resolution, Nullification, proposed state sovereignty resolution, right of self defense, right of self-protection, right to bear arms, second amendment, self-defense, state sovereignty, state sovereignty resolution, states rights, Tenth Amendment, unconstitutional laws	| Leave a reply
Keep the Second Amendment Secure in North Carolina
by Diane Rufino, March 27, 2018
My appreciation of the Second Amendment and gratitude for the wisdom and insistence of our Founders and for the States who insisted that it was necessary to be included in our Constitution (or else they would refuse to join the Union) was solidified in an incident that happened to me many years ago.
When I was 26 years old, I was living on my own in my first apartment – a tiny, one-bedroom place in Plainsboro, New Jersey. My first job out of grad school didn't pay very much so I had to work a second job to support myself. One night, after getting home from my waitressing job and taking a shower, I had trouble sleeping. So I put on the TV and found a good Clint Eastwood movie to watch – Any Which Way But Loose. It was a very small apartment and it turns out that the TV stand I had was very close to the apartment door, which was locked. It was about 1:00 – 1:30 in the morning – maybe later. As I was watching the movie, I happened to notice that the door knob was moving. Someone was outside my door, trying to get in. The knob was moving harder and harder, and I was scared like I had never been scared before in my life. (I had learned soon after I moved into the apartment complex that a young woman tenant had been murdered just before I moved in). As I was shaking uncontrollably and trying to find the number for the Plainsboro Police (the days before cell phones and 911), I heard a man speak through the crack in the door "Open the door; you're the girl with the silver Fiero, right?" In fact, I had a silver 1983 Pontiac Fiero. The man trying to break in specifically targeted MY apartment. He was looking for ME. I didn't know who he was and I couldn't imagine who he was. I was new to the area and had very few friends and acquaintances. I called the police, using the only phone I had, which was next to the kitchen. It was not in a direct line of view to the door. The police dispatcher told me to stay on the line and that a police car would be there shortly. I picked up the only knife I had in my apartment – a cheap steak knife. All I kept saying was "Please hurry. Please hurry. I'm so scared."
I was absolutely helpless. I am 4 foot 9 inches tall and weighed less than 100 pounds at the time. I had a cheap knife in my hand, not even sure if I was capable of overcoming my state of fear to defend myself.
The police arrived before the door was pried open and I collapsed in tears, grateful that someone was there to protect me. The potential intruder told the police that he had been drinking and in his drunken state, he must have gotten confused because he thought he was trying to get into his own apartment. I told the police that it wasn't the truth because he had called out "You're the girl with the silver Fiero." Nevertheless, the police believed his story and they let him go. They admonished him for scaring me and told him "don't do it again." Turns out that he lived in the building next to my building; a grassy courtyard separated our buildings. He lived on the second floor. My apartment was a ground-floor apartment. So, it was hard to imagine the police would have believed his story about being confused and thinking it was his apartment.
I never stayed in the apartment again after that. I stayed with a friend for about two weeks and then moved into a new place, in another town.
I often thought what I would have needed to defend myself that night, especially if he rushed in and rushed towards me. Again, I'm short and barely able to keep my composure when nervous. I am prone to anxiety attacks. Would a simple handgun holding 5 bullets been sufficient for me to stop him? I can't say for sure. Maybe, but maybe not. I imagine I would not have been composed enough to aim well so maybe not. I would have needed something that didn't require accuracy. What if there were two men? Well then, a simple handgun would not have been enough.
What if Plainsboro law required individuals to have guns dissembled in the home?
Self-protection is not a one-size-fits-all model. The Right to Self-Defense doesn't require a one-size-fits all scheme. The Right to Self-Defense has no limits or conditions; it is merely the RIGHT to defend oneself (against others who intend harm), allowing each individual to decide for himself or herself what is needed to ensure that. The government once re-interpreted its "Necessary and Proper" Clause to mean "anything convenient" to help the government carry out its functions. It reasoned, in direct conflict with the very words of Article I, Section 8, that the government needs to determine, and to do, whatever helps it ("whatever is convenient") to carry out its functions. We the People interpret the Second Amendment in the same broad sense – "anything convenient" to carry into the effect the right to defend and protect oneself.
The Right to Life is recognized ever so profoundly in perhaps the most important, most significant document in the world – our American Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Right to Life is not the government's to give, or define, to limit, or to take credit for, and the natural Rights to protect it, secure it, and preserve it (known as the Right of Self-Defense and the Right of Self-Preservation) are inherently equal to that Right to Life.
The day the government denies we the people that right to protect, secure, and preserve our lives is the day that we are no longer free but merely subjects, inferior in our status to the government's right and power to preserve itself. The day that we lose our Right to Have and Bear Arms is the day that we surrender all other rights. The Right embodied in the Second Amendment is the one right that secures all others.
The Declaration goes on to tell us what we the people have the inherent and natural right to expect from government: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…." And then it instructs what we also have the inherent and natural right to do when government fails to secure our rights and instead, threatens them: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…"
Powerful and progressive actors (individuals and organizations) in this country, including Michael Bloomberg, are forcing an evil agenda on the people of this country and on the government which has, as its ultimate goal, the destruction of the rights we are entitled to and the ones we need to continue being a free people. These actors are forcing us to re-evaluate whether our government is becoming destructive of the ends for which it was created and the result is not going to be pretty. A government (King George III of England) tried that over 200 years ago at Lexington and Concord, MA, and then at Williamsburg, VA, and the result was a revolution for the right to govern as the colonies saw fit, with the goal to never surrender their rights and liberties again. Today's youth don't understand this. Today's youth don't even know about this. Today's progressives don't care about this.
There are a lot of people out there, including those who marched on DC, who are advocating for the weakening and even the repeal of the Second Amendment. But that cannot happen. Let's be absolutely clear on that. The Constitution – and thus the legal status – of the Second Amendment is crystal clear on the matter: The Second Amendment confers the RIGHT to an individual to have and bear arms for SELF-DEFENSE (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010, and Heller v. District of Columbia, 2008). That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Furthermore, the ONLY way the Second Amendment can be limited or abolished is through the Article V amendment process. And there are some legal experts who believe that the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights can never be amended. Amendments, they explain, can be added (for example to include other rights), but the original ten amendments are to remain in force as they are because they recognize what, at the very least, our inherent liberty rights include. Because they are rights that are inalienable to us (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), we are always entitled to them.
What does it mean to have the natural right of self-defense? It means we can be expected to protect ourselves, in any way that the situation requires. It means that if we are in fear for our lives or serious harm, we have the right to eliminate that threat. Individuals have the right to exercise their rights but only when they don't seriously impact those of other individuals. I have the right to free speech. But my right doesn't include the right to shut yours down. I have the right to own a gun, but I don't have the right to take the life of an innocent person with it. The inherent, or natural, right of self-defense and self-preservation is recognized, and has been recognized historically, in criminal law. A person who shoots and kills an intruder carrying a gun commits homicide which is a serious crime. But under the law, it is considered "justifiable" and therefore not punishable. A woman who stabs and kills a man who is attacking her and intending to rape her commits homicide. But under the law, it is considered "justifiable" and therefore not punishable. "Justifiable" is a term which means that the killing was "justified," and one of the most common reasons is self-defense.
We don't need the Second Amendment to have the right to defend ourselves, including with firearms. The Second Amendment confers no such right. Rather, it recognizes the right. If bad guys can threaten lives with guns (which they will ALWAYS be able to do; which they have ALWAYS been able to do), innocent victims have the right to have access to guns to counter that threat. If we continue down the road to governments like the Third Reich, Stalinist Russia, Mao Zedong's communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, and even British King James II, to use the full force of government to ignore individual rights and eliminate political opposition, we know that that its operatives and its armies will threaten American citizens with guns and all kinds of advanced weapons. We have the right to have access to guns, and also advanced weapons, to counter that threat. Like kind for like kind. That is what is meant by being free and that is what is meant by having a meaningful right to self-defense.
We see a dramatic rise in violence by bad people and we see a dramatic rise in retaliatory violence by persons who are emotionally and mentally unstable. We are seeing something play out that people throughout history have also seen – bad people and evil-intentioned people will ALWAYS find ways to get weapons (or they will make them, such as Timothy McVeigh and the UnaBomber Ted Kaczynski, or they will weaponize other instrumentalities, such as cars, trucks, planes). The rise in abnormal behavior, in criminal tendencies, in retaliatory mass shootings, in mental instability is something we should be focusing on. It's the behavior – the diseased mind and the black heart – that seeks out the guns for violence. The guns don't force themselves on those individuals. We should be focusing on what in our society is giving rise to this behavior – this troubling trend. Specifically, we should be looking at policies that government has forced on our communities through its seeming desire to change our social fabric and our social norms, to force new values on us and to force us to repress old conventional ones. Government – our public schools and our colleges and universities, our public offices, our public hospitals, the main-stream media (undoubtedly, an arm of the government's establishment) – has been pushing a new agenda now for many years and that is "Diversity." We are indoctrinated to believe that diversity is the most important factor in college admissions, in the make-up of a student body and in the classroom, in the workforce, in our police forces, and in government; we are indoctrinated to belief that what we look like – what the color of our skin is, what country we came from, what gender we are, and what gender we want to be – is far more important than the competency and skills we bring to that school or that office. The government disregards the entire sad history of this country from the era when slavery was abolished until Civil Rights legislation was passed when we DID focus only on what a person looked like. Government doesn't learn from history but rather repeats it. Government, through its willing and reckless refusal to enforce the most important of laws, our immigration laws and its willful blind eye to all the crime and lawlessness that has resulted, indoctrinates us, tacitly, that laws are not really to be taken too seriously. Government, contradicting what our parents used to teach us, undermines the importance of the rule of law and undermines the notion of equality under the law.
Morality is a thing of the past and so is religious observance in our daily lives. The family is no longer the bedrock and the pillar of society, and we see that in the laws of progressive states and in the court decisions in all other areas. We are intolerant to focus on the "nuclear family." We are intolerant to refer to parents in gender terms. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the psychologists' and the social scientists' data that the proper emotional and psychological development of children depend on there being both a female and a male parent in the home and in their raising. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the well-established and reproducible data that children end up living in poverty, with a lack of education, and with psychological or domestic problems when they are raised in a single parent home. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the well-established and reproducible data that those who commit violence, those who commit mass murder, and those who embrace a criminal lifestyle are those raised without a father or without an effective father figure in their lives We who lived in societies that respected and recognized traditional family values (and legislated to that effect) enjoyed its benefits. Societies were safer and children progressed through their childhood and teen years without incident and went on to become healthy and contributing members, having families of their own and raising their children successfully. We who recognize that reality and who recognize the robust data on the social benefits of a traditional family and the social problems created by the lack of such a family are antiquated and a threat to the progress of society in this country. Most families are no longer intact or have been re-established through second marriages, etc. Children are psychological playthings – mere social experiments whose well-being comes at the expense of the desires or the recklessness of their parents or is merely considered as less important. Those were not the values of my parent's day.
So, we don't need the Second Amendment to exercise our rights of self-defense and self-protection. What we would like is our government to say "Government is prohibited from defining limits to the Second Amendment; the Constitution is clear on that." We need our government to be of the kind that the Declaration of Independence promises us – one that has as its primary purpose the security of our individual rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And one way to demonstrate that it is such a government is to respect the Second Amendment and not push to have it limited or as former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens urged, to have it abolished. Should that, in fact happen, and especially if it happens through legislation by the US Congress or by pronouncements from the bench by activist judges, then we have an illegitimate government and the provision in the Declaration which states "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…" is triggered and the people have the natural right to separate from it.
I have proposed a State Sovereignty Resolution to my legislators in the North Carolina General Assembly. I feel very strongly that the General Assembly, our legislative body ("The People's Body"), should make it clear that the people's right to have and bear arms is safe and secure in our state.
The text of my proposed State Sovereignty Resolution is provided below:
Notice that the Resolution only recognizes a rightful limitation of the right and ability to purchase and possess guns when it comes to persons who have a history of violence or mental instability. It is only in these two instances that individuals are unable to appreciate or respect the rights of others and therefore have been deemed to have forfeited their rights under the Second Amendment.
The Resolution that I have written (above) can easily be modified for a Sovereignty Bill or a Nullification Bill. If it is modified for such a bill, it should include the various types of interposition (action) that North Carolina would be willing to pursue (and will pursue) in order to shield its citizens from the effect of unconstitutional federal gun control laws. In other words, the bill should list the various types of action that the state and its officials will carry out in order to prevent such gun laws from being enforced on the citizens – including such things as arresting and jailing federal officers who attempt to come into the state to enforce the laws, not recognizing federal court opinions that erode or limit the Second Amendment, removing and disbarring judges from the bench who attempt to punish NC citizens under the federal law, empowering Sheriffs to not enforce the law or to share information with the federal government, refusal to allow its state officials to cooperate in the enforcement of the law, and challenging the law in court.
If you agree with the sentiment expressed in this article and if you agree with the points articulated in the Resolution, please share with others. If you agree that North Carolina should adopt this, or a similar, resolution affirming the Second Amendment, please contact your representative and send them a copy of what I have written. If you are not from North Carolina but would like your state legislature to adopt such a resolution, please contact your representative(s) and share this article – or at least the resolution.
All tyranny needs is for good people to do nothing. The powerful progressive movement in our country will continue to misuse and manipulate elements of our government – the liberal, progressive, activist courts and the politically-deranged members of Congress – to strip our rights away. Our rights are what allow us to stand up for the truth and stand up against our aggressive government. We cannot remain silent and we must not allow their agenda to continue to move forward. The Second Amendment – the right to have and bear guns for self-defense is where we must draw the line, as our founding generation did. That is what Patrick Henry was talking about when he exclaimed: "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" Without the right of self-defense and the right to use firearms for self-defense, we effectively have no secure rights. Without the Second Amendment, we have no effective way to protect the others.
Saul Alinsky, building on Lenin's original plan for world conquest by communism, wrote a book entitled "Rules for Radicals" in which he outlined a plan to turn useless idiots into useful idiots for political purposes. The ultimate purpose, of course, is the creation of a large, concentrated, socialist government with the power to control the lives of its citizens. I never understood the attraction of a socialist state, especially in this country, and to so many people. In a socialist state, individuals lose their rights, their freedoms, and their choices to the dictates of government. Alinsky, like Lenin, examined the various levels of control that a government would need in order to establish an effective socialist state and those levels are, in order:
(1) Healthcare – A government that controls the people's healthcare controls the people themselves
(2) Poverty – people in poverty are easiest to control; hence, it is most beneficial for government to pursue policies that increase the level of poverty or keep individuals and their offspring in poverty
(3) Debt – government will increase the national debt to unsustainable levels because then it can continue to tax heavily (and to increase taxation; to burden property). Taxation produces more poverty or at least, prevents many from improving their financial situation
(4) Gun Control – disarming the people allows the government to establish a police state, if need be
(5) Welfare – welfare allows government to take control of every aspect of a recipient's life – food, housing, choices, even decisions to marry or to pursue education. Government will never get rid of welfare programs if its goal is socialism
(6) Education – government needs to take control of what its youth learns… what they read, what they listen to, and what things mean; it needs to use the education system as a means to indoctrinate its citizens.
(7) Religion – a belief in God needs to be removed from schools, government, the marketplace, and the public square. A socialist government substitutes itself for the role of God. A moral, religious people will always question the legitimate role of government, and so, it must minimize this faction.
(8) Class Warfare – government needs to divide its people into poor and wealthy — the "have's" and the "have-not's." It also needs to divide people along racial lines – characterizing one group as "victims" and the other as "oppressors" (or as "beneficiaries"). This way it is easier to demonize the wealthy, the empowered, the benefitted classes and therefore, to take from them — their money (through taxation – to benefit the poor), and their positions (through "diversity"-enrichment programs). It is easier to re-engineer society by creating division, hatred, and distrust.
Looking at this list, government has achieved every one of these levels of control – EXCEPT gun control. Is it any wonder that the left is pursuing it at such a rabid level lately? Is it any wonder that it uses every tragedy to attack the Second Amendment?
So again, if you agree with the sentiment expressed in this article and if you agree with the points articulated in the Resolution, please share with others. And if you live in North Carolina, please contact your state rep and send him a copy.
There was a time when North Carolina was the most liberty-minded of all the colonies and all the states. She has a profound and impressive history. My hope is that her legacy will live on with her respect for its citizens' Second Amendment rights.
[NOTE: I wanted to include this disclaimer, after the fact. Doing research for my April 5 article, I learned that the 8 Levels of Government Control to Establish a Social State is not included in Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals," and in fact, is not attributable to him at all. Some, however, have attributed some of the levels to Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven ("The Cloward-Piven Strategy"). In my article: "Government Control of the People – The Progressive Scheme: Making Useful Idiots Out of Useless Idiots," I discuss Saul Alinsky and his book, and its potential for transforming the character of our country, but I also address this misinformation about the 8 levels. The article is posted here: https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/04/05/government-control-of-the-people-the-progressive-model-making-useful-idiots-out-of-useless-idiots/ ]
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged 10th Amendment, 2nd amendment, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Diane Rufino, firearms, gun control, gun control laws, guns, Heller, Heller v. District of Columbia, interposition, McDonald, McDonald v. Chicago, model state sovereignty resolution, NC State Sovereignty Resolution, Nullification, right of self defense, right of self-protection, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinksy, second amendment, self-defense, state sovereignty, state sovereignty resolution, Tenth Amendment, the right to bear arms, unconstitutional, unconstitutional laws	| Leave a reply
The Open-Mindedness of Liberals; It's a Dangerous Thing
Posted on December 2, 2017 by forloveofgodandcountry
by Diane Rufino, Nov. 25, 2017
In 1886 Sir Edward Clarke delivered a speech in the U.K. House of Commons and in polite way of insulting someone, he said: "The mind was indeed so open that it had nothing in it at all." In 1908, a periodical called "The New Quarterly" published excerpts from "The Note-Books of Samuel Butler," and in Butler's notes, he commented: "Cursed is he that does not know when to shut his mind. An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or it may be found a little draughty (empty)."
In 1940, Professor Walter Kotschnig at Holyoke College once told his students: "Keep your minds open—but not so open that your brains fall out." (Some credit Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer and author, with the phrase, but they are wrong). We've all heard this line. I've even seen it in a fortune cookie – several times.
Shortly thereafter, Kotschnig gave in the campus chapel at Smith College in which he repeated his "open mind" expression. In part, he spoke: "Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mold the world. But don't keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! There are still things in this world which are true and things which are false; acts which are right and acts which are wrong."
And in 1951, then-president of Smith College, William Allan Neilson, addressed its graduating class: "Go out and face your new job with an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out." He explained that viewpoints should not be so fixed that there is no possible chance to investigate new and sometimes better ideas, but in contemplating situations, the urge to bring about change should not blind the person from using reason and intelligence.
The point is that colleges use to employ professors who urged students to keep an open mind to further the advancement of society, to improve our country, to enrich our body of thought, and in general to further our culture and civility; they urged students to keep an open mind to show intelligence and a willingness to improve, always to be dignified human beings, worthy of the brain that God gave us in order to sustain us as a species exponentially more intelligent than any other.
Today, colleges employ professors who indoctrinate their students in the opposite direction – to open their minds so completely that in fact their brains fall out. And so, we see the extent of social decay that their empty skulls have produced.
There are many examples that can be given as to the ridiculousness of the liberal mind, and the insane policies and insane circumstances that exist because of it, such as the creation of "safe spaces" so that certain fragile liberal individuals can retreat in safety from harsh words and uncomfortable situations, the chilling of free speech for fear that certain words, terms, and certain thought might hurt someone's feelings, the removal of historic monuments and the Confederate flag because liberals believe there can be no explanation for their existence than it supported or represented slavery, or the violent protests on campus or when conservative guests are set to speak simply to prevent their message from reaching any audience at all (common sense tells us that if one believe he/she holds the superior position, then he/she shouldn't be afraid of the other side), or the creation of the violent, terrorist liberal group known as Antifa, or the near-fatal assault on Republican congressmen at a baseball field, or the mock beheading of President Trump, or the mock gangland style execution of Trump in a music video, or the direct (and indirect) calling for the assassination of Trump, or the first-time ever on-air commentary during a presidential inauguration imagining what would happen if Trump were assassinated and who would take over (they happily concluded that Obama would continue as POTUS), or the willing acceptance by a woman that she doesn't need to be married or have a father around to have a baby and then raise it, or indoctrinating our youth to think that gender shouldn't follow a strict "male" or "female" choice, or indoctrinating our youth to think that sexuality is a choice (and not determined by birth, or genetics; imagine that logic?), or indoctrinating our youth to believe that gender is fluid (it can change depending on what the person feels), or pushing the narrative that raising a child by a same-sex couple is equivalent to a mother-father couple (each gender teaches a child certain qualities; it's not about the child not getting enough love or care), or the destructive belief that because others have so much more than they need, that wealth should be redistributed so others can be comfortable. The liberal mind disavows religion, disavows the laws of Biology, promotes implicit theft (by all-too-willing to take from others; jealousy), promulgates poverty, and furthers the decay and erosion of society and the dysfunction of its members.
I have gone into a few chosen examples below of what liberals believe and what the liberal mind has produced, and I apologize that they are disjointed and perhaps not the best of examples, but they happen to be the ones I've chosen for this article.
SOCIALISM – Liberals want stuff; they believe government should take care of them and they don't care at what cost it is provided.
Today's liberal colleges and universities, today's Democratic Party, and today's minority groups clamor for a socialist government – one that provides the country's non-achievers and underachievers every essential service and benefit for a comfortable life. They claim that these are what every individual is "entitled to" from their government. Why should they be constrained by a lack of education, or lack of ambition, or lack of a job, or lack of a father to the children they willingly bear?
Socialism is a system of government control over the economy of a nation. In a socialist country, the individual is unimportant when compared to the welfare of the group.
To accept this is to reject the Declaration of Independence. To reject the Declaration of Independence, in favor of socialism, is to reject the very premises on which this country was founded: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…." The premises, of course, are four-fold: (1) That every individual enjoys certain inalienable rights (rights that can never be surrendered to a government), including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (ie, property and all the efforts and rewards in obtaining property); (2) That government is instituted among men, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed (individual sovereignty; government derives from the people – they decide, through consent, which powers government will have over their lives and communities; (3) That the primary role of government is to secure and safeguard the individual's inalienable rights; and (4) That when government fails in this primary purpose or otherwise becomes destructive of its ends, the people have a right to alter or abolish it (including deciding to separate or secede from the body politic tied to that government, thus breaking allegiance/political bonds with that government).
To reject these foundations is to accept the notion that government, and not the people, hold all political power and that government can rule over the individual in any way it thinks is best for the "good of the collective" (the general good) and make decisions accordingly, including suspending rights that can no longer be viewed as "inalienable." Under socialism, individual rights become temporary until they need to be surrendered or regulated for the good of others.
Benjamin Franklin's words remind us of the consequences: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But the consequences are far worse. Far from "not being deserving of Liberty," the liberal who adopts socialism over the assurances in the Declaration, actually will surrender his liberty, probably never to regain the notion of individual sovereignty again.
Willing ignorance and rejection of our founding ideals isn't "open-mindedness"; it is sheer idiocy.
ALINSKYITES – Liberals see themselves as change-agents, with total disregard to the norms, institutions, guidelines, and boundaries that help provide a framework for acceptable conduct in civilized society and total disregard for acceptable tactics.
Because liberals are often one-issue individuals (gay rights, transgender rights, BLM, abortion rights, open immigration, no racial profiling for Muslims, freedom from religion, anti-Trump), they are often passionate about that issue and also oblivious to the views of others. We recognize many of them as protesters; We see them with their faces covered up in some instances, we see them protesting whenever and wherever they can, we see them all over college campuses, we see them carrying signs that most would find offensive (yet they are the first to cry when something offends them), we often have a hard time figuring out if they are males or females, we hear them chanting rehearsed, pre-fed lines and sound bites, and we spot them all over social media. The one thing we know is that when we hear them speak or see what they write, we know they are clueless, essentially functionless, and unfortunately, useless to society. They offer nothing positive. They don't want to take us forward down the road, only backward.
And hence, they are perfect Saul Alinskyites. These functionless idiots serve a purpose to someone like Saul Alinsky, to a party like the Democratic Party, to socialists and communists like Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.
In 1971, a rabid progressive/liberal named Saul Alinsky wrote a book titled Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Essentially, he wrote it as a playbook for those who think like him and who desire radical change through politics. His book would be the foundation for today's Democratic Party's "community-organizing" initiative. It would outline how to use subversive tactics in order to seek political power. It was such an influential book that some very notable persons subscribed to it, including Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Frank Marshall Davis, and President Barack Obama. [One might recall how Obama was a protégé of Ayers and Dohrn, and that his mother was linked to Frank Marshall Davis].
What Rules for Radicals teaches, specifically, is how Liberals and Progressives (ie, the Democratic Party) can effectively use the weaknesses in our political system, as well as the weakest members of society, and how they can ultimately bring about the socialist state that they ultimately seek. In fact, he begins the book: "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away." Alinsky then provides a collection of rules (12 to be exact) to guide the process. If anyone should doubt that the playbook he outlined is for ignoble (shameful) goals, just read his forward, in which he acknowledges who inspired him: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."
[Taken from Steel-On-Steel; see reference that follows] Progressives exploit the weaknesses inherent in the system, made weaker by pitting opposing forces against one another. They also oppose independent, morally strong, educated people because those individuals, especially in groups, can't be manipulated easily. They attempt to end-run constitutional rights with social contract and dialectic consensus methods. Alinskyites engage in large-scale social engineering, attempting to unfreeze a society using chaos, and to then refreeze it in a new predefined shape. The dividing lines they polarize people on are most often racial, economic, religious and political. The main goal of Alinskyites is to cause social instability through subversive and divisive rhetoric. One method is to control the outcome of the education system by lowering the standards of education so that it creates a dependent class. As adherents to the Cloward-Piven strategy, they use their political platforms to overload a society with social spending programs and class warfare to the point that hatred and division cause social panic. Once they've created a problem, they propose themselves as the answer and use wealth transfers and the trumping of rights as the method to bring about "equality." [https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/ ]
In his book, Alinsky further discusses the eight (8) levels of control that must be obtained before a true social state can be created and how, once again, to turn America's "useless idiots" into "useful" ones in order to achieve that goal. The eight levels of control are: Healthcare (control healthcare and you control people), Welfare (take control of every aspect of their lives), Poverty (increase the poverty level; poor people don't fight back when everything they need to live is provided to them), Debt (increase the debt as high as possible; that way taxes have to be increased, this producing more poverty), Gun Control (remove the ability of people to defend themselves from government; that way government can establish a police state, if necessary), Education ( thought control), Religion (remove the belief in God from the government and schools), and Class Warfare (divide people into the wealthy and the poor and vilify the wealthy; this will cause discontent and make it easier to tax the wealthy even more to support the poor). "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they've come to revere."
Question: How many liberals and progressives know that through their activism, their one-issue politics, their participation in community organizing efforts, they are moving the United States towards socialism? Do they even know what "socialism" is? Do they know that Alinsky merely simplified and modernized Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism (under Russian rule, of course)? Do they know that the same levels of control were originally embraced and promoted by Karl Marx? Do they know that "useful idiots" (that is, useless idiots "weaponized" for political power) have destroyed every nation in which they happened to seize power and control? And if they actually knew and understood all this, do you think that they would willingly seek the destruction of this country? Question #2: How many levels of control have been obtained already in the United States? All but one, right? All levels of control have been achieved except gun control, and we see how aggressively and rabidly liberals are seeking it. You have to ask yourselves why it is such a top priority for them. President Obama sought gun control and Hillary Clinton was even a stronger advocate. She, as most other liberals do, immediately turn a shooting incident into a mandate for gun control laws (even though most incidents could have been prevented if the government had been diligent in actually enforcing the laws already on the books!) As you can see, the Progressives have done their homework, have embraced the Alinsky model, and have been successful at fundamentally transforming not only the character of too many people in this country but transforming the country in general. Question #3: How have the "useless idiots" (the ones targeted through so-called "community-organizing" efforts) been benefitted? Who has really benefitted by the Alinksy method? Feeling empowered by the hype and promises made in community-organizing, and feeling empowered by being part of a social-change movement, liberals open their minds so much to grasp this power that, in the process, they lose reason, accountability, common sense, and yes, even grey matter. They become like Stepford Wives… totally submissive to the party and robotic in their speech and actions. They are pawns without realizing it, and having no understanding of how politics works (the intense adversarial nature of it), they don't see how they are simply being used for the benefit of others. In what world would a government that has complete political control allow a large group of people to breed without consequence and without responsibility, while providing little or nothing by way of economic benefit? At some point, the free ride will end and they will be treated like the liability and burden that they are. By the way, Josef Stalin was the one who coined the term "Useful Idiots." (Once he concentrated his power by manipulating them, how did his regime treat them?)
Ironically, if you look at the history of the Alinsky model and its place in progressive/liberal politics, you'll notice that making temporary "useful" idiots out of "useless" idiots, for social change often does nothing meaningful for those "idiots." They may get a bone here and there, but the real benefits are to others (ie, the wealthy political leftist elite)
Conservatives are finally catching on the Alinsky method and are familiarizing it for several reasons: (1) They want to help identify and defeat the divisive tactics of the left; (2) They want to use those same tactics to their own advantage or to counter the left; and (3) They want to help explain to certain groups that they are intentionally being manipulated. As we on the right can easily see, many of the people (drinking the "kool-aid") aren't even aware that they are being manipulated ("Being, in essence, weaponized against their fellow man." Steel-On-Steel)
As political elites and strategists have known for a very long time now, certain groups, including the poor, the dependent, and the overly open-minded liberal, are easily manipulated. Hillary Clinton herself remarked that they are stupid and easily manipulated. James Carville, a onetime Democrat political consultant and former Bill Clinton campaign manager, came right out and said that "not only are most Democrats politically clueless; they're easily manipulated by the puppet masters of their party as well."
IMMIGRATION – Liberals see immigrants (lots of them) as essential to their cause – to their plan for social and political change – and don't care about the legality part
I just happened to have been in Washington DC this past January for the Women's March. I traveled to the nation's capital to celebrate the inauguration of Donald Trump as president and decided to spend a couple of extra days enjoying the beautiful and vibrant city and taking advantage of all its history lessons; I did not know in advance about the march. But getting out and observing the march, noticing the various individuals marching and protesting, I was given a unique peek at the tactics of the liberal/progressive movement (ie, today's Democratic Party). Under the guise of protesting for their individual issue, the protesters were invited and encouraged to march together the day after the inauguration so that the Democratic Party could claim that "the people" are rejecting Trump as their president. In other words, they scheduled the event to say "F U," in as colossal a way as possible, to Trump. The various groups were "collected" – and yes "manipulated" on account of their one-issue politics – into serving the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party, which is to discredit, distract, delegitimize, and obstruct Trump in any and every way possible in order to frustrate his tenure and success as president. Alone the groups are small, weak, and even inconsequential. For example, the large group of feminists at the rally were protesting for equal rights, equal right in the workplace and equal pay. I guess they never heard of all the gender equality laws (and amendments and Supreme Court cases). I guess they've never read or even heard of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which is posted in every Human Resources Department in every place of employment. I guess they forgot that Roe v. Wade and further cases give women the exclusive right to kill and destroy a baby growing inside, even though that baby has a father. Alone the liberal groups might be small and weak, yes, but pooled together, they make a more powerful political statement. And they are happy to collaborate, because in the end, it's about moving their one issue forward.
The liberal/progressive movement has now targeted immigrants. The more, the merrier! They have politicized immigrants, including illegals, turning them into victims who have a gripe and can, with the help of the collective group of liberals, seek demands.
