America’s Greatest Terrorism Threats

According to a Princeton Study using FBI data and reported by GlobalResearch, Islam is not our greatest terrorism threat. Rather, the left-wing extremists surpass that threat by a factor of FOUR.
American Terrorism
 
Meanwhile, right-wing extremists don’t even appear on the chart. People like certain actors who say, “I’m fearful of people with guns!” need to keep that in mind, especially while living in Latino-dense Southern California.  Their terrorist threat level is nearly double that of left-wing extremists, and SEVEN TIMES higher than Islamic extremists.
left-wing terrorism
 The “terrorist threat” from right-wing extremists has to be less than that of the lowest group listed on the chart: Communists. Call it 4%, although it’s probably lower than that.  Even at 4%, however, it’s still SIX TIMES lower than that of left-wing extremists, and more than TEN TIMES lower than that of Latinos.
 
Please present these findings to the next blitheringly idiotic left-wing “journalist” who claims that “right-wingers are our biggest threat.”
 
Our only threat to the left is on intellectual and factual bases.
 
Hey, don’t shoot the messenger. I didn’t gather the data. The FBI did. Nor did I conduct the study. Princeton University did.  Have a nice day.

Mass Shootings and Random Acts of Violence

I’ve long been a strong advocate of an armed populace as the best means of self-defense. I also believe it is by far the best deterrent and way to stop both mass shootings and terrorist attacks involving firearms.
 
Back when I first became interested in the topic of mass shootings, however, there weren’t as many, and at least here in America. It was largely relegated to the occasional insane person run amok. Aside from 9/11, we did not yet have to worry Muslims conducting their own mass shootings in the name of terrorism.
 
Now we do, and it looks to get a whole lot worse before it ever gets better.
 
Society has several tools available to deter terrorism and mass shootings:
 
– Intelligence (costly, even when highly focused)
– – requirements
– – planning and direction
– – collection
– – processing and exploitation
– – analysis and production
– – dissemination
– Security (the physical deterrence and protection of people 
– – Law enforcement (federal, state, county, and local)
– – Personal protection (planning, training, and weapons)
 
So, should we make it more difficult for people to obtain guns?  Should we reduce magazine capacities?  Increase background checks?  Reduce calibers?  Limit ammunition capability?  Create more “gun-free” zones?  Mandate the use of “smart” guns?  Increase waiting periods?  Ban certain types of firearms based on their appearance or general level of public trepidation?  Put a cop on every street corner?
anti-gun desperation
No.  NONE of these measures has proven effective in either deterring or stopping mass shootings or random acts of violence, and most of them significantly increase the cost of obtaining a firearm to the average law-abiding citizen who seeks protection.
By far the most immediate and most effective deterrent against both mass shootings and random acts of violence, whether the result of insanity or terrorism, is a well-armed general populace comprised of law-abiding U.S. citizens who are both properly armed and well-trained.
 
The greatest threat to our security comes not from the lunatics and terrorists, but rather, from those second-guessers, the Monday-morning armchair quarterbacks who are NOT well-trained (if at all) yet who for whatever blitheringly idiotic reason feel like they’re *somehow* qualified to force their opinions down the throats of an otherwise free and well-trained general populace, usually in the form of ideas that sound good but either do nothing or actually do more harm than the harm they’re supposed to address.
mass shootingsThroughout history, a well-armed/trained populace has always been the most effective deterrent and counter to mass shootings and random acts of violence.

Obama, the Global War on Terror, Violent Extremism, and the U.S. Constitution

Recent headlines proclaim:

Obama Facing Jail Time After It’s Proven He Paid Ransom Funding Terrorists

Is this true?  Has Obama finally run smack into the concrete wall known as the U.S. Constitution?
Let’s find out…
The United States Constitution states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
If Obama gave terrorists money, it would certainly appear that he committed treason.  The problem with this approach, however, rests in what is meant by the Constitution’s use of “Enemies” and how our government views it in their eyes.
For example, on May 23, 2013, Obama declared the global war on terror is over. Specifically, he said, “We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘Global War on Terror,’ but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”
 
In so doing, Obama no longer believes (if he ever believed) that terrorists are our enemies. Specifically, he no longer believes that Islamic terrorists are our enemies. Instead, Obama believes that “violent extremists” are our enemies.  Sadly, half of Congress shares his opinion.  But what are “violent extremists?  A quick look at the Department of Homeland Security’s website reveals the following statement:

Violent Extremism

Violent extremists are defined as “individuals who support or commit ideologically-motivated violence to further political goals.” Violent Extremist threats within the United States can come from a range of violent extremist groups and individuals, including Domestic Terrorists and Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs). DHviolent extremismS defines Domestic Terrorism as:  Any act of violence that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources committed by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group.
 
The statement in red is particularly troubling as it directly contradicts both state and federal law, not to mention the U.S. Constitution, that allows citizens to use deadly force to protect life, limb, and property.  It’s a typical progressive attempt at stopping violence by putting a daisy into the end of the enemy’s gun.  Sorry to disappoint the idealistic idiots out there, but that has never worked throughout the entirety of human history, nor will it.  Ever.  At best, it is mind-blowingly stupid.  At worst, it’s a death sentence to any population that starts ascribing to it in appreciable numbers.
Moreover, the White House’s own website contains an ominous 2011 report entitled, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent violent extremism Violent Extremism in the United States.”  Although he mentioned al-Qa’ida and its affiliates in the preface (written before ISIL/ISIS/IS reared its ugly head), Obama also states:
Actions and statements that cast suspicion toward entire communities, promote hatred and division, and send messages to certain Americans that they are somehow less American because of their faith or how they look, reinforce violent extremist propaganda and feed the sense of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that may spur violent extremist radicalization.
The problem with this statement is that as nice as it sounds, it’s no longer directed towards al-Qa’ida.  It’s aimed squarely at any patriotic American who agrees with our Founding Father’s reason for creating the Second Amendment, as clearly stated in the text itself:  “…necessary to the security of a free state…”  Put simply, Obama classifies anyone who dares to use deadly force to protect their rights and freedoms as “violent extremists.”  He even said so in the next section:
Protecting our fundamental rights and liberties is an important end in itself, and also helps counter violent extremism by ensuring nonviolent means for addressing policy concerns…
 
What Obama fails to realize is that “nonviolent means” do not work with people who are hell-bent on trying to kill you.  He also fails to realize that criminalizing the Constitutional use of deadly force by honest, law-abiding citizens is not only NOT the answer, it may very well be the ONLY solution.
In conclusion, it does indeed appear that by declaring the global war on terror to be “dead,” he was hoping to change the technical categorization of the Muslim Brotherhood and other known terrorist organizations from “enemy” to “whatever.”
In so doing, Obama was trying to skirt a charge of treason.
Fortunately, our country has a long history of “piercing the corporate veil.”  The courts don’t take kindly to those who attempt to escape the law on mere technicalities, and We the People take an even dimmer view of it, particularly when such individuals were elected to the public trust.  I, for one, will push for my Congressman to consider the acts of each and every group to which Obama funneled public dollars, deciding on their own merit whether or not these groups acted as enemies of the United States, particularly if they declared the U.S. as their enemy, and most certainly if they declared themselves at war with the U.S.  If this proves to be the case, as it most certainly appears, then Obama most certainly did, in fact, commit treason as described by the U.S. Constitution, and he should most certainly be brought to justice for his crimes.

The No-Fly List and WHY It Is Un-Constitutional

From Wikipedia (source):

Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”  The list grew in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, reaching more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.  By 2002, the two lists combined contained over a thousand names, and by April 2005 contained about 70,000 names.  For the first two and a half years of the program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) denied that the program existed.

What do you call a list that prevents people from exercising their basic Constitutional right of travel when it grows exponentially from 16 names to 1,000 in 1 year, and skyrockets another 69,000 names in three more years?

I call it a problem, particularly when:

A)  Honest, law-abiding citizens are placed on the list without being informed that they’ve been placed on the list

no-flyB)  They are not given an opportunity to defend the allegations before they’re placed on the list

C)  The first time they learn about being placed on

These aren’t the actions of the Constitutionally-based Republic we know as the United States of America.  These are the actions of Nazi Germany’s Schutzstaffel, literally the “Protection Squadron” originally assigned to protect Nazi Party meetings in 1925.  From Wikipedia (source):

“The Schutzstaffel (SS; also stylized as Runic "??" with Armanen runes; German pronunciation: [???ts??taf?l]; literally “Protection Squadron”) was a major paramilitary organization under Adolf no-flyHitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP; Nazi Party). It began with a small guard unit known as the Saal-Schutz (“Hall-Protection”) made up of NSDAP volunteers to provide security for Nazi Party meetings in Munich. In 1925, Heinrich Himmler joined the unit, which had by then been reformed and given its final name. Under Himmler’s direction (1929–45), it grew from a small paramilitary formation to one of the most powerful organizations in the Third Reich. From 1929 until Nazi Germany’s collapse in 1945, the SS was the foremost agency of surveillance and terror within Germany itself and the occupied territories in Europe.”

The key word that leaps out at me from this paragraph is terror.

When someone has to explain Due Process to another American, let alone a law officer high up in the federal government, then that law officer is NOT QUALIFIED for the position and should be FIRED.  Here’s a prime example:

Without due process of law, whereby individuals have the opportunity to answer for any alleged wrong-doing, no-fly lists are UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.  Here’s why:

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.  The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel may plausibly be inferred from the clause, as has been the case in several notable court cases.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause says that a citizen of one state is entitled to the privileges in another state, from which a right to travel to that other state may be inferred.  Indeed, in the 1982 case of Zobel v Williams, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the Privileges and Immunities Clause plausibly includes a right of interstate travel:

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner:  “Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause has enjoyed a long association with the rights to travel and migrate interstate. The Clause derives from Art. IV of the Articles of Confederation. The latter expressly recognized a right of “free ingress and regress to and from any other State,” in addition to guaranteeing “the free inhabitants of each of these states . . . [the] privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” While the Framers of our Constitution omitted the reference to “free ingress and regress,” they retained the general guaranty of “privileges and immunities.” Charles Pinckney, who drafted the current version of Art. IV, told the Convention that this Article was “formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present Confederation.” Commentators, therefore, have assumed that the Framers omitted the express guaranty merely because it was redundant, not because they wished to excise the right from the Constitution. Early opinions by the Justices of this Court also traced a right to travel or migrate interstate to Art. IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause….Similarly, in Paul v. Virginia, the Court found that one of the “undoubt[ed]” effects of the Clause was to give “the citizens of each State . . . the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them….””

In conclusion, without due process protections so that citizens are not put on the list until AFTER a proper vetting and rebuttal process, the no-fly list VIOLATES our Constitutional rights.

Obama’s December 6, 2015 Address to the Nation – SB Attacks and ISIS

Obama’s Speech Transcript – Key Points:

1.  I couldn’t stand to listen to him, so I’m glad someone posted a transcript in short order.  Makes my job easier and more palatable.

2.  Obama said “14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays.”

Wrong.  It was a Christmas party.

3.  Obama said, “So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home.”

That’s not the definition of terrorism.  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the official United States definition of “domestic terrorism” is found in U.S. Code, specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2331:

“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
– Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
– Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
– Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

The mass shooting event in San Bernardino precisely meets the definition of “domestic terrorism” under U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 2331.

Thus, in answer to the question, “Was this an act of terrorism?” the answer is a resounding “Yes, it was an act of terrorism.”

4.  Obama said, “…two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.”

Whatever road the two perpetrators went down, it wasn’t dark, radicalized, or a perverted interpretation.  The Qu’ran, the Hadith, and fatwahs issued by most Islamic Imams throughout the Middle East “call for war against America and the West.  The simple, straightforward, mainstream reading of the Qu’ran calls for the domination or death of any and all non-Islamic systems of belief.

5.  Obama said, “They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.”

It was NOT terrorism because they had “stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs.”  Although pipe bombs are illegal, semi-automatic rifles and ammunition are protected by our Constitution’s Second Amendment protections against any infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.  NOR is it terrorism because they were intended for use killing innocent people.  Criminals do that all the time, and they do NOT meet the definition of terrorism.

This was an act of terrorism ONLY because it squarely and precisely meets the definition of “domestic terrorism” under U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 2331.

Obama, your attempt to align semi-automatic weapons and ammunition with “terrorism” is a flagrant, unwarranted, and totally unacceptable attempt to deceive the American People.

6.  Obama said, “…terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino.”

He’s finally calling the 2006 Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism.  Only six years too late, but I’ll take it.

7.  Obama said, “I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.”

Islam is more like a mass psychosis than a cancer.  There is a cure, and that’s to ensure all law-abiding citizens and higher entities are well-armed and well-trained to put down terrorists whenever they rear their heads, swiftly.

8.  Obama acknowledges that the threat from terrorism is real.  Terrific.  Like we didn’t know that after 1,400 years of it.  His four part strategy involves hunting down terrorist plotters in their home countries, training and equipping Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL (ISIS), stopping ISIL’s (ISIS’) operations, and pursuing ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war.

Sorry, Obama, but what in the world does any of this have to do with stopping domestic terrorism?  Looks like “nothing” to me.

9.  Obama proposes a number of heinously draconian and blatantly un-Constitutional measures to “address the challenge” of domestic terrorism:

a.  Deny everyone on a no-fly list from being able to buy a gun.  This approach is patently wrong as the no-fly list violates due process of law, and without redress.  Being listed as a “suspect” of anything in no way warrants curbing their civil rights, particularly given the strong probability that Obama and Lynch would abuse such a list for their own purposes.

b.  Make it more difficult (infringe upon) for people to buy “powerful assault weapons…”  This tired old drivel has been debunked hundreds of thousands of times on thousands of forums.  The simple truth is that when you infringe on the ability of law-abiding people to obtain firearms, not only are you violating their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but like gun-free zones, you’re putting them at a serious disadvantage against criminals and terrorists who will not be following the law.

c.  Screening people who come to America without a visa.  Here’s a thought:  Deport them.

d.  “Authorize the use of military force against these terrorists.”

This last measure is perhaps the most heinous, as it would give Obama full authority to use the U.S. military as its Commander in Chief on U.S. soil, ostensibly “against these terrorists,” but certainly against any honorable U.S. citizen that Obama, Lynch, or their henchmen decide to label as a “terrorist,” or, for that matter, even as a “suspect” on a no-fly list.

10.  Obama adds, “We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam.”

That’s a shame, Obama, as Islam has been declaring war on honest, God-fearing people for 1,400 years.  I repeat:  They declared war on us, not the other way around.

11.  Obama argues, ” ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology.”

A number of objective third-party surveys reveal that more than one-third of all Muslims around the world support the activities of ISIL (ISIS).  Thus, Obama’s “tiny fraction” description is just pure bunk.

12.  Obama states, “…the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim.”  This is known as a straw man argument, a red herring designed to drag our attention off the path of reality.

The reality is that the two main factions of Islam, Shiite and Sunni, are as much at war with one another as they are with all other religions.  Their plight is simply a reflection of the war-like nature of Islam.

I have to give Obama credit for his point on rejecting religious tests.  However, the Constitutional reference for such involves holding office, not with respect to determination of immigration status.

Throughout it all, Obama FAILS to identify the single most powerful deterrent of violent crime in the U.S., one that stops between 650,000 and 800,000 criminal attempts each and every year:  The Armed Citizen.

As for his “coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people,” that sounds nice, but in reality, Obama, one cannot coexist with people who are trying to kill you.

Finally, I can’t help but note that Obama spewed forth his speech on December 6, 2015, just one day shy of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.  I can’t help but wonder what surprise attack Obama has up his sleeve that awaits us all tomorrow morning?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/transcript-obama-san-bernardino-isis-address/index.html

Iran, Nuclear Energy and Weapons, and Common Sense

Imagine Iran detonating one of these puppies over a major U.S. city:

Iran

This is a picture of a nuclear fission detonation taken just a few milliseconds after detonation.  The mottled surface is the pressure front of the expanding fireball, traveling at a rate of roughly 112,000 mph (50 km per second).  The temperature is over 20,000 deg Kelvin, caused by superheated compression of the air at the front of the pressure wave.  That’s more than 100 times the temperature of the surface of the Sun.  Nothing survives when it’s that close, not even solid rock.  The conical spikes on the bottom are “rope tricks,” caused by x-ray vaporization of the guy wires and instrument cables attached to the detonation tower.

Keep in mind this is a relatively small, 10-20 kiloton device.  The warhead pictured to the right is capable of 10 times that energy W80_nuclear_warheadand destructive power, yet it’s less than 1 foot in diameter and less than 1 yard in length.  It was first produced in 1981.  It was designed for deployment on cruise missiles and according to Wikipedia, it’s “the warhead used in the majority of nuclear-armed US Air Force ALCM and ACM missiles, and their US Navy counterpart, the BGM-109 Tomahawk.”

Fortunately, Iranian technology is nowhere near that good, so theirs would be significantly larger.  Unfortunately, their best scientists were educated in America’s best institutions of higher learning, thanks to the uber-left entrenched in the education possessing the strange talent of being both technologically brilliant in their specialized areas of learning while remaining incredibly stupid about more pressing issues, like whether or not an ideologically dogmatic nation-state is trying to kill us, and whether it would be a wise idea to give them even the slightest edge towards succeeding.

As Benjamin Netanyahu recently noted, Iran isn’t building nukes Benjamin-Netanyahuand ICBMs to reach Israel.  They already have missiles capable of reaching Israel.  They’re building them to reach the U.S., for whom they have avowed death and destruction for the last 35+ years.

This link takes you to NukeMap, a tool you can use to determine the fireball radius, air blast radius, and thermal radiation radius of typical nuclear detonations where you live.  If detonated over the Statue of Liberty in New York City, the world’s smallest nuclear weapon, the 20 t (not kt — just ton) Davy Crockett would destroy the monument and kill everyone on the island twice over, first by heat, and a second time by radiation.

If we increase the yield by a thousand times to 20 kt, the “Fat Man” bomb used on Nagasaki, and move the location to St. John’s Cemetary, halfway between Brooklyn and Queens New York, it will kill as many people as soldiers were injured in Viet Nam, and injure a quarter of a million people.

Increasing the yield yet again to that of the previously pictured device, more than a quarter of a million people will die, and more than a million will be injured.  Given the fact that terrorists usually don’t put all their marbles in one basket (witness the 4 planes used during the 9/11 attacks), I would expect 5 such devices detonated simultaneously in our major cities, and close to 1.5 million people dead and nearly 6 million injured.  The monetary and property damage would make 9/11 look like a pinprick in comparison.  Here’s what that the destruction radius of just one device would look like:

NukeMap
Now, consider this question from Fortune:  “Everyone agrees the Iran nuclear deal is historic. But the real question is: Historic in what way?  Will the agreement avert military strikes against Iran’s facilities, while also keeping a nuclear weapon out of Tehran’s hands, as President Obama argues?  Or is the deal “historic” like the Munich Agreement of 1938, in which British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler? Are we naively enabling a terror-supporting regime to become a nuclear power and setting off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? That’s what most Republicans, some Democrats and Israeli leaders say.”  Source:  Easton, N. (2015, July).  What the Iran nuclear deal really means.  Fortune.  Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/07/21/iran-nuclear-sharon-squassoni/

I don’t know about you, but I’m inclined to believe that a nation-state with a long and strong history of sponsoring terrorism should NEVER be allowed anywhere near anything “nuclear,” regardless of their acclaimed purpose.  If they want energy for the generation of electricity, let them go with wind, solar, and fossil fuels like most nations around the world.

And before anyone says, “but they need nuclear power,” consider this:  “Iran has the second largest proved gas reserves in the world after Russia, with 33.6 trillion cubic metres, and third largest natural gas production in the world after Indonesia, and Russia. It Iran - More than Half Sun-drenched Desertalso ranks fourth in oil reserves with an estimated 153,600,000,000 barrels.  It is OPEC’s 2nd largest oil exporter and is an energy superpower.”  Furthermore, fully half their nation is sun-drenched desert, absolutely ripe for the use of solar power.

Iran has ABSOLUTELY ZERO “need” for nuclear energy.  They have enough fossil fuel to last them 1,000 years, and enough sunlight to last them for 5 billion years (when the Sun is expected to have exhausted its stores).  They also have access to water and mountains along two long shore fronts, so they can store daytime energy overnight using hydroelectric storage.  Long before then, however, the world will have perfected nuclear fusion, which will long outlast the Sun itself.

Again, the mere thought of allowing Iran to have any nuclear facilities whatsoever, is incredibly, blitheringly idiotic.  While that may change in a thousand years, I wouldn’t count on it.  It hasn’t changed in the last 1,400.

The French do NOT have Unalienable Rights

This is but one of several reasons why the 150+ million firearms keeper/bearers in the United States of America ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to give up our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, it’s inalienable.

Yes, it is a right.

No, it is not a “privilege” granted by the government to a favored few.

Inalienable rights are just that:  Unalienable.  No entity on God’s good Earth has any right whatsoever to deprive any human being of an unalienable right.  Our Founding Fathers correctly recognized the proper order of things in our Declaration of Independence, signed in Congress on July 4, 1776:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Our Creator endows us with unalienable rights, not our government.  Nor are they limited to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Our Declaration of Independence clearly states that these three are merely among “certain unalienable Rights.”

Our Second Amendment’s strongest terms of “shall not be infringed” clearly establishes the right to keep and bear arms” as another unalienable right, stating the case with absolutely clarity:  “The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”  It doesn’t get any clearer than that, yet blithering idiots and control freaks sprinkled throughout our government continue to either think it means something else, or they ignore our Constitution altogether.  In either case, they are proving themselves unqualified for office.  You shouldn’t be in office if you’re an idiot.  You shouldn’t be in office when you act in a manner directly controverting your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

The primary reason the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right is that it’s directly tied to to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Our nation’s founders used arms to security our liberty.  Our nation’s military and civil authorities, along with We the People, use arms to protect it.  We the People use arms to prevent tyranny, the antithesis of liberty.  By securing life, liberty, and property, we are maintaining our happiness.

Bottom line:  Frenchmen are rapidly learning that without arms, the means to secure and protect life, liberty, and their happiness, enemies like Islamic terrorists have been given all but free reign.