Our RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental to America – It’s an Inalienable Right

Our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right.  It was first recognized as such in our Declaration of Independence:  “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.”inalienable right

We have an inalienable right to life!  But our Declaration of Independence doesn’t stop there:

“…–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

Thus, our government’s purpose is to SECURE our rights, not take them away.

“…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

All power in our Federal Government government comes not by virtue of any inherent power in and of itself, bu strictly and only by the consent of the governed.  That’s us, people!  WE THE PEOPLE are in power and authority over our government, not the other way around.  That’s why they’re called “public servants,” not “rulers.”  They serve us.  Many of those in Washington, however, have forgotten this, but that’s a topic for another post…

“–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends…”

If our government attempts to restrict or abolish our rights, thay have become destructive to these ends i.e. the ends of SECURING our rights, instead of trying  to take them away.

“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.”

When our government fails, as it clearly has, it is our right to alter or abolish it in order to effect our Safety and our Happiness.  FBI crime stats undeniably prove that an armed general populace is a safe populace.  I and 150 million other American gun owners are neither safe nor happy without our firearms.

This message doesn’t stop at the Declaration of Independence, though.  It continues in our Constitution, beginning with its preamble:  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Of what benefit is an armed general populace, where honest, law-abiding citizens are armed?  First, we form the basis for our common defense.  Secondly, it is we, being “necessary to the security of a free state,” who “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  Even today, with a thoroughly modern police force, more than 50% of crime is stopped by citizens, and two-thirds of that by an armed citizen.  That’s WHY our Constitution was established – to secure the safety of the American People.  The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness form the cornerstone of the Constitution, just as the Constitution is the cornerstone of all laws and our system of justice in these United States of America.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t stop there.  They were concerned that perhaps they hadn’t made themselves clear enough, so they cleared their collective throats a third and final time, and produced the Bill of Rights.  It’s not a Bill of “privileges.”  Ours is a Bill of RIGHTS, second of which states:  “…the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Both the Founding Fathers themselves as well as the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (U.S. Gov’t. Printing Office document 88-618 0) firmly state this is an individual right, and not limited to “carrying inside one’s own home” as the Supreme Court so ridiculously weaseled on during both Heller and McDonald.  Nevertheless, in both those decisions, even they reaffirmed our right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

In light of the above, the message is clear:  We were designed to be an armed nation, and we are an armed nation.  It is our in alienable right, as firmly established by the many writings of our Founding Fathers, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, Congressional Reports, and U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.  I’ve thoroughly covered whether or not that’s a good thing in previous posts, but in summary, yes, it’s a very good thing.  Unless, of course, you enjoy living in a high crime/”gun free zones” like Chicago, Detroit, or Washington D.C.  Frankly, I do not.  I prefer to keep crime as low as possible, and our armed general populace excels at this task.

My Grandfather’s .410 Shotgun – In Elementary School – Armed Teachers, Anyone?

Years ago my Grandfather told me about his typical day in school, where he’d walk to school in the snow, barefoot, uphill, both ways…  No, wait… That was Cosby.  Ok.

Seriously, he lived in Iowa, and he really would walk to school barefoot, his shoes around his neck, because shoes were required for school yet were NOT cheap.  He was allowed to wear his shoes, with socks, if it was snowing or below freezing.  He’d walk in them on the grass on the side of the road (dirt road) because the grass wouldn’t wear down the leather nearly as much.  Unless it was wet, of course, as that would wet, then rot the leather, so when the grass was wet, he’d walk on the road.

REGARDLESS, he carried his .410 shotgun to school every day because that’s what he used to hunt rabbits, quail, and other game, which for him was just about anything, as he and his family was both dirt-rich and dirt-poor, meaning they had good farming land, but nothing in terms of money to buy things like shoes and socks for school.

Thing of it is, he and his classmates ALL carried rifles or shotguns to school, beginning around the third, fourth, or fifth grade, depending on when their parents though they were mature enough to handle a firearm.  Even his teachers were armed!  Armed teachers – what a concept.  Interestingly enough, the accidental death rate due to firearm back then was about 1/10th what it is today.  So! Is it an age issue?  No. If it were, it would have occurred far more often back then.  Is it a firearms issue?  Of course not.  ALL statistics, worldwide, have clearly demonstrated a rock-solid INCREASE in crime when a county implements gun control.

So, Is it a training issue?  Yes, largely, but when it comes to crime, no, it’s not a training issue, but it’s certainly a training issue with respect to those who’re formulating public policy.  Botttom line, if they voting anti-gun, they’re without a clue, just whipping off legislation left and right with little if any benefit from reality.  They need to pay far more attention to websites such as NationMaster, which allows us to definitively compare the U.S. with any other country around the world.  Therein, we can obtain a far more true and accurate picture than what the mainstream media is presenting at this time.

I hope they’re listening.  I hope they know that I don’t enjoy poking holes in their massive illogic.  I hope they know the only reason I do so is because America can no longer afford to put up with any of their illogic, that the liberals’ lack of any ability to think things through to their logical conclusion is what’s landed us in this hard spot in the first place.

Back to my grandfather.  He told me they used to stack their weapons in the corner.  Years later, I watched a John Wayne film about a grade-school bunch of kids roped into riding herd on some cattle.  In the movie, they did the same dang thing, which made me realize perhaps Gramps hadn’t been stretching the truth…  I made some calls to a handful of historians and discovered that the practice of bring hunting rifles and shotguns to school was very common 100 years ago, usually beginning at the start of middle school (6th grade), but often starting as early as the third grade, with the permission of the parents, and that yes, it was common practice to have both armed teachers, and for the students to stack their firearms in the corner.

As my grandfather was the youngest of nine kids, he’d had a lot of sibling tutelage at a very young age.  Given all of the above, if he said he was one of the kids who carried his shotgun to school when he was in the third grade, I’d believe him.  At that age I was flying u-control airplanes, building and flying model rockets, and had been slaloming on one ski for two years.  I shot my first firearm the summer after third grade, and taught my son to do the same when he was nine years old, same as myself.

So, liberals.  What the HECK is your freakin’ eyesore?  You’re brain-dead.  Go away.  Stop bothering me and my kin.

Given all of the above, and the rampant lack of school massacres back then, I’m wondering why we’re violently opposed to firearms in schools, provided they’re in the hands of those who pass multiple background checks, when our grandparents carried every single day?

“Times change?”

Yeah, right…  Read any Louis L’Amour novel and tell me I’m wrong.  Most of his stuff was dead on with respect to law and order in the old West.

Supreme Court Injustice Sotomayor

The U.S. Supreme Court, specifically Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has overstepped her lawful authority.  She is subject to our Constitution, not above it, and has no authority to either change the Constitution or ignore it.  Her oath of office states in part:  “I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Our Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Many previous Supreme Court Decisions have ruled the restriction against preventing the free exercise of religion applies to the every branch of the federal government, including the Supreme Court itself, as well as to the states.  Thus, not only is she violating our Constitution, she is single-handedly ignoring Supreme Court precedence.

With that thought in mind, I would like to share with you the following, and ask you how Justice Sotomayor’s decision to force honest, God-fearing Christians to support murdering unborn children does NOT violate our First Amendment’s restriction against prohibiting the Green’s free exercise of their religion?

I would also like you to consider, and accept the true meaning of the term “civil disobedience:”  It is an act of doing what is right, true, and moral by God, as peaceably as possible, instead of conforming to an evil in this world.

Finally, I would remind you of the provision for Supreme Court Justices given in Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution:  “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”  I would argue, gentlemen, that ignoring the Constitution, ignoring prior Supreme Court precedent, and forcing U.S. citizens to support murder of unborn children against their Constitutionally-respected religious beliefs is very BAD behavior.

Justice Sotomayor’s behavior since she took the bench has been a blight on American integrity.  She has continually sided with the other bad apples on the court who continually vote against the Constitution, and in favor of eroding our individual rights and freedoms while helping to build precisely what our Founding Fathers fought to avoid:  Big, Massive, Government i.e. a Socialist State.

Sotomayor needs to be removed from office.

In closing, I would like to share a link to the website which details the Green’s predicament, their decision, and the massive up-welling of support they have experienced and will continue to experience from the American people:  We must obey God rather than men!

UPDATE:  Only June 27, 2013, the full body of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made the following ruling:

In its opinion, the circuit court held (1) that RFRA applies not only to human beings, but to a corporate entity like Hobby Lobby that is wholly owned and operated by humans who share a religious belief; (2) that this HHS Mandate is a substantial burden on orthodox Christian belief; and (3) that it is not authorized as a measure that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest.

Note:  RFRA:  “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”

I find it very interested they held that it applies to corporate entities, as that’s precisely what the Supreme Court did when it gave personhood rights to corporate entities a couple of years ago.  If the Supreme Court attempts to undermine this application, they will then be forced by the American People to remove the personhood rights of corporations.  You can’t apply a legal concept one way in one situation, then try to apply it in a diametrically opposed manner in another.

 

sotomayor
Honest, God-fearing Christians!

It’s all in the eyes of our Constitution…

One of the many things I learned from aviation is that we see the best clarity and color directly in front of us, but our eyes our wired to detect motion in the periphery.

If you’d like to read more about the technical aspects, start here, with Transduction and the following sections, as well as another entry on Motion Perception.

So why am I writing about this?  Our brains developed in lock-step with our eyes.  We only see, and understand, what’s going on in the periphery if there’s enough motion in the periphery to cross a certain threshold.

Years ago, I was taught to look to the right of the road when driving at night in order to prevent the bright lights of the oncoming traffic from both killing my night vision as well as distracting me from peripheral vision cues.

The parallels for what’s going on today are astounding.

Charismatic behavior usually instils a sense of “over-focus” in those who hang on their every word.  The term “deer in the headlights” come to mind, where the deer focus on nothing but the the light, to the exclusion of everything else going on in the periphery i.e. the sidelines.  The visual cortex contains by far the most dense path of neuron activity to the brain, and bright lights in that channel of information tend to overload others.  Unless a deer is trained to recognized bright lights as potential threats, it simply stares at them until BAM!

Meanwhile, our visual periphery, as well as the areas of our brain most closely associated with it, are very well attuned to detect changes in the visual environment i.e. motion, but not much else.

So, recap:  Visual cortex (brain focus) sees colors, details, and patterns, while the visual periphery (brain sidelines) sees changes.

Knowing this, knowing how both the brain and the visual system are inextricably intertwined, how might someone who wanted change a society, go about doing so?

First, they’d have to over-illuminate the visual cortex, or at least the portion of the brain which responds to such cues.  Second, they’d have to minimize movement on the sidelines, as that might distract folks from their attempts to blind them, then run them over.

So…

Oh, come on, don’t you get it?  Obama’s headlights, those who can’t differentiate thereof are the victims, and one of two facts remain:  Either they are ignorant, or they’re duped.

The question becomes:  Who do we want representing our country – those who are duped, or those who adhere to the United States of America.  I think, at this time, that is all.  That is enough, that we all adhere to the United States of America.

Gun Free Zones – Fact vs Fallacy – A Letter…

gun free zones
What we see; what they see

A few days ago, following the recent tragedy in yet another of America’s many gun free zones, I examined every shooting spree since the end of WW II.  Of the 52 massacres over the last 65 years, ten were rejected because they didn’t fit the typical shooting spree and involved things such as deliberately set fires, bombings, and situations where the public was never in a position to return fire (such as the Kent State Massacre).

gun free zones
There’s only ONE way to stop a shooting spree…

The results with respect to the 42 remaining shooting sprees will astound you.  More than 75% of them occurred in so-called “Gun Free Zones,” which occupy less than 10% of areas frequented by the average citizen on any given day.  Statistically speaking, your average citizen is THREE TIMES more likely to die of a shooting spree in a Gun Free Zone than they are to die of a shooting spree in an area where people are allowed to keep and bear arms.

It’s clear that the whole idea of creating a “Gun Free Zone” does not protect citizens from firearms.  Far from it.  Establishing such “Gun Free Zones” actually triples the danger to the lives of those who must frequent those zones, whether they be children or mall employees.  The following graphic tells story of how the United Kingdom (UK) opened the door wide to violent crime by disarming its citizens.  Click on the graphic to see the details in the full-sized version:

gun free zone

Let’s face it:  The nutcases who conduct these shooting sprees may be insane, but they’re not stupid.  The media itself has clearly revealed the amount of planning that goes into most shooting sprees and the conclusion is inarguable:  Most perpetrators specifically target Gun Free Zones, almost certainly because they believe no one will be shooting back at them.

On a similar note, more than 50% of all shooting sprees are stopped, not by cops, but by law-abiding citizens, two-thirds of whom are armed.

Gun Free ZonesSo again, the question of why we’re disarming law-abiding citizens (less safe) and creating Gun Free Zones (WAY less safe) MUST be called into question at every level.

Nothing highlights the fallacy of gun control more than “Gun Free Zones.”  They’re the epitome of control, yet the most dangerous knee-jerk response by far.  Clearly, more control is not the answer.  Never in the history of America has gun control ever reduced crime.  In fact, Muslimtime and time again we see the same repeating pattern:  When gun control in an area is relaxed, crime drops.  When gun control in an area is increased, crime rises.

Jan 1, 2014 Update:  Ever since a federal court forced Chicago to process concealed carry applications, crime dropped.  In less than six months, it has dropped by more than 30%.  That’s MASSIVE.

These are facts, people.  I’m asking to you remain cognizant of these facts, and to base your decisions upon the facts, rather than siding with a bunch of hysterical, nonsensical, and ignorant rhetoric lifted from the whiny ramblings of a few emotionally-driven special interest groups.

Siding with FACTS will help keep American citizens safe.  Siding with ignorant rhetoric will not.  For the sake and safety of ourselves and our loved ones, let us please stick with the facts.

Thank you.  Even the Chicago Tribune says gun-free zones invite mass shootings.

Addendum:  The following letter from a man in Australia was supposedly debunked by the liberal rag SNOPES, but was confirmed to be true by a friend of mine who was born and raised in Australia and who lives there to this very day.  Like the statistics gleaned from the UK’s disarmament mess, the Australian government has learning the hard way that gun-free zones do not work, and when you try to create one big gun-free zone for your entire country, well, that’s just particularly stupid:

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent …
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent …
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns …’

You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it’s too late!

The Hidden Threat of Genetically Modified Foods

When it comes to food quality, most European countries tend to err on the side of caution.  There are MANY questions, concerns, and controversies over genetically modified foods, the most solid of which is that despite the fact that we’ve mapped genomes, we still have little to no understanding of what many genes do or how they interact with other genes.

genetically modified foods
Just Label It

We we do know is that modifying one gene for a desirable effect will almost certainly affect how other genes behave.  That may involve raising or lowering the threshold of environmental stimuli required to turn the other gene on or off, or turning the other genes on or off completely.

Since we have a poor understanding of what the various genes in a specific plant do, this may introduce toxins into the life-cycle of the plant, toxins which may not harm the plant at all, but which may prove to be either acutely or chronically harmful to humans.  It’s fairly esay to detect any acutely harmful chemicals in trials.  Chronically harmful chemicals, on the other hand, take years to detect, requiring very long-term studies involving tends of thousands of people.

How prevalent is this threat?  According to the American Cancer Society, “Environmental factors (as opposed to hereditary factors) account for an estimated 75%-80% of cancer cases and deaths in the US.” – p. 51, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2012,” American Cancer Society.  We’re aware of some carcinogens, but strongly suspect there are many more low-level carcinogens.  We also suspect that because of their high numbers and widespread use throughout modern society, they are responsible for much, if not most cancer in humans.

Cancer, however, is merely one of many human ailments known to be affected or caused by environmental factors.

genetically modified foods
Say NO to GMO

Our bodies evolved over millions of years to work in harmony with nature, including being resistant to most things in the environment which would have otherwise caused us harm.  When we introduce new environmental factors, whether they be in the form of man-made compounds, increased concentrations of compounds normally found in nature, or genetically modified foods, we have introduced an unknown factor.

The bottom line is this:  Short-term trials do not uncover long-term health concerns.  Only long-term studies will do this, and it’s both premature and irresponsible for any government or scientific body to declare genetically modified foods as “safe” on the basis of short-term trials.

I agree with the graphic.  Just label it.  We’re not asking you to pull genetically modified foods off the shelf.  We do, however, reserve the right to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to eat genetically modified foods.

Avoiding the Urban Assault Nightmare

This urban assault nightmare should never happen here in America.  Unfortunately, it has happened, far too often, and often illegally.  This happens when the following three things exist:

1.  Congress refuses to remove the un-Constitutional provisions in the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).urban assault nightmare

2.  Obama refuses to remove the un-Constitutional provisions in his Executive Orders.

3.  Sworn law-enforcement, military, and civilian authorities refuse to honor their oaths of office.

Conversely, when sworn authority is given an unlawful order i.e. one contrary to the Constitution, and they do their duty and refuse the unlawful order, the urban assault nightmare will be averted.

Similarly, if Congress impeaches Obama, as is their duty to do so, this nightmare will be averted.  If they bring the NDAA in line with the Constitution, as is their duty to do so, this urban assault nightmare will be averted.

If Obama, brings his Executive Orders in line with the Constitution, as is his duty to do so, this urban assault nightmare will be averted.

This is why we have checks and balances here in America – to avert nightmares such as the one  depicted above.  Only two requirements must be met in order to avert disaster:  Adhere to the Constitution, and do your duty.  That’s it!  At it’s heart, our system of government is very powerful, yet very simple.

Ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  We have the authority, the responsibility, and the duty to tell a wayward government “NO!”  They have the responsibility and the duty to listen.

When people at any level, from the joe citizen to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, shirk their duty to support and defend the Constitution, and instead do whatever they want, the system crashes.  It is long overdue for everyone, everywhere, to start doing what’s right by our nation.  The best way to begin is by reading, understanding, following, supporting, and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.

Had our President and members of Congress done that, we wouldn’t being hurdling over this fiscal cliff.  Our economy would have been strong, and our national debt low.

Please think about this.  Think about why consumer confidence tanked just after Obama was re-elected, when it had been on the verge of making a comeback.

Thank you.