California has by far the largest number of unauthorized immigrants, about 2.3 million in 2014. About six-in-ten unauthorized immigrants live in the six states with the largest populations of unauthorized immigrants—California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas. And in six states, the numbers of illegal immigrants has greatly increased – Virginia, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The great influx of Latino immigrants has changed California from a purple state to a blue one. California's Proposition 187 ("Save Our State" initiative) would have denied all public services to illegal immigrants and forced all state employees to immediately report illegal immigrants to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for deportation. It appeared on the ballot in 1994 when California Republican governor Pete Wilson was running a very hard-fought campaign for reelection, which he won. Prop 187 was approved by the voters, but it galvanized the Hispanic vote against the GOP from that year on. California is now known for its high progressive income taxes and high welfare benefit levels (ie, wealth redistribution) – a haven for immigrants who don't come to the United States with skills to fully support themselves and their families. California rewards its Hispanic immigrants and they reward the Democratic Party. We see the same in New Jersey and New York. We see states that want to turn or remain "blue" (Democratic) supporting policies that attract Hispanics and other immigrants (those that take advantage, and even scam, welfare and other assistance programs). Low-skilled immigrants go where they can best afford to live.
Refer to the Pew Research Center data below:
A = Unauthorized immigrant population, 2014
B = Unauthorized immigrant share of population, 2014
C = Unauthorized Share of immigrant population, 2014
D = Unauthorized immigrant share of labor force, 2014
E = Share of K-12 students with unauthorized immigrant parent(s), 2014
F = Share Mexican of unauthorized immigrants, 2014
G = Change in unauthorized immigrant population, 2009-2014
__________A_______B____ C______D____ E______F_____G_
Total 11,100,000 3.5% 26% 5.0% 7.3% 52% n.s.
Alabama 65,000 1.3% 39% 1.8% 2.8% 52% -15,000
Alaska 10,000 1.3% 17% 1.9% 2.4% 13% n.s.
Arizona 325,000 4.9% 35% 6.6% 12.2% 81% n.s.
Arkansas 70,000 2.4% 48% 3.5% 6.0% 70% n.s.
California 2,350,000 6.0% 22% 9.0% 12.3% 71% -190,ooo
Colorado 200,000 3.8% 37% 4.9% 10.2% 72% n.s.
Connecticut 120,000 3.4% 24% 4.7% 5.5% 18% n.s.
Delaware 25,000 2.7% 31% 4.0% 4.2% 43% n.s.
DC 25,000 3.9% 26% 4.9% 6.6% 3% n.s.
Florida 850,000 4.2% 20% 6.2% 7.6% 19% n.s.
Georgia 375,000 3.6% 36% 5.2% 8.4% 56% -55,000
Hawaii 45,000 3.2% 18% 4.6% 5.2% 3% n.s.
Idaho 45,000 2.7% 42% 4.0% 6.8% 87% n.s.
Illinois 450,000 3.5% 24% 5.0% 7.2% 71% -55,000
Indiana 110,000 1.6% 32% 2.2% 3.5% 63% n.s.
Iowa 40,000 1.3% 26% 1.8% 3.2% 62% n.s.
Kansas 75,000 2.5% 35% 3.4% 6.7% 74% -20,000
Kentucky 50,000 1.1% 30% 1.7% 2.1% 50% n.s.
Louisiana 70,000 1.5% 36% 2.2% 2.2% 39% 15,000
Maine <5,000 0.3% 8% 0.4% 0.4% N.A. n.s.
Maryland 250,000 4.2% 27% 5.9% 7.5% 11% n.s.
Massachusetts 210,000 3.1% 19% 4.0% 4.6% 2% 35,000
Michigan 130,000 1.3% 20% 1.7% 2.3% 35% n.s.
Minnesota 100,000 1.9% 23% 2.7% 3.8% 45% n.s.
Mississippi 25,000 0.8% 37% 1.3% 1.3% 69% n.s.
Missouri 55,000 0.9% 24% 1.3% 1.8% 39% n.s.
Montana <5,000 0.3% 14% 0.4% 0.1% N.A. n.s.
Nebraska 45,000 2.5% 38% 3.2% 6.7% 61% n.s.
Nevada 210,000 7.2% 36% 10.4% 17.6% 70% -30K
New Hamp 10,000 0.8% 14% 1.0% 1.3% 2% n.s.
New Jersey 500,000 5.4% 24% 7.9% 7.6% 24% 45K
New Mexico 85,000 4.0% 37% 5.6% 10.1% 91% n.s.
New York 775,000 3.9% 17% 5.9% 6.0% 25% n.s
N. Carolina 350,000 3.4% 43% 5.0% 8.7% 60% n.s
N. Dakota <5,000 0.5% 13% 0.7% 0.7% N.A. n.s.
Ohio 95,000 0.8% 19% 1.1% 1.5% 28% n.s.
Oklahoma 95,000 2.4% 41% 3.4% 6.3% 71% n.s.
Oregon 130,000 3.2% 32% 4.8% 8.6% 71% n.s.
Pennsylvania 180,000 1.4% 22% 2.0% 2.6% 20% 50K
Rhode Island 30,000 2.9% 21% 4.0% 6.4% 6% n.s.
S. Carolina 85,000 1.8% 37% 2.6% 3.9% 64% – 15K
S. Dakota 5,000 0.6% 21% 0.8% 0.6% 22% n.s.
Tennessee 120,000 1.9% 37% 2.8% 3.9% 49% n.s.
Texas 1,650,000 6.1% 35% 8.5% 13.4% 71% n.s.
Utah 100,000 3.5% 39% 5.4% 7.4% 72% n.s.
Vermont <5,000 0.3% 8% 0.3% 0.0% N.A. n.s.
Virginia 300,000 3.5% 28% 5.0% 6.5% 14% 35K
Washington 250,000 3.6% 27% 5.0% 8.8% 52% 40K
West Virginia <5,000 0.2% 15% 0.2% 0.3% N.A. n.s.
Wisconsin 80,000 1.3% 27% 1.9% 3.2% 74% n.s.
Wyoming 5,000 1.0% 27% 1.4% 2.3% 58% n.s.
Note: All numbers are rounded independently and are not adjusted to sum to the total U.S. figure or other totals. Percents and Change calculated from unrounded numbers. (90% confidence in rounding)
"N.A." – Not available. Base of percent is too small to produce a reliable estimate.
"n.s." – Change is not statistically significant.
Download data on unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., 2014.
Source: Pew Research Center estimates for 2009 and 2014 based on augmented American. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
Why does immigration matter and why is it such an important issue for Democrats that the US have an open-door policy, that states be able to have sanctuary cities, and that illegals be granted amnesty? It's because immigration has the potential to the demographics – and hence, the electoral power – of the states that Donald Trump depended on to win the presidency. Immigration is a power play – a strictly political issue, and NOT a moral one, as they might claim. Immigration has the potential of being a game-changer for the Democratic Party and the liberal-progressive movement. It has the potential of changing the political landscape in a major way in favor of liberal-Democratic policies. Just as Lyndon B. Johnson realized the potential of poor blacks when he signed the Aid to Families With Dependent Children legislation (the welfare program as we know it today) and greatly enlarged other assistance programs (his "Great Society") when he said: "I'll have those n*** voting Democratic for 200 years," todays liberals know the potential power of having a majority of people existing or at least dependent on the government for their essential needs. The power to control is the power to manipulate.
If you question LBJ's logic, which is the same logic of the Democratic Party, just look at the results of his programs. They were intended to lift blacks out of poverty; yet the poverty rate is almost the same today as it was in 1965 (17.3% in 1965; 15% in 2012). This is despite the now 92 + federal programs designed to help lower-income Americans. For instance, there are dozens of education and job-training programs, 17 different food-aid programs, and over 20 housing programs. Instead of giving people the temporary assistance they may need to become employable and become self-sufficient (ending dependency), democratic government policies have done the opposite – they have discouraged work and education, and have helped destroy the one institution that is most important in determining success – families. Rather than being temporary programs and helping to lift individuals and families out of poverty, government programs have become true social programs, or permanent programs. Instead of moving people out of poverty, they are now designed to make people "comfortable" in their poverty…. So much so that it is no longer worth investing in an education or a meaningful employable skill. Liberals and Democrats have taken LBJ's scheme, saw the political brilliance in it, and have run with it. The scheme, of course, is to entangle politics with hand-outs and freebies, including a Get Out of Jail FREE card. And we see it quite clearly with immigration. The Liberals have politicized them. They are participating in Antifa, they are participating in violent protests, they are bashing the US flag, they are hostile to the current administration, they are frustrating our court system, they are demanding rights, they are flocking to sanctuary cities.
I watched an episode of FOX News this morning. In discussing amnesty for illegal immigrants, Juan Williams said that morally, the United States has a moral obligation to take care of illegal immigrants who are here in this country by providing them healthcare, welfare, education opportunities, etc. His opponent responded by telling him to take that argument to the average middle-class taxpayer, who is already watching his tax dollars go to pay for a huge amount of social services (of which he himself, and his family, is not eligible for) instead of for his own family's needs. Illegal immigrants and their children are costing the American taxpayers $135 billion, the highest ever. This price tag includes healthcare, welfare, other freebies, education, prison costs, and increased law enforcement expenses – http://video.foxnews.com/v/5591274873001/?#sp=show-clips
According to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IFLI), illegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year – an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates – according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study is the most comprehensive to date on the cost to federal, state and local taxpayers of the nation's 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.
The report, "The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers," examines the cost of illegal immigration through a detailed analysis of federal, state and local programs that are available to the nation's illegal immigrant population, their U.S.-born children, or accessed via fraud. The study tallies the impact on education, medical, justice/enforcement, welfare and other government programs. The report notes that the $116 billion cost of illegal immigration falls on state and local taxpayers disproportionately – by a ratio of roughly 2 to 1 – with state and local expenditures totaling $88.9 billion and Federal expenditures totaling $45.8 billion, with only approximately $19 billion recouped in taxes. [http://www.irli.org/single-post/2017/09/27/New-FAIR-Study-Illegal-Immigration-Costs-116-billion-Annually?gclid=Cj0KCQiAjO_QBRC4ARIsAD2FsXOUPz-giyM_Ptgcrt1mC4ar6rPbB2qdsd1kkxncvKxiQwuT8aO-2dYaAtUPEALw_wcB ]
Democrats and liberals love to say that illegals pay taxes, but they are intentionally misleading and deceptive. They pay consumption taxes, like sales taxes and gas tax, which everyone pays as a function of being a consumer. But they do not pay federal income tax. In fact, the taxes they pay are wholly inadequate to cover the costs that they incur and the burden they pose on actual taxpayers. Here are the facts:
The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.
All told, the nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.
On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.
At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).
The study also includes cost and tax revenue estimates per state. The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion). [Ibid]
Mexicans remain the majority of the nation's unauthorized immigrant population; the "estimated" number of illegal Mexican immigrants (aliens) was 5.8 million in 2014. On top of this, the number of unauthorized immigrants from all other nations – especially those from Asia and Central America – is growing. In 2009, the number of illegals from all other nations (other than Mexico) was 325,000. In 2014, that figure rose to 5.3 million. As if these numbers aren't staggering enough, remember our laws allowing chain migration and recognize that illegals are breeding like crazy. Their numbers are growing very rapidly.
On one of Tucker Carlson's shows, he commented: "Millions of low-skilled workers are flooding into the country and clearly something needs to be done. Facts rarely matter in the national debate surround immigration, including in Washington DC; instead, to supporters of an open immigration policy, it's about morality and emotion. But facts must be addressed because they have real consequences for legal Americans. Illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $135.8 billion dollars each year. Illegals pay about $19 billion in taxes which leaves a deficit that the American taxpayers are on the hook for of $116 billion. To put that into perspective, Americans spend $70 billion each year on college tuition. If we didn't have the immigration burden that we have, that $116 billion could provide a college education for every American child, with about $50 billion left over. That sum could go towards fixing roads, it could be spent on healthcare, etc."
Tucker then brought on a spokesman, Mr. Dan Stein, for the Center for Immigration Studies, the organization which compiled the data referenced. The spokesman explained that the typical immigrant in this country is related to someone already here. "Every initiating immigrant has already brought 3.5 family members with him/her to the country. This is known as chain migration. Each legal immigrant from Mexico has already brought an average of more than 6 others with him/her to the United States. Most have low prospects of contributing economically (of getting a good-paying job). 24% of those who have come here through chain migration are over 50 years old (and not able to speak English) and hence, they barely work or don't work at all. But they will be able to collect social security benefits, after never paying into the system. If 700,000 DACA recipients receive amnesty, they stand to bring millions more under our policy of chain migration. The only reason to excuse this situation is because for the left, its is a chance to gain and hold onto political power. On the right, Republican politicians are being pressured by the business lobbyists (who fund their campaigns and have a lot of power) who want to keep labor costs low. Ordinary Americans are ignored. They are losing their jobs to these immigrants. They need their taxes lowered because they have had stagnant wages for years and have watched as costs have gone up for everything. The average immigrant makes about $36,000 per year (below the poverty line) and therefore, has a negative federal tax liability."
To continue an immigration policy at the current rate and with the consequences it brings ensures that actual taxpayers will never get a break. They will continue to subsidize the lifestyles of others…. and most offensively, subsidize the lifestyles of those that shouldn't even be here. The American taxpayer, and the legal citizen should NOT have to subsidize and fund an insidious policy that is political in nature and designed only to effect a shift in party allegiance. It is simply politics at its worst and is outrageous.
For Liberals to embrace open borders and an open immigration policy is just insane. It's just as insane as them piling more people on social welfare programs, offering more entitlement programs, and driving the nation further into debt. Clearly, the cost of allowing illegal immigration to continue is far too high. Anyone with an ounce of grey matter can understand this. Combine this with the fact that the federal government is specifically tasked – is REQUIRED – to enforce a rational and meaningful immigration policy, and we see that liberals are simply beyond ignorant and reckless on this issue. But then again, open immigration isn't about what is moral and compassionate (as the Pope likes to espouse, while never once offering to open the Vatican coffers to fund their social costs); it is a "kool-aid" issue that masks a more sinister goal – to bring in more potential Democrats. The political ambitions of today's liberals continue to destroy brain cells and continue to put the health and vitality of the country at risk.
[Jeffrey S. Passel an D'Vera Cohn, "Overall Number of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009; Decline in share from Mexico mostly offset by growth from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa," Pew Research Center, Nov, 3, 2016. Referenced at: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/ ]
NYC TERRORIST ATTACK – Profiling and Vetting are Highly Offensive to Liberals, even when innocent American lives are at stake
On Halloween Day, October 31, in New York City, a legal permanent resident who came to the US from Uzbekistan committed an act of terrorism that mirrored those being committed in European nations, especially France and England. Sayfullo Saipov drove a rented Home Depot truck down a New York City bike lane, intentionally targeting and plowing into pedestrians and bicyclists, before slamming into a school bus, killing 8 and wounding 12. He got out of the truck and shouted "Allahu akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic) before the NYC police were able to subdue him. When the police later were able to go through Saipov's effects, they learned that he had pledged loyalty to ISIS and had plotted the attack for weeks before carrying out in the name of the Islamic State.
How did someone so hateful of America come here? It turns out that Saipov came to the United States seven years ago from Uzbekistan under the Diversity Visa (DV) Program, a State Department program which offers a no-questions-asked (with respect to ideology and terrorism) lottery for people from countries with few immigrants in America. The DV program makes up to 50,000 immigrant visas available annually, "drawn from random selection among all entries to individuals who are from countries with low rates of immigration" to the U.S., according to the information provided on the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services website. Applicants must prove they have a clean criminal record, have a high school diploma or its equivalent, or have at least two years of work experience within the past five years in order to qualify. The program originated as part of a bill introduced in 1990 by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, then a member of the House. Schumer's measure to make a set number of visas available to "diversity immigrants" from certain countries was absorbed into a larger House immigration bill, which was sponsored by Schumer and 31 others.
The House legislation passed in a bipartisan, but contested, vote (231-192), while the Senate version passed more easily (89-8). The bill went on to be signed by then-President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Up until that point, the US was essentially only acknowledging terrorism abroad, primarily with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. In 1979, Iranians kidnapped fifty-two American diplomats and citizens and held them hostage for 444 days (until Reagan took office in 1981) and in 1988, a suitcase bomb exploded aboard New York-bound Pan Am Flight 103, killing all 259 passengers and crewmembers, along with 11 people on the ground, in Lockerbie, Scotland. (Libya's leader, Gaddafi, finally claimed responsibility in 2003).
In light of the rapid and violent escalation of terrorism all over the world and especially here in the United States, our Congressmen never thought to get rid of the DV program in favor of a more sensible immigration policy – a merit-based one, one rationally related to our national interests, the most important being safety and self-preservation. They never thought it important, for safety reasons, to come together in a non-partisan fashion, and repeal the policy? How many "Allahu Akbars" did they need to hear shouted before innocent American lives were taken? Do they not bother to look at the data that entire executive departments are tasked to gather regarding terrorism, radicalism, and countries in which both are thriving? It took someone like Donald Trump, vaulted to the presidency by common-sense Americans, to think along such lines. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) sponsored the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act, which calls for its elimination and President Trump has come out in support of it, calling the DV program "outdated," adding that it "serves questionable economic and humanitarian interests."
In their infinite wisdom, Democrats provided a beauty of a program that was able to bring potential and actual terrorists into our communities in the aftermath of the 9/11 NYC terrorist attack.
Liberal federal judges want to keep that door open as well. How many liberal circuit courts of appeal have struck down President Trump's common-sense travel ban so that officials can know, with some degree of confidence, who exactly is coming into our country.
TEXAS CHURCH SHOOTING – As greater numbers of people reject religion and its tenets, a crowning achievement for liberals, violent crime (mass shootings, that is) has increased
The incidence of violent crime (mass shootings, that is) has risen as greater numbers of people reject religion and its tenets. Conversely, violent crime decreases as greater numbers of people are religiously active in their community. Religion establishes a strong moral climate for its believers.
The rise in this phenomenon of 'Man's inhumanity to his fellow man' forces us to assess whether the social engineering of liberals/progressives starting in the late 1940's (with the "Wall of Separation" decision, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947) has created a social climate that feeds man's dark side. In today's America, everyone is a victim, and as a victim, others must be pay or be punished.
On Sunday, November 5, a gunman walked into a small Baptist church in the very small town of Sutherland Springs, Texas, and began shooting all its parishioners. The gunman, Devin Kelly, was an Air Force veteran who was dishonorably discharged and confined for a year for severely beating his wife and her baby son. As Kelly walked into the church, he said: "Everyone die." He killed 26 people, including toddlers and the elderly. The youngest victim was a baby in its mother's womb, just 2 months or so from birth, and the next was only 18 months old. The eldest was 72. As Kelly walked from pew to pew, he shot point blank at the terrified church-goers, who were cowering and covering their loved ones. He pumped bullets into the bodies of those who were cowering, and took care to make sure that if anyone appeared to still be alive he would shoot them some more.
Clearly his intent was to shoot all 50 or so parishioners. If it hadn't been for a neighbor who sprang into action, got his rifle, and began shooting at him, he may have succeeded in his mission. But he did more damage and was responsible for more carnage than a person can ever imagine. In such a small town, and with the church being as much of a family gathering as a church service, the deaths were particularly heart-wrenching. One family lost 8 members, and probably everyone in the small community lost someone close to them. The pastor lost his 14-year-old daughter.
Devin Kelly was a deeply, deeply disturbed individual. He was violently, physically abusive as well as psychologically abusive. His depravity knew no bounds. His ex-wife detailed how he abused her: "He would choke me, punch me, kick me. There would be times where I would be on the floor curled up and having to protect my organs because he would be violently kicking me on my side. He kicked me like I was less of a person; that's how it made me feel." She said he once pulled a gun and held it to her head while they were driving on an empty road, and asked her: "Do you want to die?'" He threatened to kill her, her son, and her family if she ever told anyone about him hurting her or pulling a gun on her. As he put it: "I could just bury you somewhere here in the desert and nobody would ever find you." He smacked her infant son around so hard that his skull was fractured. Kelly pled guilty to charges of abusing his then-wife and hitting his stepson "with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm," according to documents.
Where does such evil come from? How do monsters arise among us? And why do they?
I give a lot of thought to those questions. And I invariably think back to an old Cherokee parable that I had shared with my kids many years ago. The parable goes like this: An old Cherokee chief was teaching his grandson about life. He told him: "A fight is going on inside me… It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego. And the other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too." The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf will win?" To which the old chief simply replied: "The one you feed."
I think it's true that everyone has a fight going on inside them, inside their hearts and in their head, and some days the angel wins and some days, it seems like the angel doesn't hold up too well. Who doesn't feel the demon winning sometimes when things go bad or tragedy strikes? Who wouldn't feed that demon when, say, a child gets gravely ill or passes? Or when someone they love dies unexpectedly? They question the sense it makes and why good doesn't prevail, as we expect it should. Who wouldn't feed the demon when debts pile up, the house bills can't be met, and the stress level is almost unbearable? Or when a person loses his or her job at the worst possible time? Or is mistreated by a horrible boss? Or mistreated by their spouse? Who wouldn't empower the internal demon in an environment that is consumed with division and hatred, pitting one group of individuals against another? Or when there is injustice? Or in a politically-charged environment, with critical issues at stake? Or in an environment where individuals continue to have "diversity" shoved down their throats when in fact, diversity has often resulted in a great loss of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, self-censorship, a cold-impersonal workplace, lowered standards (as in education), changes to the holidays and traditions that have been part of our nation's history for so long (holidays like Christmas and Columbus Day being renamed, Easter being eliminated, and now establishing a new "special" month — Hispanic History Month or Hispanic Appreciation Month… c'mon), challenges in how history is taught and viewed (we can't offend anyone in any way), a sense of insecurity, and even instances of anxiety (being forced to exist with others that clearly don't share similar values, customs, and norms). Some people cannot cope when they lose control of the important things in their life.
Without being properly grounded and guided, without a clear understanding of boundaries and expectations, without proper preparation for the real world, and without proper love and support, a person can feel lonely and helpless as the internal war wages on. Without the sense of community and a tangible feeling of compassion and care, a person can go further down a dark road and sink further into despair. Unfortunately, the progressive era has destroyed, eroded, and undermined all those indispensable supports and guidelines that individuals need to keep the demons at bay. They've taken religion and morality out of our schools, out of our public square, and out of government. I remember we started every morning during my public school years with a prayer (up until high school) and then with a time of silence (last years of high school, where the home room teacher would encourage us to say a prayer to start the day out strong). As short and seemingly inconsequential as those early morning moments may seem, I remember being reminded every day of right versus wrong, that I was grateful for my life and its possibilities were in my own hands, and that all said-and-done, I would be accountable to God for how I conducted myself. It grounded me and yes, it pushed me to be the best version of myself I could be. It brought me back to my Sunday school and my church service lessons which taught me about God's grace and God's love, how faith doesn't depend on anything visible or provable, but in simple belief and acceptance, how Jesus calls us to live according to God's laws so that we can best love and help serve on another. It reminded me of the people I grew up in the church with – learning that each of them had their own cross to bear, in one way or another, yet they were there for others and their crosses. I used to spend many days in my church not because I was a sponge and wanted to soak up the Scripture; I just enjoyed and felt comforted being with such a warm and generous and selfless group of people. They were always happy.
In an era when anything goes, that's exactly what we're seeing – everything goes, including one's mind, one's composure, and one's conduct. We've mocked and rejected the immutable laws of Biology. We've destroyed the notion of a stable nuclear family and even the tradition understaning of what a family even looks like. Up until about 40 years ago, a man and a woman planned for marriage so that they could be in the best position to start a family and provide for their children – in every way possible… with a stable home, with the intent for a good education, with some savings for their college, with a mother who nurtures them and a father who provides and protects them. The family stayed together because there were priorities and there were social norms and there was the notion of a life-long commitment for the sake of the family, for the well-being of the children. Now, the traditional family unit is mocked and sex is the reason that couples come together rather than true companionship and a desire to build a life together. And as a result, couples stay together only as long as things are good and each isn't too miserable. Children are born before a walk down the aisle and certainly before the "planning." Without the planning, unnecessary stress is placed on the parents and a marriage is strained. In some cases, children are born just for a government check and a way to opt out of the work force, thus they grow up in a home without a father, without proper structure, and without proper influences and role models. How many women do you see today pushing a stroller and maybe another little one tagging along without a ring on their finger and without a husband? Over 69% of babies born in Greenville, NC are born out-of-wedlock. The statistics show that children raised in single-parent households perform poorer in school, are more likely to drop out of school, to have or cause a teen pregnancy, to have spotty employment records, to go on to live in poverty, have psychological and/or emotional issues, and to experience a divorce in adulthood. In short, children who are not raised in a stable two-parent home have a lesser chance of success as an adult. Again, years ago, the priority for young men and women was to find someone they love and to raise and provide for their children so that they could have even a better life than them.
A decent, productive society needs its proper institutions and the values that keep them on strong footing. It's just common sense. It's just common sense that taking away the lessons of love and goodness, the traditional norms of right versus wrong, personal responsibility, and acceptable social behavior will only have deleterious effects on the individual and the community in general. Turning the public school system into a social experiment without proper standards leaves a child without a sense of personal boundaries. And allowing and even glorifying conduct that condemns Christians and mainstream America as a bunch of nut-jobs and fanatics while embracing conduct that exceeds the bounds of acceptable behavior and defies historic religious tenets and the laws of Biology leaves them questioning what exactly is right or wrong. They question the authority that defines morality and what is right or wrong. Liberals and progressives have left and are leaving communities in decay because of their lack of values and their outward rejection of common sense. Parents, what happens when you don't establish clear boundaries for your toddlers and young children with respect to conduct and expectations? They become little monsters; they walk all over you, they control you, they are disobedient. And they carry that superior, uncontrolled personality with them into adulthood.
Liberals and progressives thrive on hatred, jealousy, class division, racial tension, religious intolerance, gender confusion, and the notion that each individual is far more important than he or she really is (in the grand scheme of a community; it pushes socialism of wealth and services but individualism in political issues and in everything else). These are the conditions now in which children are raised and the conditions under which Americans live. We see an increase in the dissolution of the family. We see an increase in drug use, and an increase on dependency in general. We see more people content to live at the so-called poverty level. We also see an increase in aberrant human behavior and in alternative lifestyles and gender confusion, and are told depression runs very high in those circles. Our homes are not safe; our streets are not safe. More people than ever are falling apart and having emotional and nervous breakdowns. Is there any reason that we see an increase in violence? Kelly had issues and certainly had the devil winning too many battles inside his head and heart. I'm not excusing his behavior by any shade of the imagination and I am glad he is no longer with us. But society may have helped create that monster by not providing the support and guidance he needed or emphasizing and re-enforcing throughout his childhood (including in the school system) the lessons that nurture the human heart and shape the human mind.
In all too many instances, we are seeing individuals feed the wrong wolf. And in a godless society, devoid of morality, and corrupted by the godless and the power-hungry, it is becoming far too easy and commonplace to feed that wolf.
As we see with liberals, as Mr. Joseph Heath of the University of Toronto writes: "All too often, when we study social problems, there is an almost irresistible temptation to study what we would like the cause of those problems to be (for whatever reason), to the neglect of the actual causes. When this goes uncorrected, you can get the phenomenon of 'politically correct' explanations for various social problems. Many of these explanations trickle down from the Ivory Tower into public consciousness through the media, as well as through direct instruction in colleges and university, becoming the 'conventional wisdom' that shapes our political debates. Most academics (liberals) prefer that the cause of a given social problem be one government can do something about." The excuse or the explanation that liberals give for mass shootings is that it is too easy to get guns. Yet it was a firearm in the hands of a healthy-minded neighbor who shot at Kelly, distracted him, and prevented further carnage. "If only we had gun control, we wouldn't have these shooting." "Another deadly mass shooting because people can get guns." The shooter himself, as a person with free will, is never to blame. They never look to the character, the mind, or the intent of the person pulling the trigger. No, liberals make excuses for him. "It's the gun's fault." They fail to realize that a person intent on killing someone will find a weapon to do so, or weaponize something like a truck or a tank of propane. Most of the shooters, if not all, were left-leaning. Most of the shootings could have been prevented if the government had enforced the laws that are already on the books? For example, in the case of Devin Kelly, the Air Force failed to provide information about his criminal conviction to the FBI database used in the background checks for gun purchases, and as a result, he was able to get the guns used for the shooting. (A recent Air Force review has turned up "several dozen" similar cases where the Air Force has failed to provide such information to the FBI). In the case of the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, although he purchased 33 out of his nearly 50 guns individually (those 33 were rifles; the authorities, ATF, are only notified when there are multiple gun sales – two or more handguns in an individual purchase), the fact that he purchased all of those 33 in less than a year should have set off a red flag. The ATF dropped the ball.
The rise in mass shootings speaks to the rise in mental health issues and the fact that as a society we are so consumed in not hurting anyone's feelings or making anyone feel uncomfortable or feel less than completely normal that we allow such mental defects to go untreated. Aberrant behavior is excused, marginalized, or even swept under the rug. Being that most, if not all, of the shooters were liberal thinkers or otherwise left-leaning, we have to look at why such individuals become so violently unhinged. Also, the rise in gun violence and mass shootings speaks to the climate of our communities, the low expectations of our citizens, and the pressures on individuals, all of which are the direct result of liberal government policies.
HIGH SCHOOL LIBERALISM – High schools have become a field day for liberals and for social experimentation
The open-mind policy of liberals has given us this beauty (true story, although the name of the school and the students are kept anonymous, for obvious reasons): Two high school football players were caught (by many) in the act of sodomy in the school's bathroom, using peanut butter as a lubricant. Students entering the bathroom and others just passing by heard their very loud grunting. One student stood on the toilet in the adjacent stall, and filmed the encounter while other students peered into the stall of the sex-crazed lovers and took videos on their cameras. Finally, teachers arrived and then the school police officer. The officer broke up the coupling and within minutes, news spread throughout the school. My son came home from school and shared all this information with me. Later that night it was corroborated by his best friend, whose mother is a teacher at the school. Teachers and administrators were treated to a recap of the event.
I asked my son what was going to happen to the students and so he told me he would find out the next day at school or get the 411 from his friend. Well, the next afternoon when my son came home from school, I asked for an update. He started off: "Mom, you're never going to believe this…." Turns out that instead of the students talking about a rightful expulsion of the two football students and the inappropriateness of such an act in a high school bathroom, there were a good many of them who wanted to excuse the incident and instead, use it as an opportunity to promote the equality of homosexuals and teach about homosexual sex in school. Now, one could have used the opportunity to talk about acceptable conduct as a teenager, or the morality of teen sex, or abstinence, or sexually-transmitted diseases, or the appropriate uses of peanut butter. But only individuals whose minds are so open that they are incapable of common sense or rational thought (ie, liberal-thinking) could think this conduct is acceptable or that it is a teachable moment on inclusion OR Biology. Years ago, students would be traumatized over such an incident, and they would run home to their parents and tell them. The parents, of course, would hurry over to the school and camp out in front of the principal's office, if need be, to get a favorable promise of how the incident would be handled and what policies and courses would be put in place to make sure that it did not happen again. Years ago, teens were taught right from wrong and taught morality at home, by their parents, according to the dictates of their conscience. Today, thanks to liberal policies, the public school system teaches them what and how to think about sensitive issues. And so they think, just as these 14-18-year-olds did, from the most liberal point of view.
Make no mistake, Liberals are destroying the United States with empty-headed logic and policies…. They suffer from a mental defect that renders them incapable of allegiance to and accepting of the values and principles of liberty that the country was founded on and on which the country was once great.
In 2005, famed radio personality Michael Savage wrote a book entitled Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. You can guess what point he was seeking to make. And in 2011, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, Jr., a board-certified clinical psychologist, wrote a book entitled The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness in which he diagnosed the ideology of the left as a tangible mental illness. In The Liberal Mind, Dr. Rossiter writes: "The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left's efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone's material welfare, provide for everyone's healthcare, protect everyone's self-esteem, correct everyone's social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen's growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains."
Others, on the other hand, have characterized liberalism not so much a novel mental disorder, but rather as special class of illness already widely studied since the late '60s – narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Rusty, in the "Political Insider," writes: "The Mayo Clinic defines NPD as 'a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration.' This seems in tune with the fact that liberals – along with their degenerate offspring asking for 'safe spaces' and hiding from chalk – believe their policies and platforms fall in the majority – or the 99% if you will – despite being outnumbered by conservatives in 47 of 50 states." There are other symptoms that define NPD and the left alike… For example, liberals ignore the first rule of nature, that only the strong survive, and instead, want their kind treated differently, like victims or like snowflakes, offering a long list of reasons for their failures and situation and blaming others (such as "white privilege" or the "greedy wealthy"). Ignorance obviously plays a central role in their wholesale claims of racism and "white privilege." Indeed, ignorance on various levels, defines a liberal.
Liberals also like to rebel against social norms; they don't believe they need to be confined by them. As Dr. Rossiter explains: "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded….. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave. A social scientist that understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do. … A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do." Liberals have no conscience when they see how others are harmed – robbed (ie, overtaxed), regulated, silenced, vilified, punished (punished for being white – a non-protectable overly-broad racial group; punished for being successful, punished for having a job, punished for scoring well on the SAT, etc) – when they act out or to further their goals.
Liberals are notoriously intolerant (even though one of their "issues" is tolerance) and sanctimonious. They love to claim moral superiority. Sadly, although they love to argue their points, they abhor facts and have no stomach for robust debate on the merit of issues. Rather than pursue a real discussion, they try to insult the other side with foul language and name-calling or by discrediting with any one of their "isms"(racism, fascism, etc) or "phobes" (homophobes, islamophobe, etc). Or they may simply try to shut the other side down with their common phrase "white-privilege" (thus showing which group of people see nothing else about a person except skin color !!) Liberals — this is the group that stalks on social media, hides behind dozens of fake Facebook profiles, and shows up at rallies, speeches, and presentations NOT to respectfully offer an alternative viewpoint, but only to shut that event and that speech down with the conduct of a 2-year-old brat or a gutter rat. They loudly and brutishly impose and vomit their non-existent set of self-righteous morals on the world from every conceivable soap box they can find. The only reason racism still exists (and perhaps is now even on the rise) is because of liberals emphasizing all-too-loudly and all-too-often the differences between the races, exaggerating claims, and making mountains out of mole-hills. They took the cue from Barack Obama, who had an uncanny knack of turning every incident into a racial incident. Some might say that they are have an innate ability for applying Alinky's "rules" for radicals.
And still the list of symptoms of this mental disorder, this derangement syndrome, this NPD (these neuroses) continues. Rusty writes, "Furthermore, they expect constant praise and admiration. This is a staple of college liberals and their constant 'look at me' attitude. The need to feed their pride consumes them, fueling a self-importance that must continue to grow through perpetual media coverage. Protesting sidewalk chalk, protesting topless sunbathing, protesting the right to have a 'safe space,' protesting the First Amendment, etc. And all the while they look for support for their protests, they look for praise, they look for admiration – which the media usually obliges. There is a meme that demonstrates what earned praise back in 1944 and what earns praise today. It reads: '1944: 18-year-olds storm the beach at Normandy facing almost-certain death. 2016: 18-year-olds need safe spaces because words hurt their feelings.'"
Rusty continues: "The very premise on which the liberal platform of wealth redistribution and social justice are based, is jealousy. They want what others have, and they want it without cost to themselves, either monetarily or based on time. They are envious of those with wealth, health insurance, homes, etc. It is a common attribute upon which all liberal protesters rally around. Is there anything that personified this more than the Obamacare fight? An Obama legacy measure that was opposed by a wide margin, 54-41 percent. Yet it was still rammed down the collective throats of the American people. Why? Because liberals honestly thought that once the plebeians had a chance to see their ideas, they would go along with it. The liberal movement amounts to nothing more than making excuses to legitimize a platform of laziness and entitlements. We've seen these in campus protests, minimum wage protests, anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalism protests, and advocates of perpetual welfare. Their solution to counter corporate greed is to steal from those that have worked hard to attain their level of wealth, and give to those who refuse to reach such a work ethic. 'Tax the Rich' anyone? Money for nothing, or entitlement, seems to be a birthright for the left. All of these symptoms – the narcissism, the righteous indignation, the intolerance, their sense of moral superiority, the ignorance, the need for praise and admiration, the jealousy and sense of entitlement – seem to define an individual who is unable to express their frustration in a rational manner – hence the campus protests. The Mayo Clinic diagnosis of NPD ("In order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better") seems to speak to liberals directly. That's practically a tailor-made diagnosis for Trump protesters these days….. In the end, Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Some have even characterized progressive liberalism as a religion, albeit socio-political in nature. "For liberals, their sermons are driven by quasi-intellectual discussion prompted by observations made with extreme cognitive bias and uses books such as Rules for Radicals, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (by Peggy McIntosh) and After Hegemony (by Robert Keohane) as their bibles. Their savior, of course, is the Democratic Party, or perhaps Karl Marx." (News24)
Liberals have gladly and willingly taken the advice of today's college professors: "Keep an open mind." The difference between today's wacko professors and the ones in the mid-20th century, like Professor Walter Kotschnig at Holyoke College and William Allan Neilson of Smith College, is those professors added a "BUT" after that same bit of advice. Today's liberals have rejected any limit as to how open their minds can be, and as a result, their brains have indeed fallen out.
Quote Investigator. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/
Travis Fedschun, "NYC terror attack suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, entered US through Diversity Visa Program," FoxNews, Nov. 1, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/01/nyc-terror-attack-suspect-sayfullo-saipov-entered-us-through-diversity-visa-program.html
Children in Single-Parent Families. Referenced at: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/106-children-in-single-parent-families?loc=1&loct=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA84rQBRDCARIsAPO8RFxtQe0V4yKBsvhsT2Lc8UFyBHKOCL39MjspttNi_NpFc5bRJSHdaGAaAktIEALw_wcB#detailed/1/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/any/429,430
Bruce Ashford, "To Anyone Who Thinks Antifa is Good for America," Bruce Ashford blog, August 25, 2017. Referenced at: http://bruceashford.net/2017/to-anyone-who-thinks-antifa-is-good-for-america/
James Lewis, "Atifa is Unamerican," American Thinker, August 21, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/antifa_is_unamerican.html
IRLI Staff, "New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually," Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), September 27, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.irli.org/single-post/2017/09/27/New-FAIR-Study-Illegal-Immigration-Costs-116-billion-Annually?gclid=Cj0KCQiAjO_QBRC4ARIsAD2FsXOUPz-giyM_Ptgcrt1mC4ar6rPbB2qdsd1kkxncvKxiQwuT8aO-2dYaAtUPEALw_wcB
Saul Alinsky's 12 Rules for Radicals, Steel On Steel (News Radio with John Loeffler). Referenced at: https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/
Rusty, "6 Reasons Why Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," Political Insider, May 4, 2016. Referenced at: https://thepoliticalinsider.com/6-reasons-why-liberalism-can-be-considered-a-mental-disorder/
"Liberalism: True Political Ideology or Mental Disorder?." News 24, Oct. 22, 2013. Referenced at: https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Liberalism-True-Political-Ideology-or-Mental-Disorder-20131022
W.W., "Culture of Violence in America," The Economist, June 23, 2013. Referenced at: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/mass-shootings-and-gun-control
David Briggs, "No Time For Crime: Study Finds More Religious Communities Have Lower Rates Of Black, White and Latino Violence," The Huffington Post, Dec. 4, 2013. Referenced at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/no-time-for-crime-study-f_b_4384046.html
Emily Shapiro and Karma Allen, "Texas Church Shooter's Ex-Wife Says He Held a Gun to Her Head," ABC News, Nov 14, 2017. Referenced at: http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-church-shooters-wife-held-gun-head/story?id=51112194
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged Diane Rufino, gun control, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, liberal, liberal-minded, liberalism, liberals, open-minded, open-mindedness, progressive, progressives, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky, socialism	| Leave a reply
Making Sense of the Meaning and Intent of the Second Amendment: It Isn't Hard, Folks!
Posted on May 25, 2017 by forloveofgodandcountry
by Diane Rufino, May 24, 2017
"No free man shall be debarred (denied) the use of arms." – as proposed by Thomas Jefferson for Virginia's Bill of Rights, 1776
The Federal Farmer (anti-Federalist author) in 1788: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught how to use them."
Patrick Henry to the Virginia Convention to Ratify the US Constitution, in June 1788: "The great object is that every man be armed."
At the same time it ratified the US Constitution in 1788, the New Hampshire Ratifying Convention proposed this amendment for the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."
The Federal Gazette, dated June 18, 1789, described James Madison's proposal for a Bill of Rights: "The people are confirmed in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
"We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All the evidence indicates that the amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans." — The Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (2001)
The Second Amendment: "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."
For most of our nation's history, the Supreme Court has essentially managed to avoid ruling on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment and that worked out just fine. And that's probably because for about 150 years, it apparently was universally understood that the amendment protected an individual right to arms rather than a right only when organized in a militia. It wasn't until the 20th century that a legal debate began in earnest over the characterization of the right recognized in the Second Amendment.
Is the right to arms an individual right or a collective right? Indeed, in the 20th century, federal courts have seemed confused on this question. Some embrace the historical model, which holds that the amendment recognizes the right of people, as individuals, to bear arms. And others embrace the more radical model, the "collective rights" model, which holds that individuals have the right to arms but only when they are members of a militia.
The "collective rights" model was embraced in 1939 in a case called United States v. Miller. The case arose after two men, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, were arrested for transporting a double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun across state lines and in interstate commerce. They were charged with violating the National Firearms Act ("NFA"). Miller and Layton argued that the NFA violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and therefore it was unconstitutional as it applied to them. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed and it went to the Supreme Court. The issue at the heart of the case was whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court concluded that it does not. It reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the functioning or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.
Although the right to arms became an increasingly heated topic as the 20th century went on, the Supreme Court refused to hear cases to re-address the amendment. And so, the Miller decision defined the position of the federal judiciary from 1939 for almost 70 years. The Second Amendment did not recognize an individual's right to have and bear arms for self-defense – only the defense of a State. But then in 2008 and then in 2010, the Supreme Court, with the late great Antonin Scalia on the bench, agreed to hear two cases, each addressing the same issue and each directly asking the Court to re-address the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. The 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, addressed a federal gun control law, and the 2009 case, McDonald v. Chicago, addressed a state gun control law. [The first was a direct challenge to the Second Amendment and the second was a challenge under the incorporation clause of the Fourteenth Amendment].
In Heller, at issue was a gun ban in the District of Columbia (hence, it was a federal gun law) which regulated firearms in several ways: (1) It made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm; (2) It prohibited the registration of handguns; (3) It required owners of lawfully-registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled, even in the home, or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities. Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied, and so he brought suit to challenge the gun ban as violative of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court agreed with Officer Heller (5-4 majority, of course). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Therefore, the ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism was inconsistent with the intent of the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion. The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a "militia" is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term "militia" should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to "guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.
The piece of legislation addressed in the McDonald case was Chicago's gun registration law, which: (1) Prohibited the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban; (2) Requires that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents; (3) Mandated that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee; and (4) Rendered any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses. 76-year-old Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a retired maintenance engineer, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971. He complained about the decline of his neighborhood, describing it as being taken over by gangs and drug dealers. His home and garage had been broken into five times. An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too uncontrollable in the event of a robbery, and so he wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a city-wide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun. So, he and some of his neighbors challenged the Chicago gun registration law as violative of the Second Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. He didn't believe that the Second Amendment was meant to leave him as a sitting duck – a potential victim – in his crime-ridden neighborhood.
The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment' right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right, and so, the Second Amendment's protections and prohibitions apply to the States.
As you read the body of this article, consider what liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor argued in their dissent. They wrote that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment. Keep that in mind.
Heller and McDonald were decided after a deep look into the historical roots of the Second Amendment, something that the Court should have done in the Miller case. The current understanding is that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects an individual's right to arms for self-defense and equally recognizes the right to have and bear arms for the purpose of a state militia.
The opinion makes sense. According to the Declaration of Independence, and natural law, we have the right to life and liberty. These rights are inherent with our humanity. They are inalienable. We never surrender them. Therefore, by extension (by corollary), we must have the right to defend them. In other words, the right to life, and liberty (and Property too) also implies the right to defend them. Otherwise, the rights are meaningless; there are merely parchment pronunciations.
The desire to live and survive is innate; we reflexively act to protect our lives and to thrive. And when we can't, we feel violated. Just ask anyone who has been the victim of a violent crime, of a robbery, an assault, a break-in. Ask someone who has the experience of a stranger breaking into their house in the middle of the night. I had that experience. And I have a gun today because I never want to feel helpless and vulnerable and the victim of predation again.
From a simple reading of the Bill of Rights, one notices that the First Amendment and the other amendments as well, address individual rights. If the Bill of Rights identifies individual rights – as did the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights – shouldn't one sense pressure to view the Second Amendment similarly?
Historically, the "individual right" view is the best proven one, and so the Supreme Court rightly decided the Heller and McDonald cases. But what is that history that so grounds our Second Amendment and so secures its meaning as an individual right?
The DVD "In Search of the Second Amendment" explains this history very clearly.
THE HISTORY of the SECOND AMENDMENT –
[This section is lifted, in part, from the DVD "In Search of the Second Amendment (A Documentary)," produced and directed by David T. Hardy (2006)]
The 1930's through the 1970's was a time period when Americans were embracing their gun rights, but lawyers weren't paying much attention to the Second Amendment – one way or another (that is, on either side of its interpretation). There wasn't much thought given to it. But as the years went on, there was growing evidence for the "individual right" view. Law reviews were publishing articles on the topic and books on the Constitution were taking notice of this meaning. Momentum was slowly building for a show-down in the Supreme Court to address this building consensus.
One of the leading Constitutional Law treatises of the later 20th century, American Constitutional Law, was written by Laurence Tribe, professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. His first edition was written in 1978. Attorney Leonard Levy wrote a subsequent book, Essays on the Making of the Constitution, in which he attacked Tribe's textbook for failing to acknowledge the growing the evidence of the "individual right" view of the right to have a bear arms. Tribe immediately published a second edition accepting this evidence.
Why this growing trend? And what does it mean for the Miller decision? Did the Court at the time not have the evidence? Before coming to the conclusion that the Second Amendment conferred only a collective right (although it appears they only alluded to this viewpoint without coming right out with a bright line rule of construction), didn't they bother to go back and research the amendment's history?
What got the ball rolling towards the "individual right" point of view? One article appears to be responsible. The recent boom in Second Amendment legal scholarship that has led to most constitutional scholars to accept the view that the amendment protects an individual's right to have and bear arms began with an article by Don Kates, published in the Michigan Law Review. That article was titled "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment.' [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/57mich.pdf].
Top legal scholars, many of which are liberal, such as Sandy Levinson (of the University of Texas, writing in the Yale Law Journal), Randy Barnett (Boston University School of Law), Bill Van Alstyne (Duke University), and Eugene (Professor at the UCLA School of Law) have made it clear that their research has led them to conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have arms.
The history behind the Second Amendment goes back well before the colonies were even settled. It goes back to the very history of the fore-fathers and founders of our country. It goes back to the history of England, the country that gave us so much of our common law, gave us our Bill of Rights, and gave us much of the foundation upon which we built our Declaration, our Constitution, and our system of government.
In medieval England, there was no royal army. There wasn't enough money or control to have such a formal army. Instead, the King would have to count on his subjects to fight for him – to fight for the kingdom. And so, by law, the King established a citizen militia. By law – the Militia laws – every male subject, beginning at a certain age, was required to own guns, have ammunition, be trained in their use, and show up for regular training sessions. Citizens could be called up at any time by the King to form the militia and so they had to always be in a state of readiness. Henry VIII lowered the age of the males required to be trained to use guns. Under his rule, fathers were required to train their sons from age 7 and older in the use of firearms. "Bring them up in shooting!"
