Four Words for Gun-Grabbers:

These words form an integral phrase in the 2nd Amendment, and speak to our Founders' intent that the U.S. government not "infringe" on the peoples' God-given right to keep and bear arms.

As I've written in earlier posts, the 2nd Amendment does not create a right nor does it confer one. Rather, it hedges in a right with which we were "endowed by [our] Creator." When we understand this, it's easy to see that our Founders put this amendment in place to tell the government that the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct.

When Democrats push their gun control schemes in January -- if they actually follow through with the gun control schemes they've floated during the past week -- they must understand that they will be doing exactly what our Founders said they have no power to do. They will be infringing on a right that the Bill of Rights explicitly lists as off limits to inference by the federal government.

This is something the leftists running our academies don't want us to know, so it's something that many of us weren't taught and certainly something that our children don't hear -- even in U.S. history. Therefore, now more than ever, it is a truth that we must recover and one to which we must cling when answering the Democrats' pending gun-grabbing schemes.

Our Founders recognized the right to keep and bear arms as essential and God-given. Because of this, they hedged in this right by telling the government it "shall not be infringed."

________________________________________________________________________________

A Soldier's Perspective

THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004

Shall Not Be Infringed

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 pretence, raised in the United States.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

I’m not going to get into the politics of the Sandy Hook shooting. Suffice it to say, it was a tragedy of the worst kind. Such evil and ungodliness is beyond comprehension.

What I want to touch upon is the aftermath of this tragedy without tying it to any specific event. It seems the national conversation has turned to gun control and finding ways to circumvent the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So now, all the politicians are talking about gun control. I’ve heard in many different places talk about reinstating the “Assault Weapons Ban” of the 90s, only this new one will have even more teeth. If you were ever thinking about ONE DAY buying a nice AR-style rifle, NOW is the time to do it. If you want 30-round magazines, NOW is the time to do it.

A buddy of mine is the owner of a small firearms company here Central Texas called Blackjack Firearms. He carries some awesome firearms and can customize just about anything. He’s helped me with a few customizations of my firearms and I even bought one of his first Blackjack Firearms lower receivers and I’m in love with it. I put it on an older model AR and it greatly improved both the look and function of my AR. I just wanted to support my buddy, but I got a better weapon out of it.

Another item on the chopping block are the so-called “high capacity” magazines. This is an invented term by the gun grabbers of America that is generally thought to mean any magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds. Most AK-47 and AR-style magazines are 30. Soon, you won’t have the option of buying them if Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has her way.

“Right away this week, we could pass the ban on the assault magazine,” Pelosi said. “In a larger sense, let’s go down this path of banning the assault weapon. I think there’s a better chance to do that now than ever.”

When the last “assault weapon” ban was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the cost of these magazines went through the roof. These days, they only cost between $14-30 depending on the brand.

Besides my PMAGs, I was recently given a few steel .223 magazines to try out from a company called C Products Defense. The magazines are “Made in the USA” and are similar to the standard issue magazines we have in the Army. I tried out both the 10-round (which is all we’re going to be able to get if this law is passed) and the 30-round magazine to try out. Because they are less expensive that other magazines from top name brands in the firearms industry, I was a little worried they wouldn’t be as good.

Now, I’m not a fan of 10-round magazines at all. I just don’t like the look of them and the fact that it only holds such a finite number of rounds causes me anxiety thinking about ever having the need to use it to defend myself. Neither magazine had any problems feeding or cycling through normal fire or even rapid fire. I didn’t experience a single misfeed or malfunction in my testing of these magazines.

DPMS AR with 10-round C Products Defense stainless steel magazine.

That said, I had no issues with either of these magazines. If you’re on a budget, this may be the way to go, though. You can get the stainless steel or aluminum ones at Blackjack Firearms for $10.99. The 30-round stainless steel ones are also $10.99 or you can get the aluminum version for $9.99. Ask around. These are great prices for, as best as I can tell, an equally high-quality magazine.

I don’t mean to sound doomsday, but your opportunities to go out and get a 30-round magazine or larger are dwindling. During the last “assault weapons” ban, you were grandfathered if you already owned one of these. People could buy and sell them, but they couldn’t be imported or produced domestically.

Same goes with the black rifle. Our ignorant, elected officials are ban-happy and they only care what a weapon LOOKS like. If you ban “assault weapons” a mass murderer will just use a deer rifle or a shotgun or a pistol.

The media and gun grabbing politicians want you to believe that Adam Lanza used an AR rifle to commit the murders in Connecticut so that they can use it to pull on your heartstrings and support massive legislation that limits your right to defend yourself with whatever weapon you think you need. Remember, the second amendment wasn’t just put there so you could go hunting or to defend against robbers and rapists. It was put there to keep a government in check as well that got out of control. Can you imagine, God forbid, that something happens in this country where the government declares martial law and the only thing that can deter or defeat an armed defense and all you’re left with are 10-round magazines against the DOE, BATFE, DHS, FBI, DEA, DOD, and many other alphabet soup armed agencies of the government using their 30-round magazines? (Note: I am NOT and DO NOT support any armed sedition, sabotage, or other violent aggression against any branch of government, local or federal; I’m merely explaining the purpose of the 2nd amendment.)

I’ve called around where I live. Academy, Weber’s, Cabelas, Dick’s, and Bass Pro Shops are all sold out of AR-style rifles. People are scared right now. They may have reason to be.

________________________________________________________________________________

The United States Constitution

Bill of Rights : Amendment II

Updated March 14, 2007

http://www.arms2armor.com/2ndamendment/2ndamendment.htm

"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."

Without this amendment, all others are meaningless. This amendment is a guarantee to the people of the United States of America that the right to keep and bear arms can not, shall not, nor will not be infringed upon.

To infringe upon - by definition - is the attempt to limit the right of:

legal or moral entitlement to do - or refrain from doing - some thing;
legal or moral entitlement to obtain - or refrain from obtaining - an action, thing or recognition in civil society. In the Second Amendment, the entitlement is the right to the action(s) of keeping and bearing a thing called arms by the people.

What this means is, the people, who in times of need may form a militia, have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms without fear of such right being vacated. In order to be an effective militia - an integral part of a free society - the people should be armed in equal or greater proportion than any potential threat - foreign or domestic - and trained to use such armament. Additionally, the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms is the most powerful deterrent to tyranny.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops…" Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)

The people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms without fear of Government persecution or prosecution. To restrict the right of the people to obtain arms, any arms, infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms, in effect disarming the militia; that action is unconstitutional by any definition.

A militia is very distinct from a regular army. Since the militia is created from private citizens (the people), it is generally armed with privately owned weapons, acquired with private funds, and not restricted by Government bureaucracy, funding or uniformity.
A militia's role is also very distinct from a regular army in that "it can serve to supplement the regular army, or it can oppose it."
The term militia - in the American sense - is defined as the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity; however, the word militia can have several somewhat different meanings:

1) "Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws"
2) "The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster"
3) "A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government"
4) "An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces"

At the time in American history when the Constitution was ratified, the militia was deemed to represent "the entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster."

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788.

In any of these four stated definitions the common theme is a militia is "distinct from a regular army." It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the 'enemies' against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers; in other circumstances, it may be construed necessary to mobilize militia during political unrest in which time constitutional rights are revoked or suspended and a government becomes oppressive and tyrannical. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia.

"First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always by kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided." Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788.

Central to the complete concept of 'militia' as used by the American Founders in the second amendment of the Constitution was that it be 'well-regulated', which meant well-trained and well-organized, but not necessarily by government. Thus, the term would not have been properly used to refer to an armed, unruly mob, but only to persons who behave in a responsible, law-enforcing mode, and who might act to control an armed, unruly mob as an 'insurrection'.
"In recent times there has developed what appears to be a campaign to stigmatize the term by having journalists and others apply the term to unsavory armed groups. A leading organization in this effort has been the Anti-Defamation League, which has been criticized for doing so."

Further argument - "The Second Amendment unambiguously protects "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms. This is exactly the same phrase - "the right of the people" - used in the First and Fourth Amendments, where it indubitably refers to individual rights. All three amendments were framed at the same time, along with the Tenth Amendment, which expressly distinguishes between "the people" and "the states." Thus, the framers of the Amendment clearly chose to protect a right of individuals, not a right belonging to the states.
Were there any basis for the states' right theory, it would have to arise from the Second Amendment's prefatory phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." This phrase, however, cannot be read to alter the meaning of the Amendment's operative clause, which provides that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." First, the grammatical structure of the Amendment clearly indicates that the prefatory phrase serves only an explanatory purpose. It is certainly true that the Constitution implies that it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But it is equally true that the Constitution does not say or imply that this right of the people is protected only to the extent that some government agency (such as Congress or the courts) believes that the right fosters a well-regulated militia. If that were its meaning, the Second Amendment should have provided: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the Constitution does not say this. On the contrary, the Second Amendment clearly distinguishes "the people" from the "militia." The framers, moreover, were familiar with dozens of state constitutional provisions that included similar explanatory phrases, none of which had ever been interpreted to limit or qualify the operative language to which they were appended."

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.

There is also debate about the frivolous use of commas in the Second Amendment. The original ratified version of the Bill of Rights - with the correct rendition of the Second Amendment - carries but a single comma, after the word "state." Hence, "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 three comma version - as appears on the parchment copies of the Bill of Rights - is believed to have been taken from the writings of Madison, later carried by scribes to the so-called original copies. That version reads, "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." A copy of the original ratified wording can be found in the Statutes at Large, Amendments to the Constitution, Volume I, Page 97, Article II, with single comma, at the Library of Congress.
To reiterate - the correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word "state." It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified. This is why it is so important to use the proper Second Amendment during debate; it was clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serve only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous. In an attempt to diminish – if not abolish - the inalienable “right of the people to keep and bear arms” (as originally presented and guaranteed by the Second Amendment), the anti-gun movement shamefully exploits this perceived ambiguity. This total disregard of the original intent of the Constitution endangers our most basic and essential freedoms.
Going back to a perceived notion that States choose whether or not to allow the people to keep and bear arms, forty-four States have specific wording that guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Only six do not mention this right specifically, although four defer to the United States Constitution or mention inalienable rights. The actual text of the individual State constitutions can be found at the Second Amendment Foundation website. The bottom line is the Constitution of these United States is the Supreme document of the land and it overrides all lesser State documents.

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." Thomas Jefferson, letter to P. S. Dupont de Nemours, April 24, 1816. Found in "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," edited by Paul L. Ford, vol. 10, p. 25 (1899). This sentence is one of many quotations inscribed on Cox Corridor II, a first floor House corridor, U.S. Capitol.

In a recent 2 to 1 landmark decision - Friday, March 9, 2007 - the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the District's longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional. Most anti-gun activists claim the militia "clause" in the Second Amendment as proof that private gun ownership is not granted by the Constitution; it is only granted to the militia. However, the Appeals Court ruled the opposite, which has been the main argument pro-gun activists have consistently maintained:

"We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," Silberman said in the 58-page majority ruling.

The Opinion states:
"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

God Bless the DC Circuit Court of Appeals! The Constitution is Alive and Well once again!

In a more recent landmark decision, on June 26, 2008 in a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms.
Well done!

_______________________________________________________________________________

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on January 5, 2013 at 5:47pm

Thanks to Wayne Mercier for sharing the following:

No ma’am’: Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral

The following open letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.

CNN PRODUCER NOTE: joshdb50 was a Marine and was deployed to Afghanistan between the years of 2004 through 2005. Although he is no longer in the military he acknowledges that he owns gun. He says he does not believe the government needs to know what guns he owns because he believes registration would lead to confiscation. ( Senders Note: As it has in every instance in history where a country has mandated registration.) He says the laws that are in place for gun control are plenty, and adding more laws will remove a means of defense for people. ‘I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind’s shortcomings instead of pretending like they don’t exist. There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family,’ he said. - Jareen, CNN iReport producer

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain.

I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps

2004-2012

Four Words for Gun-Grabbers:

When Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and certain Democrats in the House of Representatives, promise to push for more gun control in January 2013, they overlook four important words: "shall not be infringed."

A Soldier's Perspective

THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004

Shall Not Be Infringed

You need to be a member of REAL CONSERVATIVES to add comments!

BOOK STORE