Only an Armed People can be the real Bulwark of Popular Liberty

The title of this piece is a quote from a famous person, bet you can’t guess who said it.  Vladimir Lenin, ruthless first leader of the Soviet Union who disarmed the people because he understood what arms in the hands of a nation’s citizens meant.

“Obama Defends Forthcoming Gun Restrictions as Constitutional”

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gearing up for a certain confrontation with Congress, President Barack Obama defended his plans to tighten the nation’s gun-control restrictions on his own, insisting Monday that the steps he’ll announce fall within his legal authority and uphold the constitutional right to own a gun

“This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country,” Obama said, tempering expectations for gun control advocates calling for far-reaching executive action. “It’s not going to prevent every mass shooting; it’s not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal. It will potentially save lives and spare families the pain of these extraordinary losses.”…

Mindful of inevitable challenges, the White House carefully crafted the steps to bolster their prospects of surviving in court, and Obama said he was acting “well within my legal authority.”

“I’m also confident that the recommendations that are being made by our team here are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people’s lawful right to bear arms,” Obama said…

Democrat Hillary Clinton, who has already proposed closing the gun show loophole, cheered Obama’s plans, and her chief primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, called it the “right thing to do.”  But on the GOP side, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Obama a “petulant child” peddling illegal executive actions, while Donald Trump said he saw no need for changes.   (End Quote)

From the Chicago Tribune, “Obama says he’ll act on his own in coming days to strengthen gun safety”, 01/04/2015-

Aides to Obama say he’s acting precisely because Congress will not.

“We’re not going to be able to pass a law or take an executive action that would prevent every single incident of gun violence,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “But if there’s something that we can do that would prevent even one, why wouldn’t we?”  (end quote)


To address Obama’s use of Executive Orders to usurp the role of the legislative branch and create law, you do realize that these “executive orders” that affect anyone other than federal employees are way outside the constitution don’t you?  Executive orders should be just that, the Executive, or the boss, of the executive branch (99 percent of all federal employees) gives his employees “orders”.   Up until Clinton, there were few if any contentious EO’s.  Clinton opened the floodgate with unconstitutional orders because they could, no one stopped them, and as one Clinton staffer said, “it was cool” to be king.

The real lesson Obama is teaching the republicans is “see what you get when you refuse to impeach me, stop me if you can!!!”  The lesson America should be learning is to quit electing democrats.

The second Amendment states, “ 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 United States Supreme Court has only heard a handful of cases involving the 2nd Amendment rights.

In the 1875 case, United States v. Cruikshank, the court stated that “the second amendment means no more than that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”   In other words, the Amendment limited Federal powers but not states.  (This was well before the Supreme Court took it upon itself to attack state sovereignty and the tenth Amendment.)

In 1886, in Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that a state itself could limit or prohibit the formation of a militia.   However, the court did confirm that absolute right of an individual saying, “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States,” and “states cannot … prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.”

The oft cited 1939 case, United States v. Miller, involved two men who had been indicted for transporting a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches long in violation of the federal 1934 National Firearms Act.   The court sided with the Federal Government in the case, the defendants didn’t even show up for the hearing so the Court only heard one side of the argument.  The court concluded that –

“The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” 

The 2nd Amendment as a whole and what it meant was not directly addressed by the Court until the recent 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case.  The court stated concerning the 1939 Miller case, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment”. 

This landmark 2008 Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court has ever addressed the right of the individual to keep arms for self-defense.  The court concluded that it did, that handguns were included and that a D.C. requirement that guns must be unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked was unconstitutional.   This was a 5-4 decision.

The 2010 case, McDonald v. Chicago, applied the above to states.  Once again by a 5-4 decision.   The frightening thing to any liberty loving American is that this right, originally intended to never be infringed upon by the federal government hangs by one vote, one judge.   Purely from a constitutional point of view, the court should have ruled in the state’s (or in this case, the city’s as long as it was not afoul of Illinois state law) favor.   However, after decades of endless liberal trashing of the constitution, I don’t mind a bit of conservative activism.   Whether the Supreme Court could even address state laws is an argument long past…for now.  Conservative activism is a drop of water compared to an ocean of liberal activism.


Let us consider the development of the 2nd Amendment.  James Madison originally propose 12 Amendments, ten of which in some form were ultimately approved by congress and ratified by the states.  Madison’s original wording for the 2nd Amendment was –

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” 

The House of Representatives approved the Amendment on August 24, 1789 worded as –

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” 

The Senate approved the Amendment worded as we see it in its ratified form thusly on September 9th

“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 Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791.

What does “infringe” mean?  Infringe is a very precise word.   Do you think our founders just pulled it out of thin air without any thought?  Or, did they mean exactly what was written?

Infringe –  to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Encroach – to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

The U.S. Constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789 and the first Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) were added and effective in December, 1791.  As you no doubt know, the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation which had proven wholly inadequate to the task at hand, at forming a central government with litte power and influence.   What did the Articles of Confederation have to say about armaments?


Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states in part, following a prohibition on a state maintaining a standing army (land forces) in time of peace except to man forts necessary for the defense of the state-

“…but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress), states as applicable to sea and land forces and the militias-

“Congress may raise and support armies for a period of no longer than two years.”

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” 

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” 

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Now we see in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution a distinction between “land forces”, which clearly means a standing army, and state militias.

When we consider then 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.”   Why would this Amendment be added, considering the great debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that raged at the time, to prohibit the new federal government from infringing on the right for a state to have and arm militias when Article 1, Section 8 already practically required them?

Not only would the militias clearly exist and always be prepared to “suppress insurrections and repel invasion”, but the federal government was actually required to pay for them!   Congress was empowered to only form a standing army for a period of only two years, therefore, the federal government, the newly formed, United States would rely on state militias for general defense of the nation.   It would be a silly argument, one of many nonsensical theories advanced by liberals, that the 2nd Amendment was added solely to protect the states’ right of forming militias.

To “provide for” as we read in the Section 8 paragraph above, meant, “If you provide for someone, you support them financially and make sure that they have the things that they need”.   It does not say it is a power of congress to decide which state, if any, should have a militia, but rather congress would support them financially and ensure they have the things they need when they do!

Why would it be important for the federal government to ensure that the various state militias were “organized”, “armed” “disciplined” and “trained”?  The answer is simple, homogeneity and guarantee that militias were actually available.   In the event it was necessary for the militias to be called to active duty in time of war, everyone would be humming the same tune (or reading from the same page, or whatever idiom you prefer to use).   A militia unit from South Carolina should have the same organization, similar weapons, discipline and training as one from Vermont.

The militias were to be available on a moment’s notice.  How could the federal government “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” if none existed?   Not only were militias assumed, they were, for all practical purposes mandated.

Which gets us to the point of the 2nd Amendment.  Clearly that right to “keep and bear arms” was protected so that “the people” would be armed and prepared for service in a militia.   The actual “right” was -no infringement on the people keeping and bearing arms.  Forming a militia was merely an effect or one result from an armed citizenry.   There was no need to specify a “right” to form militias as militias were already provided for in Article I.


In the 2008 D.C. vs Heller case heard by the Supreme Court.  The court framed the issue to be settled as –

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

From Wikipedia, below are the conclusions drawn by the five member majority –

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.   The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.  The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.  Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.  Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

________________________________End Quote

Naturally, the four flaming liberals on the court disagreed.

Two years later, in the McDonald vs. Chicago case, the Supreme Court applied the above to the states, through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, reiterating that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense”.


This right was not particularly recognized in the Articles of Confederation which a simple reading only required that the state have a “public store” of armaments and Article I of the constitution only required that the militias be armed, which could have simply meant that arms be stored and available in case the need arose for militia action, identical to the minimal meaning of the Articles of Confederation.   We could reason also as an advantageous thing since the arms were to be the weapons of use by a government force, that these arms be state of the art, or at least the best available.

There is not a single word that can be found to suggest a single politician in America advocated the disarming of American citizens at the time of the writing and ratification of our constitution.   To even mention such a thing would have been a very quick way of receiving a good dose of tar and feathers, as well as end any political career.   Our founders absolutely abhorred the actions of some European nations that had disarmed its citizenry.

Why was the Bill of Rights added to the constitution?   James Madison, despite the fact that he was the one who ultimately introduced the Bill of Rights to congress, was a Federalist and was against the addition of the amendments and in his convention notes of September 12, 1787 when the addition of the Bill of Rights was discussed, wrote-

“Mr. SHERMAN, was for securing the rights of the people where requisite. The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient…”  Roger Sherman, Federalist, Delegate from Connecticut, felt the Constitution was good as written.

Madison did note just the opposite views of George Mason –

“Col: MASON perceived the difficulty mentioned by Mr. Gorham. The jury cases can not be specified. A general principle laid down on this and some other points would be sufficient. He wished the plan had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights, & would second a Motion if made for the purpose. It would give great quiet to the people; and with the aid of the State declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours.”


“Col: MASON. The Laws of the U. S. are to be paramount to State Bills of Rights.  On the question for a Come (to move forward favorably) to prepare a Bill of Rights”

Obviously, Anti-Federalist George Mason did not believe the constitution was adequate without additional protections.  Mason believed the Bill of Rights could “be prepared in a few hours” largely by copying protections afforded by various “state declarations”.  Mason also believed that the Constitution would be “paramount (superior to all others) to State Bills of Rights”.

James Wilson, Delegate from Pennsylvania and a strong Federalist believed that the powers of the Federal government were so well defined in the constitution as written that no amendments were necessary.  He believed that the listing of various rights held by the people should be contained in state constitutions.  As he put it, “everything that is not reserved (by the states) is given” to the new government.

George Mason, one of the leading Anti-Federalists wrote –

There is no declaration of rights; and, the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights in the separate states are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states…

Under their own construction of the general clause at the end of the enumerated powers, the Congress may grant monopolies in trade and commerce, constitute new crimes, inflict unusual and severe punishments, and extend their power as far as they shall think proper; so that the state legislatures have no security for the powers now presumed to remain to them, or the people for their rights. There is no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace…

This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.”

Sadly, even with the addition of the Amendments, our government has become what Mason feared, “a corrupt oppressive aristocracy”.

The Preamble of the Bill of Rights stated its purpose –

“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”    The amendments do NOT grant rights, but rather safeguard the existing inherent rights of free men, rights the founders viewed as given by God.

Enough states refused to ratify the constitution as originally written without an agreement that when congress first met under the constitution it would develop a Bill of Rights.   The Anti-Federalists feared a central government that would trample on the rights of the people, Thomas Jefferson being among them, saying, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”


In ratifying the original Constitution on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire offered its recommendations for Amendments which included – Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”

Virginia on June 6, 1788 – “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State…”

New York on September 17, 1788 – “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;”

(the Supreme Court in the Heller case mentioned these three states’ recommendations)


Despite modern day liberal attempts to rewrite history, gun ownership was the norm in colonial America.   Not only were guns indispensable as the colonists dealt with Indians and hunting game was a major source of food, the British government saved a lot of money by allowing the colonists to be armed, they didn’t have to garrison as many regular army troops in the colonies.  The armed colonists would, by and large, provide their own defense.  Nearly every colony listed gun ownership as a right and most actually insisted on it, as these armed citizens comprised the militias.

According to the website, an interesting article by Clayton Cramer entitled, Colonial Firearm Regulation reveals the following which contains numerous quotes from colonial documents –

Connecticut – “That all persons that are above the age of sixteen years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readines, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clark of the band.”  They were fined if they showed up for militia training without a firearm.

Virginia – every freeman was to arm himself with musket, powder and lead.  If he was unable to afford one for himself, one would be provided.

New York – Every male 16 to 60 were to be armed or fined.

Maryland- All freemen 16-50 were required to be armed.  In 1775 the Colony threatened a fine of five shillings if a man showed up for militia training without his musket.

Massachusetts – all able bodied men were required to be armed and even those excempt from militia duty were required to maintain a gun in the home.  Additionally it was required that boys at age ten were be trained in firearms.

New Hampshire – All males sixteen to sixty were to be armed or pay a six shilling fine.

New Jersey – All males 16 to 60 with exemptions were to be armed and show up twice per year to “appear in the field”.

Delaware – “All freeholder and taxable persons” were to be armed, although only those 17 to 50 had to belong to the militia.

Rhode Island – No specific requirement to be armed, but no person could go two miles outside of town with packing a gun.

South Carolina- No specific requirement but men were required to bring their guns to church!

North Carolina – All free men and servants were required to be in the militia and show up armed when called or be fined.

Georgia – All males 16 to 60 were required to keep a gun, powder, lead, etc and show up with them when militia training was called.

Only Pennsylvania had no such gun requirements due to Quaker pacifism.


As it stands at the moment, our supreme court oligarchs have affirmed the right of the individual to own firearms with some restrictions permitted.   This right given to us by our Creator hangs by a 5-4 vote of the court.   This is one of the most important reasons to never allow a liberal to infest the Whitehouse, they appoint federal judges and these, our oligarchs, control our lives and liberties.   Liberals always empower government and conservatives empowers the individual.

