“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

"Our main
agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible.
It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task
of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would
resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman,
Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National
Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

 

THE BIG LIE

The Liberal
side of politics in the United States has long claimed that their stance
against guns is solely for the protection of the innocent in our
society. Occasionally one of them just can’t stand being muzzled by
those who prefer the stealth mode to enact draconian gun restrictions
and blurts out the truth as in the case of Sara Brady.

The recent
Supreme Court decision in the Heller Case in Washington DC emphasized
the right of citizens to protect themselves against violent criminals
but ignored the true reason the Second Amendment was considered
necessary by the writers of our Constitution

No
one it seems is willing to speak out about the original meaning of the
Second Amendment for fear that they will be accused of supporting
sedition. If you look at the points made at the time of the writing of
the Second Amendment by those who were involved it its wording, you will
find that their concern was to allow citizens, with force of arms, to
resist a government that no longer met their criteria of freedom and
rule by “We the People”. The Second Amendment was the vehicle
guaranteeing “We the People” to keep our government in check when
needed. The mere fact that a government knows its citizens are armed is a
huge deterrent to totalitarianism.  

 

"I ask, Sir, what is the
militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and
most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author
of the Second Amendment

"Firearms stand next in importance to the
constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty
teeth and keystone under independence (MY BOLD)
… from the
hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and
tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle
and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms
anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor
with all that’s good."
George Washington
First President of
the United States

 

Now read the
dissenting opinion in the Heller case put forth by Justice John Paul
Stevens and his explanation of the meaning of the Second Amendment
following the Heller decision:

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 27,
2008

 

But in his 46-page dissent, Stevens accused Scalia of misreading
the words of the 2nd Amendment and spinning its history to ignore its
focus on organized militias.


The
2nd Amendment, ratified more than 200 years ago, says that "a
well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It was adopted, Stevens said, to protect the right of the people
to maintain well-regulated state militias. That
does not involve a right to "use guns for nonmilitary purposes like
hunting and personal self-defense," he wrote.

End of times article

Justice Anthony Scalia wrote the following for the
majority decision:

"The right of the people to keep and
bear arms" is not limited to state militias, as some historians have
argued. Rather, it protects "the inherent right of self-defense,"

The majority also took into account
the meanings of “to keep” and “bear” as they were understood at the time
the Second Amendment was written. They were correct in doing so. If the
original intent of the writers of The Constitution is ignored then why
have a constitution at all? Justices take an oath to “preserve, protect
and defend The Constitution”. Nowhere in the oath does it say justices
have the right or duty to change the meaning of The Constitution by
judicial fiat to promote individual ideologies.

The fact is that liberals and those
who wish the Constitution to mean what it originally was intended to
mean are at complete odds with each other.

Those who believe in the original
interpretation have the actual words and published accounts of the
founders to use as evidence as to the meaning, while liberals have had
to depend on convoluted court interpretations by judicial activists to
promote draconian gun regulations.

The following should give you a clear
view to what the Second Amendment was designed to protect:

"A militia, when
properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard
Henry Lee

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s
Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

 

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to
authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the
rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who
are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel
Adams

quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August
20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

 

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the
ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep
the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as
property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world
destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not,
others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the
law-abiding deprived of the use of them."Thomas Paine

 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially
when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American
Statesman, 1788

 

"The great object is that every man be armed."
and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry

 

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and
debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our
defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession
and under our direction and having them under the management of
Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in
whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to
us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

 

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow
for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of
the United States

 

"The constitutions of most of our States assert
that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and
duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

 

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large
is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The
Federalist Papers at 184-8

 

To me it is
very obvious that dissenting justices are either completely ignorant of
the intent of our Founding Fathers in writing the Second Amendment or
they are dishonestly ignoring history to advance their own socialistic
agendas. If the later is the case then they have violated their oath to
preserve, protect and defend The Constitution of The United States.

In every case
where “The People” is mentioned in the Constitution it refers to
individual rights. Attempts to say that the right to keep and bear arms
is limited to state controlled militias is in direct opposition of the
intended meaning of the Second Amendment. If a militia is controlled by
the state, it has the power to be an arm of the state to oppress the
people. The above statements by our Founding Fathers show that this is
what they were very concerned about and why the right to keep and bear
arms was meant for the individual and not by any level of government

 

Justice
Scalia was correct in his opinion that the right to keep and bear arms
was an individual right for self defense but even he did not emphasize
that one of the main concerns of the Founding Fathers was for “We the
People” to be able to also defend ourselves from government that has
overstepped its limits.

THE
MILITIA

As
far as the definition of the militia goes we can see from the above
statements that “The Militia” was considered to be ‘We the People”. Some
laws concerning the militia designated all male members between certain
ages as militia members. For example in Georgia in 1784 it was “all
free male citizens between the ages of 16 and 50 years of age”. About
1791 a federal law was passed requiring every free white male between 18
and 45 to join the militia. In this federal law the militia members
were required to furnish their own firearms. Specifically;

“That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall
within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or
firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a
knapsack a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four
cartridges. suited for the bore of his musket or firelock: or with a
good rifle, knapsack. Shot pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to
the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder….

2nd Cong., sess. 1, Ch. 33 (1792), 1:271-75

 

BEARING
ARMS

During
the 1790 formulation of the militia bill Roger Sherman defined bearing
arms as follows:

Conceived
it to be the privilege of every citizen, (my bold) and
one of his most
essential
rights (my bold),
to
bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever (my bold) made. The particular states, like
private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of
arms, their rights, when invaded.

This
definition follows closely beliefs held by our Founding Fathers and
those who were responsible for the wording of the Second Amendment as
stated earlier in this chapter.
 

ARMS

During the
time the Second Amendment was being written and discussed “arms” were
generally defined as weapons a person could carry. Included would be
rifles, muskets, knives, swords and pistols. Larger weapons such as
cannon or mortars were considered “ordinance”.

THEN AND NOW

The writers
of the Amendments were not dummies. They were educated men who in their
lifetimes in many cases, had seen the evolution of arms or were at least
aware of the improvements in arms throughout history. Included in that
evolution for firearms that could be carried were: Muzzle loading hand
cannons, matchlocks, wheel locks, flintlocks and finally percussion
locks in both long guns and pistols. Swords, knives, daggers, pikes,
spears and bows had been personal arms for generations and beyond.

I am positive
that the writers of the Second Amendment were aware that further
evolution of “arms” would occur. In writing the amendment they did not
list muskets, percussion rifles or any specific type of arm for this
very reason.

Their
intention was to allow “We the People” to take advantage of further
evolution. If citizens were locked into any specific point in arms
development, the government would soon be invulnerable and “We the
People” would be at their mercy.

As our first
president George Washington believed:
"Firearms stand next in importance
to the constitution itself.
They are the
American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under Independence.
”…
(MY BOLD)

Activist
courts influenced by liberals have twisted the original meanings of The
Constitution to the point that recently we had a federal law banning
“assault weapons”. The “assault weapons” banned are the very weapons
“carried” by our military and other armed forces throughout the planet.
These would be the very same “arms” that the Founding Fathers wanted to
guarantee the “right to keep and bear” by American citizens.

Some on the Liberal side and even some others argue that the
statements made by our Founding Fathers were reflective only of the
times when we were battling for our freedom and needed citizens to have
arms to protect the nation. Many arms owned and furnished by American
citizens were used for this very purpose during the Revolutionary War
and again in the War of 1812.

CONCLUSION

If the
original intent of the Second Amendment was to be followed, American
citizens should be able to keep and bear the same light arms now carried
by our own military; anything less puts Americans at the mercy of their
own government. Some will say that the modern weapons of our military
destroy any ability of citizens to protect themselves from the
government today.

I believe the
threat is not centered from our military or state National Guards. I
believe they would flat refuse to attack American citizens. The threat
is from other internal federal law enforcement organizations that could
be pressured by an out of control federal administration to subjugate
the American populace.

The answer is
to make sure we elect people to government positions who will swear to
uphold The Constitution as it was written and intended to mean.

IMPORTANCE
TODAY

First go back
and read the introduction heading for this chapter. Having reread Mrs.
Brady’s statement, consider the following. First we have Ron Bloom who
president Obama appointed as his manufacturing czar. He is quoted as
saying “The free market is nonsense” (another Socialist?) and even more
disturbing; “we kind of agree with Mao that political power comes
largely from the barrel of a gun”. Another Obama appointee was Van Jones
who was ultimately exposed as a professed Communist and then there is
Anita Dunn who was caught on video as listing Mao as one of the persons
she most admired. The Obama administration and his past associates are
riddled with far left loons who would do almost anything to force their
agenda on America.

Sara Brady
and those of similar belief are kept in check by the fact that many
Americans are armed. They, like the neighborhood bully, don’t want to
pick a fight with anyone who might fight back. Their answer is to disarm
American citizens through greater and more onerous restrictions until
we are at such a disadvantage that we are for all intents and purposes
unable to resist their agenda. Nation wide registration of all firearms
is part of their agenda. If you know who has firearms confiscation is a
whole lot easier.

Read
again how Roger Sherman defined bearing arms. And read again how Thomas
Payne and Thomas Jefferson described the importance of the right to
keep and bear arms.

Conceived
it to be the privilege of every citizen, (my bold) and
one of his
most
essential rights,
 (my
bold)
to bear arms, and
to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever
(my bold)
made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a
right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when
invaded.”Roger Sherman”

"The supposed quietude of a good man
allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage
and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the
world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the
world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will
not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were
the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."Thomas Paine

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow
for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of
the United States

 

R.D. Cook…author of “A Primer for Conservative
Activism” blogger, freelance writer, retired Los Angeles County Deputy
Sheriff and resistnet.com/California Patriot member.

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: