Since when is our Constitution up for debate? I am disgusted by the constant attacks on the very foundation of our country. There are those in government, our president for one, who would just as soon see all weapons stripped from law abiding citizens. The second amendment is clear:
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.
President James Monroe said: “The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”
President Thomas Jefferson said:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson‘s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Can it be any clearer than that?
Progressives, Fascists and Marxists strive to remove from the citizenry the ability to defend themselves.
Those same persons and groups are determined to legislate “We The People” back in to slavery for the servitude of the government.
Alan Keyes has a very clear stance on the Second Amendment :
Presently, pending in the House, are two diametrically opposed bills:
H.R. 17 Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009
In correlation with the restrictions outlined by the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, this bill protects and provides context for the possession and use of fire arms, namely in defense of the self or family (or, when relevant, the home) against a reasonably perceived threat of unlawful bodily injury or violent felony.
This bill is sponsored by Roscoe Bartlett (R) MD and has 21 co-sponsors, including Michele Bachmann.
Please check the link above to ensure your Representative is a co-sponsor, and if not, get on the phone!
The other bill, which seeks to impinge upon our second amendment rights, is H.R. 45 Blair-Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
The Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership. If approved, the law would require gun owners to apply for five-year licenses to own firearms, and would give the U.S. Attorney General broad authority over the program.
This bill is sponsored by Bobby Rush (D) IL and the good news is it has zero co-sponsors. This man MUST GO!
I have received, as have many of my friends, an email circulating regarding fictitious SB 2099. Open Congress says:
Over the past six months or so, I’ve seen an occasional e-mail about SB 2099, a bill that would supposedly require gun owners to declare their firearms on tax forms. During the past few days, however, the volume of questions about the bill has increased. So, I thought I would write a bit about SB 2099 to try and set the record straight…In short, an inaccurate rumor from 2000 is still running the rounds today, and still scaring people into writing the NRA and their lawmakers to stop it, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Even Archie Bunker had the right idea:
Some enlightening recent articles on the subject:
by Bob Heinritz Posted at HumanEvents.com
For the first 150-years of the existence of the U.S.A., the right of citizens to carry arms was so fundamental it was not considered worthy of debate. The Founders considered their right to keep and bear arms the ultimate and most fundamental guarantee of life and freedom against crime, foreign invasion, and as a last resort, a despotic government. No knowledgeable American–from the founding of the United States through the mid-1950′s–would have questioned that the Second Amendment to the Constitution meant exactly what it says, “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This was not a right of a Militia. The “Militia” was–and under current law still is–all able-bodied adults, who are expected to keep their privately-owned arms similar to what is used by the military at the time.Nineteenth-century U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, called the American right to bear arms “the palladium of the liberties of the republic.” Our Founders believed that in a free society good citizens must always be prepared to defend themselves and their country. Thomas Jefferson said, “The God who gave us life, gave us freedom to defend life.” Being armed was more than a right. It was a moral obligation of citizenship.
The article goes on to detail what has happened in other countries on the subject of guns and gun control and is one of the most concise pieces I have seen on the subject. Extremely poignant and interesting. It concludes:
…You won’t see this data on the American evening news or hear our President, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. Guns in the hands of honest citizens preserve freedom and dignity — from both criminal and government predators. And, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. The gun-control party is now in the majority in Congress. Take note before it’s too late. The next time a politician talks in favor of gun-control, please remind all who are listening of the lesson of history. All credible scholarship indicates so-called “gun-control” laws never work, are dangerous to the rights of the law-abiding, and are inconsistent with the values on which the United States were founded. The Founders of America had it right. With guns, we are “citizens.” Without them, we are “subjects.” Please spread this civil-rights message — the right to life — to all of your friends, and especially all your government servants. You don’t work for them. They work for you.
Another fantastic article I recently came upon was through the Buckeye Firearms Association:
Reuters is reporting that the Obama administration has reversed U.S. policy and said it would back launching talks on a United Nations treaty to regulate arms sales, a move that is pro-gun activists warn is one giant leap toward side-stepping Congress and overturning the Second Amendment.
From the story:
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”
“Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,” Clinton said in a written statement.
Although President Obama is clearly doing their bidding, gun control extremists are still not happy, saying they are opposed to the proposed concensus rules because decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”
“The shift in position by the world’s biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers,” Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”
“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better.
The change in policy is opposed by the National Rifle Association, as well as by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which is quoted as saying the treaty will not restrict the access of “dictators and terrorists” to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people…….
Stand tall America and defend your second amendment rights!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )