Why We Have a Bill of Rights

While the debate over the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is fired up again hot and heavy, I thought it might be useful to remember some discussion from our nation's founding days. The subject: The Bill of Rights—the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

First, I want to link to an an essay on this subject by G. Stolyanov II, who describes himself as a science fiction novelist, independent essayist, composer, author, and actuary. The last name is Russian, which is interesting. But he is quite accurate in his assessment.

The next article I want you to see comes from the Bill of Rights Institute. It also discusses some of the behind the scenes talk on whether or not to have such an addendum to the original Constitution.

I also want to give my own assessment based on study I have done of the founders and some of their other objections or concerns. There was a faction that based their thoughts on the earlier Declaration of Independence, which recognized—indeed, declared—that rights were God-given and were unalienable. That word is not often heard outside political discussions, but like most words, it means something. It means "not to be separated, given away, or taken away." A privilege, on the other hand, is NOT a right. It can be taken through due process of law, like a driver's license.

This was the historic understanding that the vast majority of our Founding Fathers held of rights. Among the founders, there was significant concern that codifying "rights" in the text of the Constitution would lead in future years to the notion that if these rights could be amended into the Constitution, they could be amended right out of it. The other faction, as the articles above noted, was led by James Madison, who carried the day. He managed to persuade people that codifying these rights would ensure that they would be held inviolable in future generations, and that there were safeguards in place to prevent these codified rights from being taken.

From hindsight, I tend to judge the former faction probably was correct. They understood how fickle human beings can be. They understood the fallen nature of man, and they knew that human government inevitably reaches  for ever more power and control over the governed. There are those who speak actively of repealing the Second Amendment, thus opening the door for total gun bans and confiscation. And if it ever comes down to that, I will maintain that this is an incorrect reading and interpretation of the original intent of our Founders. I don't believe that they ever intended for the Bill of Rights to be amended. And it was unusually shortsighted of them to not put a proviso exempting the Bill of Rights from the amendment process.

I am saddened at the lack of knowledge about American history that exists out there. We can blame a leftist-controlled educational establishment. They feed off the ignorance of their students, and they can place their own deeply flawed understanding of our founding documents on to future generations. And that is where we who know better come in. We have to sound the clarion call loudly, teaching the truth about proper interpretation to whomever we can get to heed us. Our very freedom as a nation is at stake.

Two final comments. Get this straight if you don't get anything else straight, and insist that the liberal media (and liberal politicians) get it right even if you have to rub their noses in it. Confront politicians to their faces with the facts, and INSIST that they acknowledge it or face removal from office.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN. THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS TO GIVE THE PEOPLE TEETH TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AS A LAST RESORT FROM ENCROACHING GOVERNMENT TYRANNY—A GOVERNMENT THAT HAS FORGOTTEN ITS PLACE AS PUBLIC SERVANT, AND WANTS TO BECOME A PUBLIC MASTER. A DICTATORSHIP. NO MORE, NO LESS.

Now to be sure, as a side benefit, we also enjoy the right of hunting and fishing under reasonable regulation. But the federal government has no right whatsoever to infringe on our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Definition time. What does "infringe" mean? Answer: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." That is pretty absolute, and the one right in the Bill of Rights that uses that term. This was ONE right that the Founders wanted maintained, and for the government to keep its hands off.

Left-wing mouth frothers will try to make the idiotic charge that this means we want to see children killed, or that we want absolutely no reasonable restrictions out there on firearms. They love to wave the bloody shirt in order to guilt-trip or whipsaw the public into falling in line with their dictatorial dreams.

This is sheer nonsense. Gun owners agree that the mentally ill should not have them. Criminals need to go to jail for having them. Background checks are worth doing to make sure no individuals convicted of violent crime can carry a gun. There are ample laws on the books that need enforcing. The mental health situation above all needs immediate reform. It is next to impossible these days to institutionalize someone for fear that their "human rights" are being violated. That's partially what drove the "deinstitutionalization" drive in the late 70s and 80s. We're paying for it now.

The hard, cold fact is that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Imanuel and a host of others in and out of government want the American people completely disarmed. They won't give up, and they'll try anything they can get away with. If they can't manage an outright ban, they will hike prices on ammunition, ban its import or restrict its sale in some fashion, make suppliers so afraid of litigation that they refuse to ship ammo to certain states, and a host of other measures. They will do their level best to make it as difficult as possible for folks to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

This is ONE battle where conservatives need to be united, and to NOT do what we usually do when we win a battle. Roll over and go back to sleep. We need to be as bloody-minded on this and as determined as the left is to ram their entire agenda down our throats. Never underestimate the tireless, dogged, almost missionary zeal of the leftist true believer. THEY WILL NOT RELENT. They must be defeated, defeated badly, crushingly so, and in such devastating fashion that, like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings, they will never be able to take shape again and threaten the West. And even after that crushing defeat—should we be blessed enough to be able to inflict it—will need to teach future generations to keep vigilant. There will always be some great enemy to take the place of the last one. There will ALWAYS be someone else.

It will be that way until Jesus comes again and settles matters once and for all. But for the time being, we live in a fallen world with fallen people. When fallen people given over to their fallen natures end up in positions of power, people suffer. Sometimes enormously.

God forbid we fail to do our duty and let that happen here.

Spirit of 1776 or Spirit of Rebellion

Let me be clear right at the outset. This post may be controversial to many. Even so, the questions that I will be referencing are important for those of us who identify ourselves as Christian believers. I can tell you quite frankly that I am not sure where I will end up landing on the issue. You'll see why in a moment.

Guns are a hot debate again in American society, pushed to the forefront of the news by another nutcase shooting up a school, as well as by opportunistic anti-2nd Amendment politicians and their acolytes in the media. I am a proud NRA member and have been for years. I am also probably among the last of the generation that had the opportunity to attend a public school where traditional patriotism was taught and upheld in my elementary education years. The leftward drift had begun, of course, but the small town in which I was raised had plenty of old-school teachers still on the job. I am thankful that I grew up to be a patriot who loved my country, and also cherished the great gift given to us by our Founding Fathers—and ultimately by God.

But within Christianity, another debate is out there if you look for it. There has always been a pacifist strain in the faith, with adherents believing any use of deadly force by a believer was wrong, i.e. sin. Others follow the "Just War" doctrine of Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas. Many believe that use of deadly force is entirely appropriate in self-defense or the defense of others, interpreting the Lord Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" as applying to personal offenses. That has long been my view.

Complicating this a bit are other places in Scripture where believers seemingly did not resist governmental authority and went to their deaths without trying to defend themselves. Many cite Romans 13 and other places in Scripture where submission to authority seems to be an absolute command. Others see something else in Romans 13—namely, that if the purpose of authority is to "restrain evildoers," and the authority stops doing that and begins oppressing and terrorizing the righteous, then it is no longer a legitimate government and can be resisted. Theologians and teachers I respect come down in different places on this subject.

Some point out that those jailed and killed in Scripture were penalized for their faith, the advance of the Gospel. Christians are not to spread the faith by the sword, and if you are suffering for the sake of the Gospel, then we are to follow the example laid out before us in Scripture and be witnesses faithful until death. But if faith is not the issue and its simply political tyranny, then the door may be open more broadly to resist with force.

Yet others point to the unique nature of the United States and the country's founding values. The Declaration of Independence clearly sets out the right of the people to alter or change a repressive government, and the Constitution—the supreme law of the land—restricts government power. The Founding Fathers would have had no debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Its purpose was—and always has been—to give the people "teeth" to resist a government gone tyrannical. That mindset is in our very makeup, the American DNA.

It is an interesting and troubling question. Kings and Emperors governed largely in the biblical period. There was no government such as America in biblical times with a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution. Some theologians today say our Founding Fathers were sinning against God because they rebelled against King George and the British government, and Scripture says "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." And to "obey the governing authorities." (Keep in mind the different interpretation of Romans 13 and how far that obedience needs to go)

But if the very supreme law and founding documents of your government recognize a right of the people to resist and overthrow an unjust, tyrannical government, is it then sin to adhere to that supreme law, and insist that your governing authorities recognize it, and be ready to lose their positions if not their heads if they dare try to become tyrants?

God's law outweighs human law, of course. And as believers, in the end we must be obedient to the Lord and not men. Those who fought for American independence thought they were just in their cause, and that God was on their side. No doubt the other side found some justification for their position.

With this gun debate ranging, the question lies—just how far will the Obama Administration and rabidly anti-gun lawmakers try to go in clear defiance of the Supreme Court and of the Constitution? Will they chip away and lull people to sleep, taking away rights bit by bit? Or are they so emboldened that they will try outright confiscation, which they will certainly not announce ahead of time. They'd just do it. And you know as well as I do. There are those who will not give up their firearms, believing it is their unalienable right to hold them. Are those smug, self-righteous politicians (protected themselves by armed guards) ready to take responsibility for the bloodshed that will result if there is a confiscation scheme tried?

What if—God forbid—there does end up being a large-scale insurrection over this issue? What will we as Christians do? Where will we stand? We have enjoyed freedom for more than 200 years, but our sin as a nation and forgetting of God has resulted in the decay of values and morals that has brought us to this point in time. We now have the freedom to worship freely, although even that seems to be losing ground. Are we ready as believers to face persecution and oppression?

What is the right thing to do? I hope and pray that I am not placed in the position that I will have to make that final choice. May the Lord come and take His people home to be with Him before we are put to that test. But we may not be. The thought of bloodshed grieves my heart. The thought of hundreds if not thousands of people being rounded up and put in concentration camps makes my blood run cold. There are some who think there are plans to do just that, and I can honestly find no credible evidence that this is the case (and yes, I've seen all the websites and pictures that claim to document it. I am not convinced). If you fall for wild conspiracy theories, then you lose all credibility and people will not heed you when a real crisis does arise.

Let's pray for peace, and let's pray that cooler heads will prevail. Let's pray that President Obama, Vice President Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the other far-left gun banners will give up their nonsense, and put the focus where it should be—enforcing existing law and doing more to get guns out of the hands of nutcases, plus turning the focus on the forces in society that are causing young kids, teenagers and others to turn into narcissistic, soulless mass murderers. Reform the mental health system and let's reverse this ridiculous "de-institutionalization" idea that has been a disaster. Leave people's 2nd Amendment rights alone, and stop making it harder for the law-abiding to exercise their rights.

I do believe there is one cardinal truth here. It's been this way internationally for eons, and it is the same here, no matter how much the left swells up like puffer fish and deny it. The ultimate intention is to completely disarm the people. And once the people are disarmed, they are sitting ducks to be victimized by whatever government wants to do to them. Right now, government can't. The people as it stands right now have the means to defend themselves. That's why they're so desperate to disarm you. I wish they'd just admit the truth, but they can't.

As a believer, I would much rather focus on spreading Christ's love, teaching Bible and sharing the Gospel with any who will hear. I pray that I will be able to do this for a good many years to come.

Musician Charlie Daniels on Gun Control

Well-known country-rock musician Charlie Daniels, a believer in the Lord and a great patriot, recently penned a column with his views on the push for gun control. Here is a link to the commentary. It's worth reading.

I am going to try to find some time today to address another issue many Christians find troubling—that of whether the American Revolution was biblically appropriate for believers, and what if it comes down to this again? What is the appropriate Christian response? I have a viewpoint, but I remain open and teachable on the subject. In the end, I want to do the right thing, and not to be manipulated by politicians. I may post this piece later today and bump this one, or schedule it to post tomorrow. But it's a question we need to seriously ponder as individuals.

No one wants insurrection. No one wants bloodshed, anarchy, or anything else like it. Above all, Christians want to take godly stances in their viewpoints, actions etc. We do not want to violate biblical commands, nor do we want to disobey our Lord. For believers, our citizenship is ultimately in Heaven, and we are "no longer of this world." But there is a lot of knee-jerk demagoguery on this subject, and very little honest biblical reflection. It's time we do that.

Democrats: Constitution be Damned!

I want you to read this Fox News report from my beknighted state of Illinois. My late father (Arkansas-born and bred) used to call it "Ill-annoyed." For good reason.

Despite the clear ruling from the United States Supreme Court that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms, and despite the continual polls showing a majority of Americans back that right, the now extremist Democratic Party in the state is determined to say in essence, "Constitution be damned!" They are bound and determined to make otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons, and if they can't take away every gun they possibly can, they'll try to make it as difficult as possible to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

It's kind of funny, in a way. The Democratic Party is really misnamed. They should be called the Left-Wing Dictatorship Party. They applauded former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for upholding the right to kill an unborn child, saying any abortion regulations must not place an "undue burden" on a woman. The "right" to an abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but the very real right to keep and bear arms is. And they have no problem whatsoever placing an "undue burden" on legal, law-abiding gun owners.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats in the legislature who actually believe in our freedom are still in enough of a majority that they can block this nonsense. At this point, I don't know how this will end. I can pretty well guarantee that if such draconian laws are put in place, they will immediately be litigated. I am also pretty well sure that they will be widely ignored. And we will see if the state intends on trying to confiscate guns door by door, and to put a significant part of the population in jail.

There's something else doubly tragic to me about all this. You know human nature as well as I do. I would hope that enough people have at least some knowledge of history. You can only infringe people's liberty so far before there is an explosion. That is precisely what led to the American Revolution and the formation of this country. That is what caused the Founding Fathers to draw up the Constitution that they did, and it is also what gave many great pause about even putting a "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution. All sides recognized that rights were inherent and did not come from government. All sides recognized that it was the government's responsibility to PROTECT rights, not take them away. They understood and believed that rights are unalienable. Government has NO right to take rights away. But some wanted the Bill of Rights to make sure the enumerated rights were "set in stone" for future generations. Others were concerned—in retrospect wisely—that the amendment powers in the Constitution might tempt a future government to try and tamper with the Bill of Rights. A future government might not find certain enumerated rights so convenient for their purposes.

We've heard as much out of many Democrats' mouths, especially that of President Barack Obama. In an unguarded interview, he pretty much said that the Constitution is an impediment to the government. Here is a written article on this, and next is a video clip of Obama's doublespeak. Regardless of all this, the Democrats seem to be making it pretty clear that they really don't care what the Constitution says. (In fairness, some Republicans have played fast and loose with the Constitution as well. All deserve the sharpest condemnation for it.)

But back to my fear and tragic sense. How far is this going to get pushed on either side? Are we going to see violence and bloodshed as a growing number of people come to the view that enough is enough, and they have to resist with force their rights being taken away? Will the government, in its zeal to force its will by diktat, get so brutal that they're willing to arrest, incarcerate and even kill their own citizens for not being compliant enough with the demands of the state? Will the American experiment with liberty finally end because the fallen human nature recognized and restrained by our Founding Fathers (not to mention fear of God) won out at the end of the day? I am not liking what I am seeing. At all.

In the last studio album by Genesis, there is a song called "One Man's Fool." The lyrics ran something like "One man's saint is another man's fool, one man's hot is another man's cool." There are two sides to this debate, with plenty of demagogues to go around. Many are yelling but no one is listening. The one who will "win" the argument seems to be those who can yell the loudest and intimidate the most (or even lay on the best guilt trip).

But on this issue I fear, demagoguery is not necessary. We are in severe danger of losing our very identity as a nation—our very freedom. The Second Amendment was intended as the guarantor of all the other rights in the Constitution. It was to be the last means of the people to defend themselves from a government gone tyrannical. And I cannot think of any right-minded person (especially any Christian) who wants such a situation to arise. God forbid! But we are seeing the fruit of a nation in rebellion against God, and when God lifts His hand in judgment, bad things happen. The people lose all manner of self-restraint, and then come the cries for government to step in and "save us from ourselves." Just the conditions that any slick-tongued dictator dreams of having. "Never waste a good crisis!"

It is no accident that left-wing control of our educational establishment and much of the media has done much to remove the "Spirit of 1776" from as many children and young adults as possible. Steady indoctrination over time, with sometimes even overt mockery of patriotism and the idea that the U.S. is an exceptional nation in world history in terms of liberty and prosperity. Instead, we're raising them to be "good global citizens," and to believe that government is their god.

There is a solution where none of this is necessary. That involves the nation recognizing its sin and rebellion against God, and turning back to Him in repentance. It also involves rekindling the memory of what made America a great nation in the first place. The task will not be an easy one given the hostility and hatred of the opposition. I use those words regretfully and gingerly, but all one has to do is read a Twitter exchange and listen to comments aired on talk shows to see it's not much of a stretch. Christians, of course, have an eternal perspective and hope that goes beyond the events of this world. But that certain promise doesn't mean we will always be spared the trials that earthly life brings. The growing darkness of times like these are hopefully what makes faith shine all the brighter

Ben Franklin is said to have told a woman (in response to her question about what kind of government the Founders had given us), "A republic, madam. If you can keep it." Can we keep it?

That is the ultimate question, and I don't have the answer.

Demonizing the NRA

It is a shame that here—only a few days before Christmas—we have to focus on guns, violence and society. A bit ironic also, because the little baby born in the stable and laid in a manger, the Savior of the world and the Creator Himself, is the ultimate solution for the ills that plague society. When one repents of their sins and trusts in Christ for salvation, certain things follow. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer, day by day conforming us into His image. Most importantly, enabling us to live the kind of lives God wants us to live. We learn how to love one another. And when we love one another (and love God), we're not out conducting mass murder.

I hope to put up a Christmas-themed post before Christmas, but in the wake of the NRA news conference today, I thought I should make some comment about it. Heaven knows, the rabid left and their media acolytes will.

You'll notice I used a drawn picture of an "average family." Why? Glad you asked!

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre made many excellent points and observations in his press statement. He didn't take questions, probably smart given the hostility of the media to the 120+year-old organization and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I read the Reuters account of the presser, and had to chuckle because of their inaccuracy on several counts. They called the NRA "press shy," which is laughable. The NRA usually has a tough time getting its message out via the "mainstream" media because everyone has to filter out the bias of the reporters and editorializing over the top of their statements. Two protesters stood up and began screaming in the midst of LaPierre's remarks and had to be forcibly removed. True to form, instead of addressing the FACTS that LaPierre was giving in his presser, they insisted "How do you answer these protests?" I guess they weren't listening to what Wayne was saying.

From the media to politicians to activists, the NRA is a favorite whipping boy today. They demonize the organization and its leadership as if they were personally responsible for Connecticut, Colorado, or any other atrocity committed with a firearm. Ridiculous of course, but to the propagandists that love to wave bloody shirts to guilt-trip people into accepting their demands for social-ill solutions, who cares if it's ridiculous and untrue.

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill no less pretty much said the same thing when she in essence told the NRA to stick it, and demanding that it "come out of hiding." Pretty stupid and risky from a rural, gun-owning state like Missouri. The NRA has been training police, military, etc. for decades as far as safety issues, and has spoken out repeatedly on punishing perpetrators of violence and gun crimes. But no, McCaskill wanted to wave the bloody shirt because she thought she smelled a chance to kick an opponent in the groin.

Now let me make MY point. McCaskill, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and NY Senator Chuckie Schumer, President Barack Obama, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, etc. all miss a very vital point. The NRA is not a nameless, faceless organization. The NRA is made up of law-abiding, patriotic men, women and yes, teens and children. People like me and maybe people like you. Four million members across the United States. And now, there will be likely more as the zealots mentioned above and others will do their best to take advantage of this situation, and impose nonsensical gun legislation that will violate MY (and YOUR) Second Amendment rights. I am the NRA. And when you insult the NRA, you insult me. A voter and a taxpayer, to whom this issue is vitally important. Don't try guilt-tripping me. Non causa pro causa. It won't work, and I'm getting tired of it.

It's been said before, and it must be said again. The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution to protect hunters. It was put into the Constitution so the American people would always have the means to defend itself from a government gone tyrannical. And don't think it can't happen here. It can. I'll never forget the late Senator Ted Kennedy, beet-red in the face and at his bloviating, huff-puffing best, overdoing his "outrage" at such a notion when this was pointed out in a Congressional hearing. "OUR government?!? Tyrannical? OUR government?!?"

Yes, Ted. OUR government, if it ever gets into the hands of thoroughly evil men and women. We have enough now in power who hate our country's noble history. They're enamored of Europe, Asia and Latin America, where totalitarian regimes don't have to pay attention to us—the great unwashed. They'd love a system where they could rule by fiat and do what they want, no matter how we the people feel about it.

We have enough people originally from outside this country (such as the despicable George Soros) who do not value its history or understand what the American Revolution was all about, who are now in this country as citizens, trying to radically make this nation into something the Founders never would countenance.

We believe in freedom, and in holding on to the things given to us by the Founders to help us maintain that freedom. We believe in law and order, and decency. We are also not misty-eyed idiots who refuse to recognize the true, fallen nature of man that needs restraint, idiots who think the government could NEVER do anything wrong, or would EVER trample on our basic rights.

I believe in freedom, and I'm getting tired of those who want to take mine away. I don't think I'm alone in that feeling, either. Votes count, and this man will be watching and voting in every local, state and federal election. I will only vote for those who will hold to our Founding Principles. It's time we sent that message loud and clear, and it's time we refuse to fall for the false guilt that zealots are trying to foist on us.

Are you with me?

Guns, Violence, Freedom and Demagoguery

Joel's Note: The following is polemic. It is not intended as a footnoted, researched position paper with documentation etc. This is written from the heart from a lifetime of watching the way "public discourse" happens. You may not agree with me and may challenge my conclusions, opinions, etc. And that's fine. But this is how I feel on a very painful issue. And there are much larger issues at stake rather than the immediate crisis. Nothing in this is intended as insensitivity to the many who have lost children and loved ones in Connecticut, or in any other mad, murderous rampage. But as bad as these things are, the loss of freedom is much, much worse. We can't see it as Americans. We've never known it. But other people from around the world where tyranny reigns know it all too well. We need to listen to their voices while we consider our own fate as a nation.

This fall and early winter have been days that I'd rather forget for many reasons. Personal health has been an adventure, with three kidney lithotripsy procedures since April. Then a touch of pneumonia. And we have to begin the Christmas holiday season with a senseless, evil mass shooting and murder of little schoolchildren in Connecticut.

I hoped (vainly) that people might hold off on the politics of gun control vs. firearm freedom and the Second Amendment to give people a chance to mourn the dead, but to the radical left activists with whom gun control is a sacrament right up there with abortion, no such deal. The demagoguery began before the children's bodies had even been moved out of the school.

I chose the famous painting of abolitionist John Brown for a purpose. It vividly depicts the kind of possessed, self-righteous zeal so many one-issue activists have when dealing with a controversial issue. Do not read into that statement (and some devious, malevolent-minded might try to tar me with such a suggestion) that I disagree with ending of slavery. I do not. Slavery needed to end, and African-Americans deserved (and deserve) to have the full measure of civil and human rights. Because they are human beings and of "one blood" (Acts 17:26) with me—Caucasian though I am. A tragedy indeed that it took a Civil War and 500,000 plus deaths to bring that result to pass, and even then, it took until the 1960s to get rid of Jim Crow laws etc. that gave blacks the rights that were rightfully theirs. But we got there. Our Constitutional system eventually worked as it should as hearts and minds were changed.

But the John Brown types scare us. And they should, because they have no compunction on bringing down the whole house if they think it will advance their cause. The more dead? So be it. To the zealous, possessed activist who knows no other cause, nothing is too extreme to reach their goal. No other viewpoint than their own is acceptable. And anyone who doesn't exactly see it eye-to-eye is an automatic enemy, even if they have similar goals. The demagogues always manage to get the attention, and the more reasonable, level-headed get ignored because they're not as entertaining and motivating. The media love them. Can you imagine a John Brown in today's electronic media climate and 24 hour news cycle? Oh, mercy!

Sometimes we need folks like this to galvanize public attention, and sometimes, they can do good. But more often than not, they end up damaging the cause they hope to accomplish because the general public is turned off by their overheated rhetoric and violent tenor. Some abortion activists are another good example. I am pro-life and have been for years, and believe that abortion is only acceptable to save the life of the mother. But I believe hearts and minds must be changed, and the tactics of some of my fellow pro-life comrades are so offensive they accomplish the opposite result. Showing up with pictures of bloody babies with young children present who could be traumatized by such photos. Yelling and screaming "baby killer" at women or young teenagers. They really are not helping the cause, and the media has a field day taking this small minority of pro-life people and making them representative of the rest of us. It hurts the cause.


Now we have another school shooting. And I have posted to the left a picture of the wording of the Second Amendment. I believe some of the anti-gun zealots out there salivate over horrendous tragedies like Connecticut because it gives them fodder to be John Browns and argue an important issue fueled by emotion instead of fact and truth. Unfortunately for them, at least John Brown was ultimately right on the evil of slavery. Those who want to shred the Second Amendment and ban private ownership of firearms do not have that high moral ground on which to stand, no matter how much they try to demagogue and use the tragedy of mass shootings to propagandize people and try to get their way.

Whether these folks like it or not, the fact that crazies get hold of guns and commit mass murder does not justify tearing out a piece of our Constitution and taking away the right of self-defense (keeping and bearing arms) from a law-abiding public. Contrary to some of what these anti-gun zealots tell you, the Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution to protect the right to hunt. It was not intended by our Founders to only apply to the military or state National Guards. The founders viewed the "militia" as every able-bodied man, and the primary intent of protecting the right of people to keep and bear arms was for one primary purpose—for the people to protect themselves from an overreaching, potentially tyrannical government. The late Ted Kennedy had near apoplexy when someone pointed out that truth, but that's Ted's problem. It's the truth, and it still applies. Ideas and principles are not invalid simply because they are old. Some principles and ideas are timeless, and so it is with the Second Amendment. Our right to keep and bear arms is inviolable and unalienable, and necessary. ANY human government can cross the line into tyranny. Even in American history, the government has overreached from time to time, and had to be slapped back by the courts or other means to remind them that they are to serve the public, and the public are the masters, not the government.

The rabid anti-gun activists—folks like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, billionaire immigrant far-left activist George Soros, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (and formerly, Mayor Daley)—find the Constitution a great hindrance to their goals. They were incensed when the Supreme Court recognized the Second Amendment to confer an individual right to keep and bear arms. But that won't stop them from trying to get their way through any means possible. President Obama has already indicated as much, Constitution be damned. And they wave the bloody shirts as an emotional bludgeon, hoping to guilt-trip and intimidate a grieving public into giving in and surrendering their rights. Their ultimate goal is not "reasonable restrictions" (Define "reasonable," by the way). Their true, ultimate goal is the total ban of weapons in private hands, no matter how much they lie and say that's not the case. Short of an outright ban, they hope to make exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as expensive and difficult as possible. They'll try ammo bans, bans on certain makes of weapons, taxes, and a host of other tricks. They will not give up until the majority of Americans who believe in their rights slap them down through the ballot box, and with their firm voices.

It is hard to make manifestos such as this at a time such as this. As Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto and others have ably pointed out, decorum would normally hold off on politics until the dead are buried, and people have a chance to mourn. We'd rather not have to argue this (AGAIN) now. But the rabid anti-Second Amendment activist politicians and groups know and recognize no such decorum. "Never waste a good crisis" is their motto, and they see this as their time to strike. Nature abhors a vacuum. As much as we grieve the deaths of the children in Connecticut, the other side of this issue is taking every advantage to bang their drum and scream as loudly as possible. That necessitates that we speak up and defend our views just as forcefully.

Understand this if you don't understand anything else. Our Founding Fathers were wise beyond measure. You like the Bill of Rights? You like freedom of speech? Freedom of worship and religion? Freedom of assembly? Guess what? The Second Amendment is the GUARANTOR of those rights that were so hard won in the American Revolution. Ben Franklin told a woman once that the Founders had given us a Representative Republic, "if you can keep it." If we surrender on this issue, we are well on the way to not keeping the Republic intended for us.

There have always been slayings and murders in American history. Sometimes large numbers of people. America is not alone. They've happened in other countries where gun laws are very strict—Norway being a recent example. Evil people can find other ways to kill besides firearms. Timothy McVeigh used a truckload of fertilizer to make a bomb. Where there's a will, there's a way. The human heart is wicked without the intervention of God, and daily life proves the truth of that biblical statement.

And that's another accomplishment of the far left. They've managed to excise God out of many things in our public discourse, and they'd love removal of God entirely from everything. They'd love it if Christians would shut up and keep their faith behind church walls, and keep it out of public life. Our Founders would be infuriated at such a thing, but so it is today. And they have the gall to call it patriotic and in keeping with our Founding values. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One more point on propaganda, demagoguery and doing things on purpose to hype emotion for maximum impact. Cynicism embodied. The photo to the left is the famous picture of Dr. Martin Luther King, the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson and others at the Memphis motel where Dr. King was assassinated later. Much has been made of Jackson reportedly taking Dr. King's blood and wiping it on his shirt, and then using the bloody shirt for political purposes. Even some of Jackson's fellow civil rights leaders at the time (and today) were very uncomfortable with what Jackson allegedly did. But it was intended to have a galvanizing, emotional impact to fan the flames for a political objective. To repeat, my using this as an example is NOT to denigrate the CAUSE for which these men were fighting. Their cause was legitimate. But tactics like this can be misused—even evilly and cynically. The best of the civil rights leaders were fighting to gain rights that a class of citizens were due and justified in having. In the case of the Second Amendment, we have a host of zealot activists working overtime—not to GAIN OR KEEP a right of the people, but rather to take it away from law-abiding people. And they are shamelessly using deaths to advance their cause—in this case, a cause that is dangerous and dead wrong.

If the Chinese people had the right to keep and bear arms, the Tiananmen Square massacre could have been stopped. If the Russian people had the right to keep and bear arms, Joseph Stalin's midnight purges could have been stopped. If the German people's right to keep and bear arms had not been ended by Adolf Hitler, the great evil of the Nazi regime might have been stopped before 6 million Jewish people died in the gas chambers.

Dr. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," discuss some of these matters. There are many other resources available on this issue. Read up on it, and stand firm.

Our opponents will do all they can to bully us into submission. They'll yell. They'll scream. They'll abuse. They'll call names. They'll litigate and litigate. They'll introduce legislation over and over again, not taking the Supreme Court's no for an answer. These same folks who say they believe in the legal principle of "stare decisis" will suddenly say "not in this case." They'll try to replace Justices who will vote their way and reverse the 5-4 decision recognizing our Second Amendment rights. They might even try a United Nations treaty circumvention if they think they can get away with it. They'll call us ignorant. They'll call us hillrods and hicks. They'll try to say we're responsible for the death of every child. They're shameless.

And we need to steel ourselves against the full court press of the guilt trip. We need to reject the false guilt entirely and with vigor. We need to get right back in their faces and make it clear that they will be allowed to take NO ONE's rights away. In fact, we need to understand there is a difference between a right and a privilege. A privilege can be lawfully taken away. In the view of our Founders (and I agree), rights are GOD-GIVEN, unalienable, and CANNOT lawfully be taken away. There was even a huge debate at adoption of the Constitution over whether there should be a Bill of Rights. Those opposed viewed these rights as natural, and they were worried that codifying them in an actual Bill of Rights would lead to the government thinking down the road that they could abolish the rights if they saw fit. Their caution in these days is shown to be justified, because that's exactly what some of the zealots think. They think if they repeal the Second Amendment, that takes away our rights. It will not. We need to stand on that.

In conclusion, I'll be the first to agree that there ARE things that need to be done to reduce gun violence. We need to enforce the adequate gun laws ALREADY on the books. We need to prosecute gun criminals to the fullest extent of the law and execute murderers if they don't kill themselves first. A good first step would be for our idiot government not to pull stunts like Fast and Furious, which put assault weapons in the hands of drug gangs. It is believed that this plot ultimately was intended to be used as a fulcrum to leverage for tightening gun laws in violation of the Second Amendment. It backfired, and that's why the liberal media tries to sweep this scandal under the rug.

We need to get back to foundational morality in the country, and reject the leftist notion that God, faith, moral lessons etc. need to be removed because "such things have no business in the schools or in the public square." We need to recognize the impact of violent films and entertainment. We need to be much better at spotting potential problem children, teens and adults. We need to re-visit the ACLU-driven drive to de-institutionalize the mentally ill in the name of "human rights." Some folks have no business on the street, but they've made it next to impossible to institutionalize someone.

Well, I've ranted enough for one night. Since I have only made a handful of posts this month, this long one will give you plenty to read for a while. I'll try to have something more uplifting and edifying for Christmas.

Obama Caught Red Handed on Gun Control

I'm getting used to Barack Obama being underhanded about things, and this after claiming that he'd be the most "transparent" president and administration in American history.

Yeah, right. Take a look at this little report. Obama tells the anti-gunners that he's working on it, but "under the radar."

Not anymore, Bub. People, we've got to come out swinging on this, and make both Congress and the administration know that we will NOT give up this right. Period. The Supreme Court finally acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a weapon, and this right shall not be infringed.

Scrapping the Second Amendment?

Chuck Norris is known for his achievements in martial arts and in motion pictures. In recent years, he's been much more vocal about political issues. In this WorldNetDaily column, Chuck begins a multi-part series on the threat to Americans' right to keep and bear arms.

This bears close watching. Don't be lulled into a false sense of security due to the Supreme Court's recent ruling declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Leftist politicians have all sorts of tricks up their sleeves to get around that particular Constitutional prohibition. They really don't think much about the Constitution at all, except how to abrogate it.

As an aside, yet another reason to deport George Soros. Immediately.

More Wisdom and Warnings from John Bolton

Each month, the National Rifle Association publishes their "America's First Freedom" magazine. The May issue featured a great interview with John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He had some very keen insights into our new administration, as well as some words of warning. Some excerpts:

1. I think the most important thing is that American ambassadors at the U.N. have to do is remember that they represent the United States to the U.N. They don't represent the United Nations back to the United States. And it's very fundamental that we should defend America's interests there.

America should not be a well-bred doormat at the U.N. Now it's a very uncongenial environment in many respects on gun issues—Second Amendment issues in particular—and when you have an administration that I don't think is very favorable to the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment anyway, I think we could well be at risk in the U.N. system of seeing negotiations, and possibly treaties or agreements, that might try and impair our Second Amendment rights. So this is something we've all got to be very vigilant about the next four years.

2. "Norming" is a term that's applied to international agreements that affect the behavior of individual governments. And there's a reason [a lot of people don't know about it]. And that is that left-wing elements in our society have not been as successful legislatively as they've wanted to be over the past 10 or 20 years. What they've done is very ingenious, tactically, from their point of view. When they don't have success, such as on gun issues in Congress or state legislatures, they stop fighting there and try and take the issue internationally. And [they try to] have international agreements negotiated by diplomats, who often don't have the same understanding or support for some of these issues. [They} negotiate them as treaties, then bring them back to the U.S. Senate and say, "You have to ratify this treaty. One hundred and eighty other countries have already ratified it, how can the U.S. be isolated?"

NRA: If you get an arms trade treaty, it's binding. But what does that mean? Does it supersede our Constitution?

BOLTON: It doesn't supersede the Constitution. But if it is enacted—if it's adopted by the Senate and then enacted as positive law—it would bind Americans. So there's a real battle to be fought here. I think the best defense is a good offense, and to not wait until it gets to the Senate or not wait until Obama tries to sign it as an executive agreement. I think you've got to get into the negotiations and try and affect the outcome there.


Joel's comment: Elections have consequences.

Striking a Blow For State's Rights

If you get a chance today, read this commentary from Examiner.com. It highlights the recent move by New Hampshire State Representative Daniel Itse to reassert states' rights in the face of the growing federal juggernaut.

Mr. Itse bases his bill on Jeffersonian principles, calling for New Hampshire to secede from the Union if federal usurpation reaches a certain level. He used the language of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, written in 1798 in response to the "Alien and Sedition Acts." Here's an excerpt from Itse's bill . . .

“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

“I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

“II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

“III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

“IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

“VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition…” -- House Concurrent Resolution 6.

This could get interesting. Couple this bill with moves by the legislatures of 20 other states to reassert states' rights, and it's not hard to see where this could be going in the long run. Who knows if it will work or not.

One possibility to keep in mind. It is within the realm of speculation that the powers that be might want to provoke as much social unrest and agitation as possible. That desire would be in keeping with the principles of Marxists and other revolutionaries who see social chaos as desirable in achieving their overall goals for society. These types take advantage of crises to push through all sorts of draconian policies they might not be able to achieve in a time of calm. And in general, the bulk of the population is too blind to see it or acknowledge that it's even happening.

How about this for a scenario. Imagine getting the bulk of U.S. troops overseas in Afghanistan or some other place, and all of a sudden riots and unrest break out here. Imagine the Administration calling in troops from the United Nations to keep order on American streets. American troops would likely be very reticent to open fire on their fellow citizens. However, foreign "peacekeepers" might not have such scruples, as they would have no loyalty to this country. Crazy, isn't it?

Maybe. But maybe not.

John Lott on Guns

John Lott is the author of "Freedomnomics" and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. He formerly was at the University of Chicago, where he published a steller study on firearms a few years back -- one that sent the gun banners into a hissy fit on steroids.

Professor Lott is entering the fray again, because the rabid gun banners have hoisted a new flag to fly in their tireless efforts to render us all defenseless. Ban guns and stop suicides! You have to hand it to them. They're clever at coming up with ways to play the public like a violin.

Anyway, here's what Professor Lott had to say about this . . .

There are so many different ways for people to kill themselves: people can jump off buildings or crash their car into a telephone pole or head-on into another car.

In a high suicide rate country such as Japan, many people jump in front of subway trains.

Guns are one of the most lethal and effective methods of committing suicide, but how lethal the different methods are has a lot to do with whether someone wants to successfully commit suicide.

For example, the vast majority of attempted suicides by women are apparently not meant to be successful (just calls for help). They usually choose methods, such as taking only a relatively few sleeping pills, that are destined to fail.

But that hardly means that if you take someone who was intent on killing themselves and have them use sleeping pills, that they will also fail.

There is a great irony about this whole debate.

Generally, liberals, both on and off the Supreme Court, are the ones concerned about guns being used to commit suicide.

Yet, those same liberals opposed restrictions on drugs used in physician-assisted suicides.

The court forbade the U.S. Attorney General from claiming that suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose.”

How is it OK for the justices to prevent regulations of drugs that are used to commit suicides, but support the banning of guns used for the same purpose?

If anything, the court can probably more effectively end physician-assisted suicides by banning drugs than they could end suicides by banning guns. Could the answer simply be that liberals dislike guns, not drugs?

More conservative justices, who believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own guns, don’t face the same logical conflict.

Even if they would like to regulate suicide with guns and even if they believed that gun ownership affected the total level of suicides, the Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to own guns.

There is no similar protection for drugs.

The debate about protecting people from themselves is a familiar one.

But even if those seeking to ban guns are right that more guns mean more suicides, who is best positioned to weigh the risks and benefits from letting people protect themselves?

If people are unable to make these decisions for themselves, how can people figure out which politicians should make these decisions for them?

One thing I might say to Professor Lott is this. Don't expect being caught in logical contradictions to deter these people. Orwellian doublespeak and Lewis Carrollian non sequiturs/redefinitions are innate traits of the liberal gun ban crowd (not to mention their other hobby horses). Their motto: "Words mean what we want them to mean. No more, no less."

Our Founders on Guns

Sola's note: This was so good I am reposting it its entirety. The original can be seen at WorldNetDaily.com


Why do we 'keep and bear arms'? Part 1
by Larry Elder

A prominent 20th-century Democrat made the following statement about the purpose of the Second Amendment: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the 1976 Washington, D.C., ban on handguns. The court ruled that the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment to allow individuals the right to keep and bear arms. The minority disagreed, arguing that the right only extends to those belonging to a state "militia," such as the National Guard.

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "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." What did the framers mean?

Is "Militia" – as the framers intended – an arm of government? Or did they define militia as something completely different – a group of armed citizens with a right to "keep and bear Arms" to guard against unjust or tyrannical government power?

The Founding Fathers assumed that any government, including the one they established, could grow into a monster. They argued that only "the people" with a right "to keep and bear arms" could prevent such a tyranny.

James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," stated that tyrants were "afraid to trust the people with arms" and lauded "the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

George Mason said, "To disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. … Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Noah Webster, the prominent political essayist who fought in the Revolutionary War, wrote: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

Samuel Adams likened the Second Amendment to the First: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Dictators throughout history sought to disarm their citizenries in order to impose power:

Vladimir Lenin said, "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

Mao Zedong said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Josef Stalin said: "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

Adolf Hitler said: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Thomas Paine, in 1775, spoke about another kind of "tyranny." Bans and restrictions on firearms affect the law-abiding citizenry, shifting power to the non-law-abiding. Criminals ignore laws. That's why we call them criminals. Paine said: "The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. … (Weakness) allures the ruffian, (but) arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world. … Horrid mischief would ensue were (the good) deprived of the use of them. … The weak will become a prey to the strong."

Oh, the prominent Democrat quoted in the first paragraph? It was said Oct. 22, 1959, by Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, a senator at the time. How times – and much of the Democratic Party – have changed.