In 1688, a medieval "duty" to have and bear arms became an "indubitable right." How did this happen? Dr. Joyce Malcolm, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law and fellow of the Royal Historical Society, is an expert on this topic. She has been called "the leading historian on the history of English gun rights and English gun control." Malcolm explains that gun ownership transformed into a "right" during the tumultuous 17th century in England, and for understandable reasons. The transformation arose out of a conflict between King Charles I and Parliament. Eventually, in 1642, civil war broke out and members of Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell, brought charges against Charles. He was captured, tried for treason, and beheaded. His sons, the future King Charles II and King James II had fled to France at the time.
After Cromwell died and his son took over, rather than stability in England, there was mass chaos. The people, out of sheer desperation, asked Charles II to come back to England, assert his right to the throne, and rule, which he did. But what did Charles come home to? He returned to a country that turned on his father; a country that beheaded him. He also returned to a country that was very well-armed. Almost immediately, he sought to disarm the subjects and control the bearing of arms. He instituted serious gun control measures, both on individuals and on manufacturers. Gun manufacturers had to report to the King how many guns they manufactured each week and who purchased them. There were controls on the importing of guns, licenses were required for subjects who needed to move weapons around the countryside, and subjects had to report if they were traveling with a firearm. In the year 1660, King Charles II issued a series of orders to disarm those citizens that he deemed were – or would be – political opponents. One particular act that Parliament passed, in 1662, was especially repugnant. It was the Militia Act of 1662 and it gave militia officers the power to disarm anyone they believed was likely to be an opponent of the Crown. And at first, the Act was actively enforced. In 1671, Parliament passed the Game Act, which proved to be the greatest control over ownership of firearms that England ever had. The Game Act listed a whole host of weapons that were prohibited for hunting, and at the head of that list was guns !!
Charles II died and having produced no heirs, he was succeeded by his brother James. King James II would use the Game Act to try to disarm all those subjects who he deemed were not well-enough off. In other words, he tried to limit gun ownership to only those of a certain class of subjects. He sent out mass orders to disarm the citizenry. According to the record, Dr. Malcolm explains, the orders were apparently not carried out. But the actions of the King to disarm his subjects certainly arose concern and fear among the people of England.
And so, finally in 1688, the English people had had enough. They, together with a union of Parliamentarians, invited William and Mary, of Orange to take over the throne and depose King James II. Mary was the daughter of the king. The people promised they would oust James and offer no resistance to William and Mary if they agreed to sign a Bill of Rights acknowledging the rights of the people and promised to be held to that document. William and Mary agreed. They sailed from Orange and were met with the support of the citizenry, in what would be known as the "Bloodless Revolution" (or Glorious Revolution). James was forced to flee. A new Parliament was formed (one not loyal to James, who was still alive) and this Parliament decided that a Bill of Rights was necessary to re-affirm all the rights that had been imperiled by James. In order to tie the new King and Queen to an obligation to abide by these rights, the same statue that elevated William and Mary to the throne also contained those rights – The Charter of Rights – The Charter of Ancient and Indubitable Rights." In fact, this Bill of Rights of 1689 was referred to as "The new Magna Carta." The statue created a contractual obligation, one that tied the right of the King and Queen to rule to an obligation to respect the rights contained in the Charter.
One of those rights was the right of British subjects ("who are Protestants") to have arms for their defense (self-defense) "suitable to their position and allowed by law."
Arms seizure weighed heavily during the deliberations in Parliament as it drafted the Bill of Rights of 1689. So incensed that the people, in mass, had been targeted for arms confiscation under the Militia Act (and even some members of Parliament had been targeted), that the people and Parliament felt that the "duty" to have and bear arms was actually a "right." The ability to arm oneself for self-defense was considered a right.
Indeed, by 1688, and enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1689, the duty to be armed became a right. One of the rights of Englishmen became the right to have arms for self-defense.
Between 1603 and 1776, the rights of Englishmen became the rights of Americans.
When the first three ships arrived in the New World, in what would become the commonwealth of Virginia, the English settlers encountered hostile French and Dutch settlers as well as hostile Indians. Because of this hostile environment, the arms laws were even stricter than the English ones. English colonists were required to have arms on them at all times and they were required to be trained in their use. "Every male inhabitant shall carry a firearm wherever he goes." As the colonies were settled, one by one, they established their state militias. They drew from their knowledge of the militia system in England to develop their own military forces. The resulting colonial militia laws required every able-bodied male citizen to participate and to provide his own arms. For example, in the colony of Virginia, in 1623, the Virginia General Assembly commanded, "that men go not to work in the ground without their arms; That no man go or send abroad without a sufficient partie well-armed." In 1661, its Governor, William Berkeley stated, "All our freemen are bound to be trained every month in their particular counties." Virginia followed the British county lieutenant system; each county had a lieutenant, appointed as the county's chief militia officer.
Yes, it was a "duty" to have and bear arms, in order to serve in the militia and help defend the colony, but apart from this duty, the colonists knew, as loyal British subjects (which they were and which they considered themselves), they also had the right to own them and to bear them. For confirmation, they only needed to consult the second most popular book of the day (the first being the Bible), Blackstone's treatise on the English common law, "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765).
In Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England," he addressed the right to arms:
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject that I shall at the moment mention, is that of having arms for their defense – suitable to their condition and degree, and as such as are allowed by law. It is indeed a public allowance, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain violence of oppression."
Blackstone says clearly that the right is not only for defense and for protection, but it is also to resist tyranny. The main purpose of the right to bear arms is to resist tyranny – in order that the people in the community, together and with their firearms, could overthrow a dictatorship in the last resort, should none of the other checks and balances work.
By the mid 1760's, tensions were growing increasingly high particularly in the colonies, and in Boston in particular. It wasn't long before the redcoats arrived, to live among the people of Boston and to make sure that they stayed "in line." With the Redcoats came acts of criminality – rapes, robberies, murder. The Boston Gazette published articles warning the colonists that they would soon be disarmed and should they "act out," they would be taken to England and tried for treason. The colonists began to arm themselves – first to defend themselves against the criminal tendencies of the soldiers and also because it seemed likely that the tensions would escalate into conflict. They cited the English Bill of Rights, the Militia Acts of the colonies, and even Blackstone's "Commentaries" for their right to arm themselves. "It is beyond sophistry to prove (meaning, it is clearly fallacious) that British subjects, to whom the privilege of necessary arms is expressly recognized by the [English] Bill of Rights, and who live in a province were the law requires them to be equipped with arms, are guilty of illegal acts in calling upon one another to be provided with them – as the law directs!"
Citing Blackstone, the colonists understood the reason they were vested with the right to bear arms: "It is a natural right, which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense; and as a Blackstone observer, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
Tensions soon escalated and a series of events followed. Under the Intolerable Acts, the colonial legislature in Boston was abolished and King George III sent General Thomas Gage, a proven military commander at the time, there to serve as the Royal Governor. British spies tipped off General Gage that the colonists were stockpiling ammunition and artillery at nearby Concord. On the night of April 18, 1775, Gage sent a column of soldiers to Concord to destroy the supplies. Their trip led them through Lexington, where they encountered a small group of colonial militiamen. A shot went off (no one knows how it happened), but the response was immediate. Shots rang out and armed conflict between England and Massachusetts had begun. The revolution had begun. British forces drew first blood.
Despite the skirmish, the troops continued to Concord where they found the ammunition and where they also found several thousand angry townsfolk. The troops proceeded to burn the stockpile but from the vantage point of the townsfolk, it looked like they were attempting to burn down the town. And so, the townsfolk opened fire on the troops, forcing them to retreat. As they were retreating the 15 miles or so back to Boston, more and more members of the militia turned out to fire upon them. The British soldiers suffered over 300 casualties. Not only did they draw first blood, but they were defeated.
The fighting, however, was not to be contained in Massachusetts. In Williamsburg, Virginia, the colonists built an armory to store their gunpowder. Late during the night of April 20, 1775, royal governor Dunmore ordered British sailors to raid the armory and to take the gunpowder back aboard their ships. Dunmore allowed this even as statesmen such as Patrick Henry and William Henry Lee and other Virginians were already pushing to revive the state militia – to put into execution the militia law that was passed in the year 1738 – and to put them in the posture of defense (that is, to prepare them to defend the State against the British).
Just a month prior to that event, there was a general alarm that was spreading among the colonies – fueled, no doubt, by men like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine – that the British were removing gunpowder from the public stock in order to render the colonists unable to resist the Crown. Clearly, as was done in Boston, England was intent on disarming them – just as King Charles II had done to his subjects approximately 100 years ago in the mother country. The King (George III) was not depriving them of their right of representation in Parliament this time (no taxation without representation); now he was stripping them of their right to bear arms for defense.
Only a handful of statesmen recognized what was happening and what its significance was. Patrick Henry was one. It was this general alarm, this general fear that England was coming to disarm the colonists, that prompted him, on the night of March 23 at St. John's Church to propose three resolutions to raise, equip and prepare the militia for conflict.
His resolutions read simply:
Resolved, that a well-regulated militia composed of gentlemen and yeomen is the natural strength and only security of a free government; that such a militia in this colony would forever render it unnecessary for the mother country to keep among us, for the purpose of our defense, any standing army of mercenary forces, always subversive of the quiet, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, and would obviate the pretext of taxing us for their support.
That the establishment of such a militia is at this time peculiarly necessary, by the state of our laws for the protection and defence of the country some of which have already expired, and others will shortly do so; and that the known remissness of government in calling us together in a legislative capacity renders it too insecure in this time of danger and distress, to rely that opportunity will be given of renewing them in General Assembly or making any provision to secure our inestimable rights and liberties from those farther violations with which they are threatened.
Resolved therefore, that this colony be immediately put into a posture of defence: and that Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Carter Nicholas, Benjamin Harrison, Lemuel Riddick, George Washington, Adam Stephen, Andrew Lewis, William Christian, Edmund Pendleton, Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Zane, Esquires, be a committee to prepare a plan for the embodying arming and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose.
Perhaps the most rousing speech delivered in colonial America was by Patrick Henry and it was in support of these resolutions: [As you read the speech, consider the circumstances to which he is speaking, and keeping in mind that men like Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Lee, Washington were keenly aware of the history of the people England, the continued struggle to assert their rights, to seek assurances, to have them violated, and only to have to try to re-assert them again, and again…..]
"The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
With the raid on the armory at Williamsburg, thus confirming Patrick Henry's worst fears, the most powerful colony in the South (Virginia) was driven into an alliance with the most powerful colony in the North (Massachusetts). The Boston Revolution soon became an American Revolution.
Thus, the American revolution started over our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Tensions between the colonies and Great Britain may have started over the right not to be taxed without representation in Parliament (the body from which such taxing measures arose), but the actual revolution itself erupted over the actions of the Crown to disarm the people.
In 1775, the colonies called up the First Continental Congress to seek a peaceful resolution of the growing tensions. That Congress sent a series of petitions to the King to implore him to intercede on their behalf and recognize that their rights were being violated. He laughed at the petitions and likened the colonist to petulant little children who liked to throw fits. [Patrick Henry referenced this effort in his fiery speech at St. John's: "We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne."] In 1776, the colonies called up the Second Continental Congress to manage the war effort against the British. General George Washington was put over the Continental Army and on July 4, 1776, the Congress signed the Declaration of Independence, declaring the colonies to be independent from Great Britain and articulating to a "candid world" the list of grievances against Great Britain which would support and justify its decision to separate.
Once the colonies proclaimed their independence, the strongest sign they could send to demonstrate that independence was to assume statehood and adopt state constitutions (the signs of sovereignty). And so, each colony organized itself as a state and drafted and adopted a constitution. Most also adopted a Bill of Rights, in one form or another.
Different states provided different models for the right to bear arms. In 1776, George Mason went to work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He introduced the enumerated rights with a statement of nature's law and a statement of the relationship of individuals and government, in general. He wrote:
THAT all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Then he addressed the right to arms:
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty….
The Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted June 12, 1776.
Thomas Jefferson submitted a draft of a Bill of Rights to be taken up at the upcoming convention (to draft a constitution for the first government of the "united" states, which as we know, was the Articles of Confederation). He wrote: "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."
The Pennsylvania Bill of Rights, adopted in September 1776, recognized a right to bear arms for both self-defense and in defense of the State.
1. That all men are born equally free, and independent; and have certain, natural, inherent, and inalienable rights; amongst which are; the enjoying and defending of life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.
In March 1780, Massachusetts adopted its Constitution and Bill of Rights, written by John Adams. It acknowledged a right to keep and bear arms, but added that it was for "the common good." The MA Bill of Rights read, in part:
The end of the institution, maintenance and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body-politic; to protect it; and to furnish the individuals who compose it, with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, their natural rights, and the blessings of life: And whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.
The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.
Part the First. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Art. I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense.
Looking at these three Constitutions and Bills of Right, we can see that there were at least three (3) colonial models to address the right to arms.
Again, to compare and contrast them concisely, addressing them in the order they were adopted:
(1) The Virginia model emphasizes the militia. "A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state…"
(2) The Pennsylvania model doesn't mention militia; it emphases self-defense and defense of the State. "The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State."
(3) The Massachusetts model took the Pennsylvania approach, but added a limitation in the form of the clause "for the common defense, and added the people also have a right to "keep" arms. "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense."
These models would become important when our new nation would look to draft a national Bill of Rights.
And that time came in 1787, when after certain leading state leaders – namely, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton – found the Articles of Confederation unworkable for the growing union and took the initiative to call up a new constitutional convention. The Convention was held in Philadelphia from May to September 1787 and rather than heed the constitutional call of the Convention to "amend" the Articles of Confederation, a brand new plan of government was pursued and a brand new Constitution was drafted. Although the delegates from 12 states labored through the hot summer months of that year, engaged in countless debates, and pursued and negotiated through many contentious issues, in the end the final draft, the US Constitution, was not acceptable to many of the delegates. Seven delegates to the Convention walked out and refused to sign it on the last day – September 20, including Virginia's George Mason. These delegates either complained that it conferred too much power to the federal government (mainly, an unlimited power to tax and spent, and to raise an army) or that it lacked a Bill of Rights, or both. Many of those who did not sign it were anti-Federalists, those who feared a weakening of the States at the hands of the federal government.
Nevertheless, once the Constitution was signed, it went to the States, which, acting in their own conventions, would take up the issue of ratification. If they ratified the Constitution, they would become part of the Union of States and if they didn't, they would not. Delaware ratified first, by a unanimous vote. Then came Pennsylvania, New Jersey (unanimous vote), Georgia (unanimous vote), and Connecticut (overwhelmingly). In January 1788, Massachusetts called its convention. Samuel Adams, who, although he did not attend the Philadelphia Convention, attended the ratifying convention. Assessing the Constitution, he addressed the Convention:
"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 peaceful citizens, from keeping their own arms, or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States or of one or more of them, or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances, or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions."
Samuel Adams is the strongest unsung hero of the Second Amendment. His writings on the right to have and bear arms goes back many years, even before his days in the Sons of Liberty.
Next, Maryland ratified the Constitution (overwhelmingly), then South Carolina, and finally New Hampshire (narrowly). When New Hampshire ratified in June 1788, it became the ninth state to do so. According to Article VII of the Constitution, the Constitution would go into effect when 9 states ratified. And so, the new Union was born.
But this new Union was still terribly fractured. Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island still hadn't decided. Actually, North Carolina met in Convention on August 2, 1788 but quickly rejected the Constitution (193-75). It agreed to meet again; it was waiting to see what the other States did regarding a Bill of Rights.
When New Hampshire ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788, the Virginia Convention was actually still going on. It was contentious. Virginia, New York, and North Carolina were not expected to ratify, and the issue was over a Bill of Rights, which James Madison had argued in Philadelphia was not necessary. George Mason and Edmund Pendleton, two of the delegates from Virginia at the Philadelphia Convention who would not sign the Constitution, were now delegates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention and were committed to preventing the document from being ratified. These men, and many others, were already calling for another Constitutional Convention – particularly George Mason, and he had the potential power to move the plan forward. Mason and Pendleton were joined in sentiment at the Convention by Patrick Henry, who was highly skeptical of the Constitution and was confident it would lead to the consolidation of the states under the federal government.
At issue at the Virginia Ratifying Convention was essentially the concerns of the anti-Federalists, which was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights (and that the government tended to be overly-ambitious and powerful). The Virginia view, in general, was that a Bill of Rights is the very least that a government owes to its people. Mason argued for a Bill of Rights, and of course, any Bill of Rights worth its salt would have to include a right to bear arms. Patrick Henry told the Convention: "The great object is that every man be armed!"
In the end, a compromise was reached. James Madison promised that if the Virginia delegation would ratify the Constitution in the Convention he would recommend to the first US Congress that a Bill of Rights be added, as a series of amendments. Madison was known to be a trustworthy man and so, the Constitution was narrowly ratified on June 25 (89-79). However, the Virginia delegation did not merely ratify; in anticipation of a national Bill of Rights, it also proposed and drafted a series of amendments for consideration.
"Resolved, that, previous to the ratification of the new Constitution of government recommended by the late federal Convention, a declaration of rights, asserting, and securing from encroachment, the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most exceptionable parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be referred by this Convention to the other states in the American confederacy for their consideration"
When the Virginia delegation went back to write the amendments they would recommend, they looked to the Massachusetts and the Pennsylvania models, in addition to their own model. The language that they came up with is as follows: "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 defense of a free state."
The right to bear arms for defense of oneself and the State comes from the Pennsylvania model. The right to keep and bear arms comes from the Massachusetts model. By removing express limitations (such as "for the common good" or other qualifiers that might be later construed to limit the right ("for defense of themselves and the State"), the first part of the proposed amendment construes the right to arms in its broadest terms. The second part of the proposed amendment comes from the Virginia model and addresses the militia. The Virginia delegation already believed it was expressed in its broadest terms.
So, the Second Amendment is actually two separate thoughts. The intentional, conscious effort was to express the right to arms in the broadest terms possible, to be understood in its broadest sense.
The New York Convention followed. It wrapped up on July 26, one month after the Virginia Convention. It was another contentious convention. As in Virginia, it was a battle between anti-Federalists and Federalists. On the anti-Federalist side, the words of the Federal Farmer (possibly Richard Henry Lee) were invoked: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught how to use them." Daniel Webster, for the Federalists, answered: "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 raised in the United States." [to paraphrase: Because of the fact that the people are armed and therefore superior to any troops raised by the United States, they can prevent the execution of any law they perceive not to be just and constitutional].
The debates in New York led to the most famous work on the meaning and intent of the Constitution – the Federalist Papers. In fact, Madison addresses the militia (and a standing army) in Federalist No. 46. He wrote: "The people will never have to worry about a standing army because of the state militias."
The New York Convention very narrowly ratified the Constitution (30-27). But as Virginia did, it called for a Bill of Rights and provided several for consideration. North Carolina went on to ratify, but only because a Bill of Rights has actually been adopted! And then Rhode Island ratified after that.
The Constitution was adopted on June 12, 1788 when the ninth state, New Hampshire ratified it. Fall 1788 saw the first national elections and as expected, James Madison was elected to the House of Representatives. In the months after the election and before taking his seat in Congress, which was in New York City at the time), Madison sat at his home in Montpelier and drafted a Bill of Rights. He drew from the proposed amendments that were submitted by the states. He planned to bring them with him to the first session of Congress and present them, thus making good on his promise. He drafted twelve amendments.
On June 8, 1789, Madison stood up in the House of Representatives and proposed what would become the federal Bill of Rights. His proposed Second Amendment read: "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."
The first Congress amended Madison's proposal; it removed the language concerning the conscientious-objector. Then a committee was formed – a drafting committee – consisting of Madison himself and Roger Sherman, an anti-Federalist, to provide the final draft. The final draft of the Second Amendment was a pared-down version which read: "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 debates in the Senate on the proposed Bill of Rights, a motion was made to insert into the Second Amendment the words "for the common defense" next to the words "bear arms." It was rejected !!
On September 25, 1789, Congress approved the amendments (all 12 of them) and then they were sent to the states.
James Madison's friend, Tench Coxe, of Philadelphia, provided the most comprehensive analysis of the Second Amendment in a publication under the pen name "The Pennsylvanian." It was printed in all the states. He wrote: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally called to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.
All the leading commentators of the day saw the right to bear arms as an individual right, including US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845), who was the leading constitutional expert and commentator during the early-mid 20th century, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley (1864-1885), the leading constitutional commentator at the end of the 19th century, and Sir William Blackstone, the leading English commentator who was very influential on our founders and framers.
St. George Tucker, who first gained fame as a Revolutionary War hero from Virginia, became famous again for writing a very famous treatise. In 1803, he wrote a 5-volume set, being characterized as the American version of Blackstone's "Commentaries." It was titled: Blackstone's Commentaries, with Notes of Reference to the Constitution & Laws of the Federal Government of the United States & of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Tucker was seen as the best source and authority on the original intent and early interpretation of the US Constitution until about 1825, and his work has been cited by the US Supreme Court over forty times. For those looking to understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution at the time it was adopted and as it served our first sessions of government, it would be interesting to read Tucker's volumes.
Tucker wrote about Blackstone's exposition on the right to arms as it existed in the English law and explained how it applied to the United States. Tucker wrote: "'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' This amendment is without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as in the case of the British government."
He went on to elaborate even further: Explaining the scope of the amendment, he wrote: "This [the Second Amendment] may be considered the true palladium of liberty… The right of the self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments, it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, then liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
In 1825, Tucker's treatise was replaced by the text written by William Rawle – A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Regarding the Second Amendment, Rawle wrote in his book: "No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people.." [Rawle was part of the convention in Pennsylvania that ratified the US Bill of Rights; he was offered the position of first US Attorney General but turned it down].
The most influential constitutional commentator of the late 19th century and early 20th century was Thomas Cooley. He was considered the greatest legal mind of the time. He wrote the text: The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America. In his text, he explains exactly what the right is that is protected in the Second Amendment: "It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia, but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the actions or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and that they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose…"
Professor Randy Burnett of Boston University's School of Law sums up the history of the Second Amendment this way: "What is shown by the historical record is that we have statements made before the second amendment was proposed, while the second amendment was being considered, and immediately after the second amendment was ratified, each of which reflects the understanding of the speaker that the amendment protects an individual right to have and bear arms. What we don't have – what we don't find in the historical record is a single example of any contemporary at the time of the second amendment referring to it as anything other than an individual right."
Professor Eugene Volokh, of the UCLA School of Law, comments: "Throughout the 1700's, throughout the 1800's, and up until the early 1900's, the right to bear arms was universally seen as an individual right. There was virtually no authority for the collective rights/ states' right point of view." (States right to call a militia, that is).
But yet, in the late 20th century and now in the 21st century, somehow this history means nothing?
"The Second Amendment is a right held by States and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." — The Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (2000)
"The right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the States to keep and maintain an armed militia." — The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (1996)
The conservatives on the bench in the Heller case and then in the McDonald case got it right. They chose to be intellectually honest.
DVD: "In Search of the Second Amendment (A Documentary)," produced and directed by David T. Hardy (2006). Second Amendment Films LLC
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010)
Don B. Kates, Jr. "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Michigan Law Review (MICH. L. REV.) 204-273 (1983). Referenced: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/57mich.pdf
Resolutions of the Provincial Congress of Virginia (Patrick Henry) regarding the militia, March 23, 1775 – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/res_cong_va_1775.asp
George Mason, the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Referenced at: http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/varights.cfm
Virginia's Ratification of the Constitution, Elliott's Debates (June 25, 1788) – http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june25/
The proposed amendments to the Bill of Rights submitted by the State of Virginia (June 27, 1788) – http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june27/
Teaching American History (an Intereactive Resource) – http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/overview/
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged 2nd amendment, American revolution, Bill of Rights, Blackstone, Constitution, constitutional law, Diane Rufino, disarm, District of Columbia v. Heller, English Bill of Rights, George Mason, Glorious Revolution, gun control, gun rights, Heller, James Madison, King Charles I, McDonald, McDonald v. Chicago, militia, Militia acts, Patrick Henry, Rawle, right to arms, right to have and bear arms, second amendment, self-defense, self-protection, William and Mary	| Leave a reply
Desperately Seeking Security – For Our Second Amendment
To those who are serious about preventing the federal government from coming after our Second Amendment rights, please read and take note…..
If you really want to make a difference and prevent the government from infringing on our Second Amendment, you have to actively support Nullification as a remedy and propose nullification measures to use the power of the States and the People to protect THEIR protections expressly stated in the US Constitution – the Bill of Rights. I'm not saying you have to necessarily come out and use that word, but you absolutely need to support the concept.
Remember what the preamble to the Bill of Rights emphasizes: "The Conventions of a number of States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." In other words, amendments One through Nine are "further restrictions on the federal government" while the Tenth is a further declaration of the intent of the Constitution (as a compact) – that the States have only delegated a select few of their sovereign powers to a common government for common purposes – for a "common defense" and some regulation of commerce between the States where it was necessary to ensure free trade – and they retain and reserve the remainder of them.
You MUST start talking about the Constitution in terms of Compact Theory and reject any characterization of the country as a Union of people rather than States (Lincoln's rhetoric). Only when the Constitution is once again referred to and characterized as it was intended – a compact (history is complete with its references and justifications, including from all our Founding Fathers, the Constitutional Convention of 1787, from the writings of our two greatest founders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the State Ratifying Conventions, and even Article VII of the US Constitution itself), can we stand on the firm ground necessary to reassert our position – that the government has no authority to burden the rights recognized and protected in the Bill of Rights and indeed which formed the very basis for our independence from Great Britain. Compacts have implicit rights and remedies reserved to its signing parties, very similar to contract law and even agency law.
You MUST start talking about State Sovereignty Bills that will protect the citizens in every state from any gun control measure that burdens our Second Amendment guarantee. And I mean, REAL sovereignty bills that include interposition provisions and intent to enforce them. Montana introduced such a bill (or resolution) several years ago which reasserted its sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and characterizing her position vis-a-vis the other States and the federal government in terms of a social compact where each State, as a party to that compact, has the implicit right (just as a party to a contract) to reassert the original terms of the agreement, to ensure that they are faithfully followed, and to assert her right to sever its bond and withdraw from the Union when that compact has been violated and frustrated. The Montana bill includes a provision that puts the federal government on notice that if it attempts to do any of a list of things (I believe the bill lists 5 specific things, including GUN CONTROL, limiting the Second Amendment), then it would consider it "a fatal breach of the compact that holds us together in the Union."
This is the only way you fight back against the designs of our present bloated, self-serving government. These bold assertions and the strong political posturing of States will put the government on notice and equally will put the US Supreme Court on notice as well. They move forward with gun control measures, they do so at the peril of the stability of the United States.
Petitions don't amount to a hill of beans. Over 60% of the American people showed their opposition to government-mandated healthcare but the government went ahead with it anyway.
In a politically-incorrect and realistic world, laws are supposed to protect the good people and encourage constrained behavior for the benefit of an ordered and healthy/happy society. A person should always be free to exercise his or her God-given rights and freedoms UNTIL it burdens another's free exercise thereof. Laws are also supposed to punish the bad people and DISCOURAGE bad behavior. Our government is talking about Gun Control from an incorrect point of view with respect to the purpose of laws. It seeks to punish good people because of the actions of bad people. In doing so, it will punish good people from doing what God inherently intended people to do – protect themselves, their families, and their property, using whatever means necessary to stop the evil. The very definition of a criminal or the criminally-inclined is a person who doesn't obey laws. As with Prohibition, a prohibition on guns, a registry of guns, a long waiting period on gun ownership, a limitation on gun ownership and ammunition, etc etc will only create a thriving and creative black market which will only make sure that most criminals and super bad guys (and syndicates, such as terrorist organizations) will get lots of them while honest, law-abiding, vulnerable people which characterizes the overwhelming majority of Americans who now take huge risks now every time they venture out of their homes and go into public places, will have none.
I offer these comments as someone who is equally passionate in preventing the federal government from taking our rights away or even burdening them in any way. It's always a slippery slope to even give in just a little.
Remember, the Second Amendment is Freedom's Strongest Guarantee !!
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged 10th Amendment, 2nd amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Diane Rufino, federal government, government, gun control, gun rights, guns, interposition, Nullification, preamble to the Bill of Rights, re-assert state sovereignty, second amendment, self-defense, self-protection, sovereignty, sovereignty bill, sovereignty resolution, state sovereignty, state sovereignty resolution, Tenth Amendment, tyranny	| Leave a reply
Impending Federal Gun Control Laws or Confiscation: States Don't Fail Us Now !
Posted on October 5, 2015 by forloveofgodandcountry
by Diane Rufino, October 4, 2015
Obama Wants our Guns and It's Time for the States to Make Clear: "We Will Not Comply…. We Will Nullify!"
Obama appears to be intent on burdening the second amendment – a fundamental and essential right of a free people.
The States need to decide where they stand: Either they will protect its people or the country is exactly what Abraham Lincoln envisioned – a country where the states are irrelevant and the federal government reigns absolutely supreme.
The States (and the local sheriffs) are the last line of defense between a rogue federal government and the People. The federal government appears to become more unhinged from the Constitution with each passing day and this should scare everyone. The need to erect lines of protection becomes ever more urgent. And this is where the States and sheriffs need to step in. They need to make clear that they will NULLIFY and INTERPOSE should the federal government attempt to infringe the right of the people to have and bear arms. We know what will be right around the corner should that happen… We only need to look at what happened to the unfortunate people of totalitarian regimes whose leaders confiscated guns. In this country, Patrick Henry explained it better than anyone else. A people who can't defend themselves cannot assert their rights against the government and are therefore doomed to surrender them.
In 1775, after the British Crown and Parliament set out to punish the colonies for their "rebellious spirit" in frustrating its taxation schemes and its conduct in tossing tea overboard in Boston Harbor in protest of the monopoly established by the Tea Act by imposing the series of laws known as the Coercive Acts (unaffectionately referred to as the "Intolerable Acts" by the colonists), the colonies sought to appeal King George III to interpose on their behalf and end the arbitrary and oppressive treatment of them.
In September 1774, the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to address the colonies' collective response to the Intolerable Acts. On October 25, it drafted a respectful response to the King, which would be known as the "Declarations and Resolves" and delegates were then dispatched to present them to him in person. Despite the anger that the colonies felt towards Great Britain after Parliament enacted the Coercive Acts, our first Congress was still willing to assert its loyalty to the king. In return for this loyalty, Congress asked the king to address and resolve the specific grievances of the colonies; in particular, it asked that the Acts be repealed. The petition, written by Continental Congressman John Dickinson, laid out what Congress felt was undo oppression of the colonies by the British Parliament. King George would ignore the Declarations and Resolves and rather, he would use them to mock the colonies. He laughed, claiming that while they publicly pledged their loyalty to him, they were probably preparing for armed revolution. He found them ingenuous and not very clever.
[Approximately eight months after the Declarations were presented to King George and without any response, on July 6, 1775, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution entitled "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms." On October 27, 1775 that King George appeared before both houses of the Parliament to address his concern about the increased rebellious nature of the colonies. He described the colonies as being in a state of rebellion, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Britain. He began his speech by reading a "Proclamation of Rebellion" and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies. With that, he gave Parliament his consent to dispatch troops to use against his own subjects – the very people who looked to him for respect and protection].
On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry attended a meeting of the Second Virginia Convention, with a very important issue he intended to address. It would be the second convention held after the Royal Governor of Virginia dissolved the colonial legislature, the House of Burgesses, for its solidarity with Massachusetts (after Parliament closed the port of Boston as punishment for the Boston Tea Party). The House of Burgesses would continue to meet, albeit in secret, but would operate in convention (These would serve as Virginia's revolutionary provisional government).
While he knew the King had ignored the respectful petition by the First Continental Congress and had continued to treat them without the reserved rights afforded all English subjects, Henry could not know for sure that he would authorize military action against them. But he certainly saw it coming.
