The right to bear arms isn’t up for debate

Came across this excellent article and thought I would share with a tip o the topper to Andrew Klavan:

"When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such."
Read the rest here.

An Open Letter to the Congress of the United States of America

How stands the republic?

That is a question often asked in the first years of this nation. It is an important question and deserves to be asked regularly by those who have been elected by the citizens of this nation. It is your job to maintain the republic. It is not your job to create school curriculum or to destroy the character of the states through greed for federal monies. It is also not your job to regulate what toilets and light bulbs we may use. It is your job to maintain the republic. The purpose of the republic is to secure the unalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator.

"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, ..."

The US Constitution is a list of limitations placed upon the federal government by the founders of this nation. You are to be limited in order that liberty may be maintained throughout generations. You are to maintain the republic in such a way that the generation that comes after ours has the same  liberty to legally exercise their Creator endowed, self evident, unalienable and Constitutionally affirmed rights as does this one. (Or perhaps, considering how many rules and regulations have been put in place to stifle our exercise of those same liberties of late - more than did this generation.)

The people, according to that same Declaration of Independence, have a right and a duty to choose to replace this government with one that will secure those rights if you will not resist the whims of current culture in this regard.

"--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. 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.-"

There are ever growing attacks against the rights enumerated in the US Constitution. Attacks against the right to worship as our conscience directs, the right to speak freely, and once again, after a tragic shooting calls to limit the right to bear arms.

Our natural rights, as do all natural rights, have natural limits. The right to worship freely ends where a religion demands that our government be replaced by sharia, or any form of government other than the one our founders established. (And no, I do not have to bake you a cake if by doing so I violate my own conscience with regard to my faith and you do not have to bake me one either.)

The right to freedom of speech ends where your speech may cause immediate. and tangible harm to another - such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  (Disagreeing with your opinion or pointing out an unpalatable truth are allowed even if by so doing, you are "triggered".)

Your right to bear arms ends where it is used to rob, rape or murder another.

Yes, some arms may also be used for hunting, target practice, self defense or etc., but the logical impetus behind the 2nd amendment is to recognize that the people have a natural remedy - along with the right to employ that remedy -  for maintaining the republic in the face of invasion or of tyrannical government. Because that is how important it is to maintain the republic. It is of such importance, that each individual citizen has a duty to speak up and take action when government exceeds it's grant of authority. The same principle is demonstrated every time a citizen does their duty to work with law enforcement officers to maintain the rule of law.

On the national level, it is YOUR job to maintain the republic. The United States is not a democracy, where the whims of one generation may vote away the legal exercise of the rights of the next. Those rights, are self evident, as stated by the Declaration of Independence and unalienable. Unalienable means, that those rights cannot be removed from us but by death. We are "endowed by our Creator" with those rights. That means that they are not the grants of any earthly government and cannot be voted or legislated away by government. At least not legally, so long as the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. And if the federal government should attempt to do so illegally, then the republic has been lost.

 If you fail to maintain the republic in this generation, then you will inevitably drive the next to restore it by force.

It is understood that there is pressure upon you and that you may be publicly shamed by those cowards and weaklings who would prefer a government that will take care of them rather than a government that maintains and respects liberty along with all the responsibilities that imposes upon the individual, but you have asked to be put in that position. A position where strong character is required - to maintain the republic, not to "fundamentally transform" it. That is the duty for which you were elected, not just for today, but for tomorrow.

So, for today, on your watch, how stands the republic?

"18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel." ~ Deut 17:18-20

It's Not about Guns

"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."

The discussion about "gun control" has been quite vigorous, even accompanied by presidential histrionics of late. But the discussion should rightly be about "arms control" because the second amendment says nothing about guns. It does not even contain the word "gun".  It says "arms" and quite deliberately so.

The public discussion has been limited to guns, perhaps at first, because it was convenient. But the second amendment refers to arms because it wasn't about guns. It was about defending the nation from a tyrannical government. A government that had " becomes destructive of these ends"
What ends? The ones outlined as the purpose of government by the 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

It was not the government granting a right to the people, it was the government being forced to recognize a natural right the people had. Not just to defend themselves, but to choose their government.

That is what the American Experiment is: an experiment that required a personally responsible and self reliant people. A people who could take care of themselves, thank you. A people who just wanted to go about the business of living without being burdened by one law, regulation or ordinance more than was absolutely necessary to the creation of a stable society - and the government was not to interfere in that without the consent of these same people. Could such a people survive and thrive without a government nanny or tyrant? That was the experiment - by the consent of the governed, not just their hollow acquiescence, but their consent - informed and responsible consent.

The Constitution is not a list of governmental powers - it is a list of restrictions of government.

And the discussion today is not about gun control - that is a convenient ruse which also serves to restrict the thinking of Americans to just guns, rather than arms.

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:"Arms'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.]

1.  Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.                   
2.  War; hostility."Arms and the man I sing.To be in arms to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.To take arms is to arm for attack or defense. Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.                                                            
3.  The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, etc., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.                                                                                         
4.  In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.                                                                                
5. In botany, one of the seven species of fulcra or props of plants, enumerated by Linne and others. The different species of arms or armor, are prickles, thorns, forks and stings, which seem intended to protect the plants from injury by animals.                                                                                                                                                                         Sire arms are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, etc.                                                                                                                                                                                                       A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.                                                                                                                                 In falconry, arms are the legs of a hawk from the thigh to the foot." 

The idea of arms is markedly different than the idea of guns. When the media tells us about gun control, it is easy to think in terms of self defense or hunting because a gun is the tool of an individual. It cannot be used by a group. Were the media and others to talk about restraining us from the bearing of arms, it would reshape the dialogue. 

The intent of the second amendment was not to codify the right to self defense or hunting. The very idea that the right to bear arms was about such such self evident rights would have been seen as absurd in a time when most, if not all, hunted for the table and dueling was legal. The intent, then, was to assure the people that they had the self evident right, as codified in the the Declaration of Independence, to determine what form of government they would have and further, that they had the right to take up arms to achieve such government 

"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. "

This current dialogue between conservatives and communists is not about guns. It is about control. Communists cannot allow the people to be armed, because an armed people is a people who can resist the tyranny of the appalling utopian visions of the communists whose ideology depends on absolute power over the people. (Which explains a lot about the attacks on the Christian religion too, but that's a post for another day.)

Free men and women cannot allow their arms to be taken away, because then they can easily be made into slaves.

That is the current struggle. The two positions are irreconcilable, because these things cannot co-exist. It is not that the free men and women would deny their communist counterparts the ability to live under that tyrannical system, should they so choose, but rather that communism cannot tolerate dissent or deviance from the free men and women.

Communism does not allow for the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It only allows for rigid conformation to the dictates of the government. If you disagree, you will be eliminated because you are not fit to live and the good of the many outweighs the rights of the individual. 

There are communist and socialist nations out there already. China and North Korea spring to mind. If you want to live under that ideology, no one will keep you from moving to those nations. But, if you want to live here in the US, if you want the freedom to dissent openly and to worship freely and all the other self evident rights and freedoms of this experiment in self government, then you, too, must undergo the fatigues of supporting it. That means you must allow others to speak and worship and act freely, within the natural limitations of those natural rights. That means that responsible ownership and use of arms is a duty. But if that particular duty is not one that you can fulfill, at least do not hamper your fellow citizens in doing theirs.
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Just as the second amendment is about arms and not guns, the current dialogue is not about guns either. It's about control.

"Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the Lord, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken." ~ Amos 5:14

Thoughts on the standoff in Oregon and Oaths of Office

Many conservatives have weighed in on the current situation in Oregon. And many, if not most, of them are urging caution and questioning the value of the action being taken and decrying it as giving the government an excuse to crack down on the second amendment. The idea that we should not support these folks because it will give the government an excuse to crack down on guns assumes the premise that the government is looking for an excuse to do that very thing. Think about that.

 The federal government of the United States of America can now be presumed to be looking for excuses to disarm the people from whom that very same government derives it's authority.

That alone, should see government officials up on charges for the violation of their oaths to protect and uphold/defend the Constitution. The government did not grant these rights, because they lack the authority to do so. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, as do all the others, merely recognizes a right we HAVE. The government may not take that right away. Not for handguns, not for AR 15s, not for machine guns or cannons. In the words of Tenche Cox:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Why aren't they under arrest already? Because We the People no longer understand the freedoms for which the founders of this nation fought, nor are We willing to undergo the fatigues necessary to defend them.

 "THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same." ~ Thomas Paine But, getting back to the situation in Oregon, let's look at the legal limitations on the ownership of land by the federal government:
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... ...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ..." ~ The United States Constitution Has anyone bothered to check and see if the federal government's purchase of the federal lands in Oregon that are at the heart of the dispute were purchased with the consent of the Oregon state legislature? Are there any "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" erected upon all that land?

One might even question the existence of Oregon as a state given that, according to one article, the Congressional Research Service says the federal government "owns" 53% of it's land.

To be sure, in the early days of the nation, the new national government was caught off guard when the Treaty of Paris awarded them the Northwest Territories after the 7 years war. Here they had ended up in legal, but unconstitutional, possession of a great deal of land. What to do? After the states ceded their (often competing) claims on that land to the national government,  the Northwest Ordinance was quickly passed in order to put that land into the hands of the people and eventually the states that were formed and granted membership in the nation. The land was held in trust as territories until the people of those territories could meet the requirements set up to apply for statehood. Is Oregon a territory held in trust or is it a state?

The federal government is not to own land because, at a very basic level, land is power. Grants of land and estates was one of the powers of the monarchy that was used to assure loyalty. If the monarchy had to take your estate, it could then grant your former estate to someone who would be more loyal or who had connections that would work to the benefit of the monarchy. This power of land granting was well understood by the founders of this nation and it was not a power they wanted the national level of this new government to have. It was a safeguard to the nation that the national level of the government was not allowed to own large swaths of land which it could award to those who might help to overthrow the people and render us slaves once again to a less freedom inclined form of government.

The bottom line is that the hour is late and we are threatened from within. Contact your legislators and let them know that the remedy called for in the Declaration of Independence is not out of the question.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. 


"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;" ~ 1 Peter 1:13

A Sign of Hope

The authority of all three branches of our government comes to them from the people, through the US Constitution. Sometimes the best answer to executive, legislative or judicial overreach on either the state or federal level is to do nothing. Apparently the responsible citizens of Connecticut have chosen to do just that. I encourage this response to deathcare as well.

Just for reference, the definition of "unalienable" by the 1828 dictionary is: "UNA'LIENABLE, adjective Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights."

"After Connecticut enacted one of the most draconian gun-control regimes in America, official estimates suggest that the overwhelming majority of the citizens targeted by the latest assault on gun rights failed to comply. Indeed, analysts say it appears that most people largely ignored the new statute, which purports to ban numerous non-registered “assault” weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Now, despite resistance by the governor, state lawmakers are reportedly “scrambling” to come up with a possible amnesty plan allowing gun owners to register past the deadline."

See the rest of this article here.

Racism or Poor Layout?

I have received feedback on the earlier post, stating that the real thing is much more self explanatory than my description.
So, in the interest of veracity, I have scanned the article from the Sheboygan Press with the accompanying advertisements. Please note that I take the position that this was just poor layout especially when you look at the railroad ad that runs beneath both article and pig ad which seems to be reinforcing Sheriff Clarke's message.

All in all it gave me a good chuckle, knowing as I do, that the Sheboygan Press is often referred to in these parts as "The Sheboygan Mess". 

As to the semi-accusatory tone of the article's headline, the proper response is: "Of course the taxpayers are covering that public service announcement, just as they do all the others. What kind of nonsense is this? Do they think that taxpayers should only have to pay for messages they want to hear in public service announcements? Don't be ridiculous.

"Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: then said they among the heathen, The Lord hath done great things for them." ~ Psalm 126:2

A New Year

We have before us a new year. What will the new year bring? 

Not too surprisingly, Congress, not wanting to be seen as completely incompetent in a way that would have ordinary people being directly affected, has come to an agreement that will allow the price of milk to remain the same. You see, the farm bill expired in October and if it were not renewed, then the price of milk would have doubled this month.

So you see, if Congress thinks something might cause regular people, those who ignore politics(or at least those who drink milk, eat cheese, ice cream or yogurt and other milk dependent foods-mac and cheese anyone?)to become alarmed at their antics, they will act in their own best interests. Why they don't see the shredding of the Constitution in the same way, is because We the People have neglected our duty to make it so. 

There are many reasons that this could be so. Everything from our very comfortable levels of prosperity to the cultural Marxism that has been taught in our schools for the last 5 decades or so to the increasing reluctance of individuals to actually exercise those rights with which God has endowed us has led us to this place. I have become increasingly convinced that only individual efforts across the population can bring us out. 

I do not mean "grass roots" either. I mean concerted and sustained efforts by individuals to exercise their rights individually across the board. Your "grass roots" group won't be with you at that traffic stop or when you are open carrying in a public place. YOU must be able to exercise your rights when you are alone. That is the courage and resolve that is required of us as American citizens. That is the civic duty that used to be taught in our schools. That is the value of reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and knowing your rights and your duties as a citizen of this nation. 

The Constitution of the nation is  our bedrock place to stand, as individuals, against the powers of the federal government. Your states constitution is the same thing at the state level. You and I need that bedrock to oppose the dreck that is coming at us in this new year. If you haven't already, make it your new year's resolution to read them and know your rights. 

I hope we  can stand. Knowing that there are and will be many suits against the abomination that is obamacare, I suggest that citizens across the nation educate themselves regarding the process of jury nullification. 

Contact your legislators. Daily. Demand good behavior and respect for the limitations put on them by the US Constitution. Senator feinstein and any who join her in her call to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in violation of her oath to support and uphold the Constitution. Ask your legislator to file charges against Ms. feinstein and any who join her in that effort. Your life and the lives of every person you know may very well depend upon it.

Then you may want to do yourselves and your neighbors a favor in this new year and research for yourself what the term "natural born citizen" means. There are plenty of resources out there. Don't be lazy and accept the much edited and milquetoast wikipedia - find out what those who debated and voted to accept the US Constitution had for a definition. You may also be surprised to find that current US law makes a distinction between "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" although not many are willing to research far enough to find out. 

Before you toss this as the rantings of a "birther" know that I don't care a whit where Mr. obama was born. I do care a great deal, however, that he be a natural born citizen if he is to sit as Commander in Chief to the armed services of this nation. I do care a great deal if he is going to be handed the power to usurp the legislative process through the issuance executive orders. And mostly, I care because, if we are going to ignore one portion of the Constitution and allow someone who is Constitutionally ineligible to serve as POTUS, then what other part or parts of the Constitution may we hold as inviolable and on what grounds? 

That is why the Constitution must be held to as strictly as the Bible. It is the ground we, as Americans, stand on when we exercise our God given and Constitutionally affirmed rights. The right to freedom of speech, religion, the press, to remain silent under questioning, to have legal representation present during questioning to advise us how best to protect ourselves, to privacy in our persons, papers and effects, to keep and bear arms and swarms of rights un-enumerated but recognized as existing in that venerable document. If one bit may be ignored with impunity, so too will the rest. 

It is up to us, individually, to do what must be done to protect this nation and restore the Constitution. To remove all federal laws, rules, regulations and agencies that are in excess of the authority granted to the federal government by that document. We can do it slowly, as surely we did not come to these egregious excesses overnight, so it would be deleterious to dismantle them overnight, but they must be removed. 

If we find a need and will to recreate them on a state level, then we may do so in our individual states, but the states must retain sovereignty over the federal government. 

No other nation, in the history of the world has come to the brink of disaster with so many options for it's aversion as have we. But it will take dedicated, persistent individuals to make the changes. In other words, 'an irate, tireless minority keen on setting the brushfires of freedom in the hearts of men'. We each need to be one of those willing to take the legal route, the legislative route and the route of persistence and defiance of any action by those acting on behalf of the government to infringe upon our rights if this nation is to be restored.

Does this sound gloomy, even dire perhaps?  It should. We are on the precipice of the destruction of this nation. We the People are the only ones who may avert it. We have had those who immigrated from communist nations warning us for years of where we are headed if we do not restore our Constitution and remove from power those who would ignore, pervert or destroy it, and yet we have not done so. We continue to run headlong into destruction-or so it seems.

I say "or so it seems", because that is what the MSM seems to be pushing. Telling us that we are heroes for enlarging the entitlement mentality and system beyond sustainability. Telling us it is good, yes, ever so good, for the people to be dependent upon the government instead of the other way around. I tend to think that most people, when they really stop to think about it, know this is nonsense. I am even thinking, of late, that the majority of the people are not as the MSM portrays them-communists desperately waiting for a hitler, stalin or marx to lead them into an age of human evolution past the barbarities of history - but rather conservatives who do not know that they are conservative. 

That is the reason for the inundation of the progressive narrative across the MSM airwave spectrum and the indoctrination centers for cultural Marxism that our schools have become. Not to tell it like it is, but rather to imply that what is not, exists in the hearts and minds of Americans. To intimidate ordinary citizens(which no American citizen is) into accepting their progressive drivel by indicating that those who disagree will stand utterly alone in the hopes that Americans have forgotten that individual liberty requires an ability to stand alone. 

This new year will determine if we are truly Americans, exceptional in our choice to live as free men and women and responsible enough to hold ourselves to the high standards of personal responsibility necessary to do so - or merely Europeans  that had a brief hissy fit who will now become as banal as the citizens of all those nations to whom we gave the opportunity to grasp liberty for themselves, but who have failed to do so.

Why has America been able to grasp freedom where other nations have failed?  It comes from having a base of strong individuals for citizens. Citizens who are willing to claim our God given and Constitutionally affirmed rights. Citizens who  will work to ensure a governmental form that allows the greatest amount of personal liberty possible with the least amount of government interference. Citizens who accept that corruption is to be expected from government, but who reject out of hand the notion that such corruption cannot be countered by the citizenry. Citizens who decide that their own honor and reputation is worth more than any activity that could tarnish them ever could be. (An attitude that is espoused in Christianity-which is why even - did I say "even", I should have said "especially" non Christians should want those values promoted throughout this nation.) That is American Exceptionalism and it is what makes us successful as a nation. We discard it, as we discard its Christian underpinnings at our peril. 

So, are you an American, willing to take personal responsibility to hold Congress to their Constitutional limitations or a European, held hostage in a culture you do not understand? If you are not sure, now is the time to resolve to find out.

^"18 Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.
¹⁹ Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
²⁰ That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." ~ Duet 16:18-20