Shall Not Be Infringed

The term “infringement” doesn’t mean “prohibition.” It means “an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.” If I were to move off the sidewalk and walk through my neighbor’s grass, I would be infringing. It does little direct damage, but over time, that section of grass would die. If I then moved over to a fresh strip of grass, that would die, too. When our Founding Fathers penned “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in our Second Amendment, they created an absolute prohibition against any and all infringements, no matter how slight, in order to protect — absolutely — the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms. Furthermore, this prohibition not limited to the federal government. It doesn’t not say, “Congress shall not…” It simply states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This applies to EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, and FOR ALL TIME, WITHOUT CESSATION.  It is an absolute right, to be protected at all costs, without question.

Cleared hot? Or not? Self Defense 101

This is why police shoot guys brandishing knives who refuse to follow lawful orders to put the knife down.  Knives are deadly.  A knife attacksingle nick of any one of dozens of key arteries or veins may result in death in minutes.  A stab to the heart or major artery can kill you in seconds, even if you’re in the ER of a major hospital.  Cutting any one of thousands of nerves can prove permanently and severely disabling, and severing some nerves can prove fatal.

gun at knife fightThis is one of the reasons why I carry a firearm.  It’s not enough to merely know how to shoot.  You must know how to avoid, escape, and deflect confrontation, as well as

When it comes to the lawful use of firearms in defense of life, limb, and property, the law varies state to state, so you must know your local, county, state, and federal laws!

The following rules, however, are nearly universal throughout the United States. Please note I said “nearly.” Again, it’s up to you to know your local laws:

Rule 1: If at all possible, avoid the confrontation. You can’t be punched, beaten, stabbed, or shot if you’re not there.

Rule 2: If at all possible, leave the scene of a potential confrontation as soon as possible. If you’re carrying a firearm and bad guy with a knifestay, someone is likely to be punched, beaten, stabbed, or shot, and that someone just might be you. No matter how good you think you are, there’s always someone better. If you’re able to leave before any fighting starts, you will have de-escalated the situation back to Rule 1.  As long as you’re within 21 feet of an attacker, however, you’re only one second away from probably harm and possible death.

Rule 3: If you cannot leave, attempt to de-escalate the situation. Deflect the tension. Use humor or whatever it takes. You may be able to take control of the situation, if you have the power and authority to do so. You may also need to detain or arrest someone.  Just remember, in the vast majority of states, you can do so only if you have witnessed them committing a felony.  This process is not for either the feint of heart or poorly trained, however.  Law enforcement officers get plenty of training yet still have their butts handed to them by bad guys on a regular basis.

Rule 4: This applies in all situations: If at any time you’re facing imminent threat of life or limb, under the laws of most states you’re cleared hot (cleared to shoot to stop the threat). In some states that authorization extends to property. Check with your state’s laws beforehand, however, as you won’t have time in when the going gets tough!

Bottom line:  Know the law, remain well-trained, not merely with respect to handling a firearm and shooting targets, but also with respect to knowing what course of action is best for any given situation.

Washington State’s I-594 is A Universal Handgun Registration Scheme

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” – Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Any law which violates the Constitution is NOT law. It’s a blight against our governmental system, a violation of our Constitutional I-594rights and freedoms. No U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer at any level is under any obligation to either follow or enforce an un-Constitutional law. In fact, is it our duty to ignore it, if not stand firm against it and toss the Constitution-violating legislators out of office.

State and Federal legislators take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution in order to PREVENT this from ever I-594happening. They are NOT authorized to “do it anyway” and let the courts legislate from the bench. That’s a heinous dereliction of their duty, and no matter what other good they may have done or might be doing, it’s completely undermined by their bad.

Allowing them to remain in office is like allowing a horribly abusive spouse to remain in the home because “he/she only beats me to a pulp every once in a while.” GET RID OF THEM!

Washing State’s I-594 bill regulate transfers, not just sales, of all firearms in the Evergreen State. It’s a universal handgun registration scheme, an INFRINGEMENT on the right to keep and bear arms. Those legislators who voted for it are VIOLATORS of our Constitution. Get rid of them!

Law enforcement officers not only swore to protect the Constitution, but put their lives on the line every day.  They oppose I-594.  They’re smart enough to know how dramatically this violates the rights of the people.  They’re also experienced enough to know that it will do NOTHING to keep the criminals in check.

So who did this to the people of the State of Washington?  The people themselves.  They’re the ones who elected the Constitution-violating traitors into office.  They’re the ones who refuse to vote them out.  They’re the ones who, 7 out of 10 support universal background checks.

They’re the blithering idiots who allowed this to happen.

UN Arms Trade Treaty

A lot of fear-mongers are claiming the UN Arms Trade Treaty “takes effect” today (Christmas Eve).  In fact, this “treaty” has UN Arms Trade Treatyabsolutely zero effect on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here’s why:

1.  Our Constitution mandates treaties adhere to a simple yet rigorous legislative and governmental process.  No matter who in our government signs a treaty, if the treaty didn’t go through the appropriate review and approval process, it is NOT binding in any way shape, fashion, or form.

2.  Our nation remains sovereign.  No treaty may usurp any portion of our Constitution without a Constitutional amendment to that effect.  Thus, even if a treaty were to go through the appropriate review and approval process, if that treaty violates the Constitution, the treaty remains null and void.

Finding evidence which supports these claims is both simple and straightforward.  In fact, we need look no further than the Constitution itself.

The Treaty Review and Ratification Process

Article. II. Section 2. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which the President can make a treaty:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

Did the President seek and obtain both the advice and the consent of the Senate?  Did two-thirds of the Senate concur?  Both of UN Arms Trade Treatythese requirements must be present before the President or his designee can legally sign a treaty.  On the day John Kerry signed this treaty, the Senate had been consulted, and their advice was a big fat “NO,” with a majority voting in opposition to the treaty.  Thus, neither Kerry nor Obama had obtained the consent of the Senate.  Furthermore, not only did two-thirds of the Senators present not concur, the majority of the Senators vehemently opposed the treaty.

In addition, there is serious doubt among Constitutional scholars that the President can appoint anyone to sign a treaty on his UN Arms Trade Treatybehalf without express, written authorization to do so.  General Douglas MacArthur had such authorization.  On September 2, 1945, MacArthur accepted the formal Japanese surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri, thus ending hostilities in World War II.  John Kerry most certainly did not have any such authorization.

Regardless, neither Obama nor Kerry had either the consent or the a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate.  Therefore, Kerry’s signature on the treaty is invalid, null and void, and without any lawful authority or substance.

The Amendment Proposal and Ratification Process

Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which Amendments are proposed and ratified:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Put simply, this clause requires the following for all Amendments to the Constitution:

1.  Two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress (or two-thirds of the state legislatures)

2.  Ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures (or three-quarters of a Constitutional Convention).

3.  All Amendments are valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution.

Thus, even if Obama and Kerry had the advice and consent, along with a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate, the treaty would still be invalid simply because it violates our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  As the Second Amendment clearly states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The UN Arms Trade Treaty infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  It is therefore Constitutionally null and void.

The key thing to remember here is to never allow anyone to tell you otherwise.  When the entire populace of the United States of America knows its Constitution and the rights and freedoms respected and protected therein, no amount of government chicanery can take that away from them.

Know your rights!  Stand up for them, not merely often, but always!

It’s called FREEDOM, people, and it is very, very good.

Commentary on the Las Vegas Shootings

While indeed tragic, this incident was incredibly and exceptionally rare. Blaming this on the political right wing, however, is like blaming the Manson murders on California. Those of us leaning to the right absolutely abhor criminal activity. Manson was a psycho. These perps were psychos. They are not representative of the political right in any shape, form, or fashion, and any insinuation to the contrary is utterly brain dead, not to mention irresponsible and reckless. Furthermore, categorizing the right as “anti-government” is also completely insane. We love the government, provided the government plays by the rules. Those rules are delineated in our U.S. Constitution and its amendments, and are designed for our protection against an overbearing and abusive government.  When politicians refuse to play by the rules, we exercise our Constitutional authority and vote them out of office. It’s just that simple.

Same thing goes for law enforcement. The vast majority of law enforcement officers play by the rules. Unfortunately, as clearly evidenced by hundreds of YouTube videos, some do not. Those who don’t follow the rules are not “the law.” They are BREAKING the law, trampling on both your and my Constitutional rights and freedoms in the process. Such “bad cops” absolutely MUST be suspended, investigated, and probably fired by their organizations, as they represent a threat to society. When they break the rules, they’re no longer “serving and protecting,” but “violating and abusing.”  If the departments can’t police their own, then we vote out the mayor and members of the town or city council — whoever is covering up for bad cops.  If the situation warrants, we sue, in the hopes that a monetary settlement, combined with the judge’s commentary, will remind the city and its citizens what is considered acceptable by society, and what is not.

Again, this tragic event underscore the need for educating the public as to what conservatives REALLY believe. You’ll find no better summary than Bill Whittle’s multi-part series entitled, amazingly enough, “What We Believe.” You can watch either in parts, or in one full episode, below:

[embedplusvideo height=”332″ width=”442″ editlink=”http://bit.ly/1nBix2l” standard=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Z0vh-TZ6SNg?fs=1″ vars=”ytid=Z0vh-TZ6SNg&width=442&height=332&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=” id=”ep3546″ /]

Harry Reid (and other Dems) on Gun Control

Harry Reid (Dem-S-Nev) says, “We do need to put in place legislation that helps prevent these deranged, these weird, these evil people who carry out such savage acts of violence. Background checks so that people who are criminals, who are deranged can’t buy a gun.”

I see several glaring problems with this:

1. Most psychologists will undoubtedly lean towards identifying anyone who is a “potential danger to themselves or others” as a candidate for being denied their right to keep and bear arms. The problem is, the vast majority of those “potentials,” as in more than 99% of them, would never go on a mass shooting spree.

2. Harry Reid’s categories are far too broad, not to mention nebulous. The “criminal” category isn’t well-defined, either.  The term “convicted criminal” would be more appropriate.  Even so, there are questions as to whether Constitutional rights should be restored when convicts become ex-cons.  If they’ve paid their debt to society…

3. It gets into “pre-crime,” violating the Constitutional rights of Americans without any Constitutionally-acceptable reason.

4.  As for the rest of the categories, they clearly include room for Harry Reidpoliticians to add anyone and everyone who ever opposed a political party or supported the U.S. Constitution, including the gentleman pictured below. That’s just wrong.

Bottom Line: You do NOT protect Americans by taking away their right to defend themselves. Our Founding Fathers got it right when they created in our Second Amendment the blanket protection, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What Harry Reid and others propose is a MASSIVE infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and raises serious questions as to his real motives.

1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The best, most thorough, in-depth, and accurate treatise on both letter and intent of the Second Amendment was the February 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms right to keep and bear arms(97th Congress, 2d Session, U.S. Gov Printing Office document 88-618 O). This document is a clear and unadulterated reflection of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Anyone who has been around the block a time or two recognizes the “it’s up to each generation to figure out how to make it work” phrase as the idealistic horse hockey it truly is, for one simple reason: our Founding Fathers got it right.

Utterly lacking from most arguments against the Second Amendment is a copy of the text itself:

“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 phrase “shall not” is pretty darn clear. It’s not the softer “will not,” much less the permissive “may not.” It’s a crystal clear imperative that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is off-limits, untouchable, regardless of any circumstances whatsoever.

It’s an absolute mandate. Zero wiggle room. Are you getting the picture, yet, or are you furiously thumbing through your Rolodex of liberal undermining comments instead of paying attention to the big enchilada, the Constitution itself?

Most anti-2A articles conveniently fail to mention the fact that more than 760,000 crimes are stopped each and every year by armed law-abiding citizens, crimes to which a citizen at the scene can respond immediately, but where a 911 call would take at least several minutes for law enforcement to respond. Not good when most of these incidents are over in seconds.

No about of idealistic tripe will ever counter three facts: 1) The mental health approach will make a dent in these shootings, but it won’t counter the majority of them; 2) An armed citizen at the scene of these incidents provides the best opportunity to stop these events before they continue beyond the first couple of people; 3) Knowledge of the second point is the best deterrent. Let’s face it, these people may be criminally insane, but they’re not stupid. They’re actively targeting so-called “gun free zones” for a reason: No armed law-abiding citizens.

Use that gray matter upstairs for once and think it through.

2016 Addendum:  An acquaintance wrote, “Well-regulated meant supplied…”

Not according to George Washington, it didn’t. He equated it with “disciplined” when he wrote, “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government”

In the vernacular of the day, it meant several things, and “disciplined” and “properly trained” were chief among them. Other associated meanings include “organized” and “routinely practiced/exercised.”

Screw Title 10. It wasn’t written with a valid understanding of the vernacular of the day.

The term “well-regulated” has NEVER meant “legislated” or “controlled,” and no finer evidence exists than the Second Amendment itself, which prohibits any sort of infringement on our right to keep and bear arms i.e. “shall not be infringed.”

For that matter, screw any “precedent” which supports any conclusion other than the above, which is based on the many writings of our Founding Fathers themselves. Most such precedents are so stacked on top of one another it’s like trying to balance the Washington Monument on top of a piece of baklava.

As for the term “militia,” relying on anything other that period observations is similarly misleading, almost certainly because later observations were often intentionally misleading.

According to the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the term “militia” as it appears in our Second Amendment means, quite simply, “armed people,” and mention was made in several period documents to include able-bodied men, women, and children capable of bearing arms against an enemy. Referring again to period documents, the term “militia” was distinctly contrasted against “soldier” and “sailor,” both of whom were considered regular forces, whereas the militia was considered to be a reserve comprised of all U.S. citizens.

At this point, the historical record gets a little confusing, only because different factions of our nation’s early leadership had two different thoughts on the matter. One faction wanted everyone to remain fully armed whereas the other faction thought it best to secure arms in an armory unless/until needed. Many others occupied the continuum between these two philosophies. When the conflict, which involved several other areas of interest, came to a head, those who favored a citizen militia prevailed and established not only our Second Amendment, but the the first twelve amendments, which were whittled down to ten amendments before consensus and subsequent ratification.

Well, this has been a short (very) summary of a 34-year on-and-off and back on again exploration into our nation’s early history. 🙂

For more outstanding finds, documents, and references on this topic, click here.