As tensions were mounting between Great Britain and the colonies, the Second Virginia Convention convened in secret at St. John's Church in Richmond to discuss the Old Dominion's strategy in negotiating with the Crown. The roughly 120 delegates who filed into Richmond's St. John's Church were a veritable "Who's Who" of Virginia's colonial leaders – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry, a well-respected lawyer and orator. Henry had long held a reputation as one of Virginia's most vocal opponents of England's oppressive taxation schemes. During the Stamp Act controversy in 1765, he bordered on treasonous activity when he delivered a speech in which he hinted that King George risked meeting the same fate as Julius Caesar if he maintained his oppressive policies. As a recent delegate to the Continental Congress, he resounded Ben Franklin's call for colonial solidarity by proclaiming, "The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian; I am an American."
Henry was convinced that war was around the corner. And he arrived at the Virginia Convention determined to persuade his fellow delegates to adopt a defensive stance against Great Britain. On that fateful evening of March 23, he put forward a resolution proposing that Virginia's counties raise militiamen "to secure our inestimable rights and liberties, from those further violations with which they are threatened." The suggestion of forming a colonial militia was not shocking in itself. After all, other colonies had already passed similar resolutions and had begun forming militias. And Henry himself had already taken it upon himself to raise a volunteer outfit in his home county of Hanover. Nevertheless, his proposal was not met with the approval he had hoped for. Many in the audience were skeptical at approving any measure that might be viewed as combative. Britain, after all, was the strongest military power in the world. They still held out hope for a peaceful reconciliation.
After several delegates had spoken on the issue, Patrick Henry rose from his seat in the third pew and took the floor. A Baptist minister who was present that evening would later describe him as having "an unearthly fire burning in his eye." Just what happened next has long been a subject of debate. Henry spoke without notes, and no transcripts of his exact words have survived to today. The only known version of his remarks was reconstructed in the early 1800s by William Wirt, a biographer who corresponded with several men that attended the Convention. According to this version, Henry began by stating his intention to "speak forth my sentiments freely" before launching into an eloquent warning against appeasing the Crown.
I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak and unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us……. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun…… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Less than a month later, shots would be fired at Lexington and Concord. The war that Henry saw coming had finally begun.
Patrick Henry had the intuition to understand that a leader "whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant" cannot be trusted to allow his people to enjoy the freedom that they petition for. And when push comes to shove, the more they demand it, the more oppressive his response would be. And thus, since that leader, King George III, was considered to be unfit to be the ruler of a free people, in the mind of Patrick Henry, if he indeed decided to use force to subjugate the people of Virginia should be prepared with a force of their own to defend their liberty. Henry would later refer to Liberty as "that precious gem."
A leader "whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Americans still consider themselves a free people. And Americans still want to believe their government believes in their right to be so. But the one problem is that most Americans believe their "government" to be the federal government. A people who understand the foundations and underpinnings of liberty and freedom know that the federal government is not their government but rather their state government is their government. The federal government primarily serves the states, or at least, it was intended that way. Yet for limited objects, expressly defined in Article I, Section 8, its legislation can touch the people.
It is the state government, and not the federal government, that can protect an individual's inalienable liberties. Which government in recent years has shown disregard for the fundamental rights of the People – federal or state? Which government has enacted the largest tax increase in our nation's history? Which government has denied people the fundamental right to manage their healthcare? Which government has ignored immigration laws and attempted to fundamentally change the character of the nation illegally? Which government has demanded that marriage laws (based on natural criteria in place for thousands of years) be fundamentally altered? And which government has poised itself for years now to restrain the people in their right to have and bear arms? Again, a government "whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
The American states, after fighting and winning a costly war for their independence, had to decide on the best form of government to embrace the values they proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. They asserted the same rights that the British held dear and which they fought to defend, spanning hundreds of years, but their task was to secure them more firmly so that their posterity – "millions yet unborn and generations to come" (from the anti-Federalist paper, Brutus I) – would enjoy the same degree of freedom. They didn't want Americans to endure the same tortured history as the British, who enjoyed freedom under benevolent kings but oppression and even death under tyrants. Freedom, according to Thomas Jefferson, including as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, was the right to be free from an aggressive or oppressive government. To that end, the government established by the Constitution of 1787, with powers limited in DC and balanced by the bulk of powers retained by the states, with its separation of powers and elaborate system of checks and balances, with its week judicial branch, and with a Bill of Rights, was believed to provide the best system to preserve the rights they fought for. Furthermore, in America, rights are understood to be inalienable, endowed by our Creator. In Britain, on the other hand, rights are those generously granted by government. Rights were only those limitations on government that Kings recognized by a signature on a charter.
The US Bill of Rights, modeled after the English Bill of Rights of 1689, exists to protect the individual against the government. Included in our Bill of Rights are the rights to be free from a national religion, the right to the free exercise of one's religion and the rights of conscience. It includes the right of free speech, the right of assembly, the right to a free press, the right to petition the government, the right to have and bear arms, the right to be free in one's home, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a jury trial, various rights of a person accused of a crime, the right not to have one's property arbitrarily confiscated by the government, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and others.
The second amendment is currently under unrelenting attack by our current administration, with Obama leading the charge. Just two days ago, he spoke not only about the need for gun control but hinted about possible confiscation. When Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, in Oregon, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that the United States consider following the path taken by Australia and Great Britain.
In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted complete bans on firearm possession. And Obama referenced those bans: "We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it."
What Obama didn't clarify is that Australia has no constitution nor does it have a Bill of Rights. The rights of the people are not absolute. Great Britain, which also does not have a constitution, per se, does protect gun rights to some degree in its Bill of Rights of 1689. That document allowed for Protestant citizenry to "have Arms for their Defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law," and restricted the right of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to Law." It also established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament and not of the monarch. Thus, the right was not absolute and it was clearly articulated as such. In fact, Sir William Blackstone wrote in his Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation," but subject to suitability and allowance by law.
As Mark Levin explained: "The second amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights to protect you in your hunting rights. The second amendment isn't there to protect you in your sports-shooting rights. The second amendment was added to the Constitution to protect you against a centralized government. The militia part of the second amendment underscores this point. The point is that the states can maintain militias to protect the states from an oppressive tyrannical central government. I don't mean to be provocative, but that's just history. That's why we have the second amendment."
What is that history? Our Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile. The second amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that "A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." When the Founders wrote of a "well regulated" militia, they meant that militias needed to be well-regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. It was merely common sense. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.
The Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual's right to have and bear arms is the right which secures all other rights. The First Amendment protects the other rights by permitting the speech and the expression, and the assembly and the petition and the use of the press to call out the government when it tramples on those rights, but the Second Amendment, with its force, is able to secure them, should the government ignore the former. In other words, when the First Amendment fails, the Second is there to preserve and secure the people in their liberty.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights expresses the States' intention in demanding a Bill of Rights as a condition to ratification. It reads: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, that in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, which shall extend the ground of public confidence in the Government, and will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution" According to the Preamble, the federal government is PROHIBITED from even contemplating the issue of abridging the rights guaranteed in the second amendment. The liberty rights contained in the Bill of Rights demand an ABSOLUTE BAN by the federal government action in those areas. Being that the Supreme Court has been in the business of enlarging the rights contained in those amendments (ie, privacy rights, for example, rights of criminals), we can assume that our right to have and bear arms is similarly enlarged.
Although the Bill of Rights was adopted after the Constitution was ratified, it was the absolute assurance by James Madison that he would draft a Bill of Rights and have it submitted and adopted by the First US Congress (June 8, 1788) that convinced several skeptical, and important, states to finally ratify. In other words, BUT FOR the fact that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution to further protect the rights of the People and the States, the Constitution would never have been adopted and the Union, as we know it, would not have been formed. After the delegates concluded their convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, it was clear that the Constitution that had been written was not very popular (particularly with the anti-Federalists). Some very important delegates refused to even sign it and some promised to do all they could to prevent its ratification by the states. Edmund Randolph and George Mason (both of VA), Elbridge Gerry (of MA), John Lansing and Robert Yates (both of NY), and Martin Luther (of DE) all refused to sign because of a lack of Bill of Rights and a deep concern that the government created would endanger the rights of the States. Yates would go on to write some of the strongest anti-Federalist essays, under the pen name Brutus, and fellow New Yorker, Governor George Clinton, would write some as well (under the name Cato). Two of our most important Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, although asked to be delegates to the Convention, declined because they were suspicious of those running the Convention (namely Madison, whom they suspected to have ambitious plans for the meeting). They believed a government stronger than the Articles would compromise the sovereignty of the States.
Indeed, it was unclear whether the Constitution would be ratified by the States. The Constitution was in deep trouble in the conventions of four states – Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. They were some of the biggest states. The first three were the most important and influential of the States. Without the guarantee of a Bill of Rights, those states were not going to ratify. The formation of a "more perfect union" appeared to be in jeopardy. Even with the guarantee, the votes for ratification were by a fairly slim margin. North Carolina had rejected the Constitution outright. It was not until a Bill of Rights was added that it called another ratifying convention to take another vote.
Does anyone believe that a constitution that expressly created a government as large, bloated, concentrated, oppressive, arrogant, monopolistic, and corrupt as the one in existence today would have been drafted and produced by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787? Does anyone believe that the delegates in attendance at that convention, the great leaders of our founding generation, knowing their concerns to respect the spirit of the Revolution and to protect their state sovereignty (and yield as little sovereign power as possible), would have drafted and signed such a document? And even if such a document would have been produced at the Convention, does anyone believe a single State would have ratified it and surrendered essentially all of its sovereignty? NO WAY !! There is no way that Virginia or New York or Massachusetts or North Carolina would have ratified it. NO WAY! None of them would have ratified it.
And yet we've allowed the government – what it's become – to assert, unchallenged, that whatever it does and says is the supreme law of the land. Tyranny is defined as the action of an unjust and oppressive government. For a country that defines the boundaries of government on its people through a written constitution, tyranny occurs when unconstitutional laws are forced – enforced – on the people. After all, when a government assumes powers not delegated to it, it naturally has to usurp them from their rightful depository, which in the case of the United States is the States and the People.
Our government – all three branches – continue to act to mock individual liberty and states' rights. Certainly our president does so at every given opportunity. Our government – all three branches – continues to act to ignore and frustrate the will of the People even though a democracy is their birthright. As Daniel Webster once wrote: "It is, Sir, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people." (note that this quote is the forerunner to Lincoln's famous line in the Gettysburg Address).
The federal government, which was conceived as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," unfortunately now only rests on two of those legs. In has failed for many years now to be a government "for the people."
Gun Rights mark a line in the sand. That line represents a tolerance of government that absolutely cannot be crossed. If government should attempt gun control that burdens or attempt confiscation, the line will have been crossed. The Supreme Court WOULD HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY STRIKE THAT ACTION DOWN. Hell, the Supreme Court has held over and over again that any action by government that should happen to burden even ever so lightly a woman's right to have an abortion cannot be tolerated. And an abortion actually and absolutely KILLS another human being – an innocent and helpless one. The right to an abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution and certainly NOT in the Bill of Rights. The right to have and bear arms is. It is addressed plainly and without condition or pre-condition in the second amendment. By applying the same rational as the Court uses to ensure women their unfettered right and access to an abortion, the government MUST NOT in any way, shape, or form burden an individual's right to have and bear arms. The right to bear arms is rooted in the natural rights of self-defense and self-preservation. The right to have an abortion is rooted in the selfish goal of convenience.
When the government crosses that line, the Declaration of Independence tells us what the Peoples' rights are, under the theory of social compact (which the US Constitution is):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Should the government attempt to burden or deny the American people of their gun rights, our natural right of self-defense (even from our own government) and self-preservation (to live free, as our Creator endowed us and as nature intended) allows us to dissolve our government – that is absolve us from allegiance to it – and establish a new government that is dedicated to the protection of our God-given liberties. Personally, I believe the Constitution is perfect; it just needs verbage that makes it absolutely clear that its very terms are its limitations, there are no elastic clauses or implied powers, there is no independent legislative power attached to the General Welfare or Necessary and Proper clauses, no object expressly delegated to the legislative branch is allowed to be delegated to an un-elected group of people, Congress is expressly forbidden to tax and spend for any reason other than what is listed expressly in Article I Section 8, a provision should be included to give the states the power to audit the spending budget of the government for strict constitutionality, a provision should be added to require Congress to balance its budget every year, the Supreme Court can only offer an opinion which is subject to an appeal to the State courts, the "Wall of Separation" is removed from federal court jurisprudence, the president's powers must be severely limited by additional language in the Constitution, presidents will no longer be allowed to issue executive orders, the bar for impeachment of a president will be lowered and in certain cases Congress MUST issue articles of impeachment and seek to remove him, consequences will be provided for in the Constitution for representatives and officials who violate their oath of office, the 14th amendment must be clarified as not intending to include the incorporation doctrine (so that the Bill of Rights once again only applies to the actions of the federal government), the 16th and 17th amendments must be repealed, an outright prohibition and a provision should be added that states that when the federal government over-steps its authority that threatens the balance of power between federal government and the states, it shall be viewed as a fatal breach of the compact that binds the states and as such they have the option of dissolving their allegiance. However, if the Constitution cannot be amended to assure that a future government remains adherent to its limits, then James Madison has set the example for us. We don't have to "amend" the Constitution if we believe it to be seriously flawed. We can simply start from scratch.
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence continues:
…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…."
Our government has been intent on enlarging and redefining its powers almost from the very beginning. It has done everything it has wanted to do to achieve the things it believed it needed to do or simply wanted to do (as in Barack Obama's case). A government dependent on the separation of powers for proper functioning has become a government monopoly to ignore proper functioning in order to become what the British Kings used to be…. Supreme, domineering, coercive, and oppressive. The people's government has been replaced by the government's government. Liberty-loving Americans have been disposed to suffer long enough. Threats to take away our gun rights, however, would be the final straw.
Should Obama and his administration do more than simply talk about gun control and possible confiscation, it would be incumbent upon the states to NULLIFY any legislation or policy and then INTERPOSE for the protection and security of the People to have and bear arms. The next step, should the government fail to back down, would be to declare the federal action or actions to constitute a FATAL BREACH of the compact that brought the states together in the union and therefore the bonds of allegiance are severed and the Union creating the "United States" is thereby dissolved. The federal government would therefore have no jurisdiction except within the District of Columbia, I suppose.
The states need to act – NOW. Each state needs to adopt resolutions and enact legislation protecting the gun rights of its citizens. Those that respect the second amendment need to start attracting gun manufacturing and ammunition industry to their states. The states need to put the president and the administration, and including the federal courts, on notice of their intentions.
If the federal government intends to or attempts to violate the second amendment, the People need to know they can count on their government – that is, their state government. I hope their response will be clear and collective – WE WILL NOT COMPLY… WE WILL NULLIFY! Liberty will require such a response.
Patrick Henry's Speech, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/news/patrick-henrys-liberty-or-death-speech-240-years-ago
Congress Petitions English King to Address Grievances, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-petitions-english-king-to-address-grievances
King George III Speaks to Parliament of American Rebellion, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-iii-speaks-to-parliament-of-american-rebellion
Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. Referenced at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp
"Obama Trashes the Constitution and No One Says a Damn Thing!", Mark Levin Show. Referenced at: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+levin+obama+trashes+the+constitution+and+no+one+says+a+thing Also referenced at: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-obama-trashes-the-constitution-and-nobody-says-a-damn-thing/
"Obama Goes Beyond Mere Gun Control; Hints at Confiscation," Breitbart News, October 3, 2015. Referenced at: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/03/obama-goes-beyond-mere-gun-control-hints-confiscation/
"The Second Amendment: It's Meaning and Purpose, The Tenth Amendment Center, September 22, 2014. Referenced at: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/
"Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights," usconstitution.net. Referenced at: http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html
The Intolerable Acts included the following:
(i) Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston to all colonists until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid.
(ii) Massachusetts Government Act, which gave the British government total control of town meetings, taking all decisions out of the hands of the colonists.
(iii) Administration of Justice Act, which made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America.
(iv) The Quartering Act, which required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in private homes as a last resort.
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged 2nd amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Diane Rufino, federal government, federal gun control, gun control, gun rights, interposition, James Madison, Mark Levin, Nullification, Obama, Patrick Henry, prohibition, second amendment	| Leave a reply