I think now would be the perfect time to update the 2nd Amendment.  Currently some 60 percent of Americans believe that no new gun regulations should be imposed on the people.  Members of all races understand the grave danger than liberal social policies have put us in.   The large dysfunctional segment of the black community, lawless hordes of hispanics, muslim immigrants and deranged white liberals all contribute to the angst of the population.  I call these that prey on society democrat foot soldiers as they serve their master’s purpose of destabilizing society “requiring government action” to deal with the problems.

The last time congress made an attempt to impose further regulations was in 2013 by Senators Joe Manchin (D)-WV and Pat Toomey (R) – PA.  Actually, although I would never admit it (oops, I am doing just that), the bill really wasn’t all that bad.  In fact, it was actually a pretty good bill.   I think we all know the truth of “gun running” into cities and states where they’re prohibited or sold illegally.  In normal America, individuals advertise their guns for sale in newspapers, local “trader” publications and internet local forums.   The druggies and other criminals have their local stoolies respond to the ads and buy up a quantity of guns.   The criminals bring drugs into normal America from whatever large city democrat hell-hole they venture out of and return with a trunk load of guns with no paper trail.

The Manchin-Toomey bill was designed to tighten up private gun sales, allowing only gifts or sales between family members and close associates.   It could have curtailed the current flow of guns into the democrat strongholds.   The bill crashed and burned in the senate.  It never made it past the threat of a filibuster and after several attempts to get some traction on it, only this past fall the senators gave up.   A majority of Americans do not believe that additional gun regulation will keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals, 56 and 58 percent, respectively.   The greatest reason Americans do not favor additional gun restrictions is that most simply do not trust government and many Americans apparently understand what the word infringe means and even if their proposed bill was to the good, it was still, nevertheless, an infringement on our rights of gun ownership and therefore, truly unconstitutional.

So, rather than infringing on gun rights because it may be desirable to do so, why not revise the 2nd Amendment to prevent government, especially including the courts, from trampling on the rights of sound citizens and at the same time address some of the supposed concerns of liberals.  I say, “supposed” because there’s no doubt that the liberal “intelligentsia” want America disarmed.  I would propose the following as a replacement for the current 2nd Amendment.

1)  Gun ownership is a right endowed by the Creator, not given by the state.  (conservative)

2)  Citizens and legal immigrants have these gun rights. (conservative)

3)  Fully automatic firearms firing a projectile equal to or less than a .308 caliber, defined as a firearm capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger or actuator, may be owned.  A permit SHALL be issued to any qualified person for a one- time reasonable fee, good for any number of these weapons.  The ATF may inspect these firearms following a minimum 7 day notification to the owner.  (conservative, although this bans larger caliber weapons)

4)  No government, Federal, State or local, may impose additional taxes or any sort of monetary requirement on the purchase of weapons or ammunition above the rate of a state and or local general sales tax.  No additional tax or any other monetary requirement may be imposed for the possession of weapons or ammunition. (conservative)

5)  The ATF shall maintain a database or gun registry of ownership, exempt from FOIA requests and data shared only on a need-to-know basis. (liberal)

6)  There shall be no restrictions on ammunition as to quantity and type.  (neutral to conservative, allows all ammunition types)

7) “Gun dealer” shall be defined as a person or corporation who engages in a commercial enterprise of selling guns.  A gun dealer will go through a process to obtain an ATF license. (neutral)

8)  Any gun that is stolen or lost must be reported to the local county or parish sheriff’s department within 24 hours upon discovery that a gun is stolen.   Failure to report stolen firearms when the owner knew or should have known is a federal crime.   Failure to report also makes the owner responsible for any post-theft or loss damages caused by the use of the gun.   It is the responsibility of the owner to register guns in his or her possession prior to the effective date of this Amendment in order to be protected by this clause. (both)

9)  No firearm manufacturer, gun dealer or seller shall be held liable either civilly or criminally for misuse of a firearm it manufactured, rebuilt or sold. (conservative)

10)  No ammunition manufacturer or seller shall be held liable either civilly or criminally for misuse or criminal use of any ammunition it manufactured. (conservative)

11)  No individual or group shall be held civilly or criminally liable for accidental death, injury or damage resulting from the use of a firearm for self-defense or defense of others that is reasonable*. (conservative)

12)  A background check must be made by the FBI before any firearm is sold, traded or given away.   Exchanges of firearms between individuals or other entities must have a background check made on the person or entity receiving the firearm.   The gun may be taken to a firearms dealer for a fee to do the paper work and perform the background check up to a maximum of twenty five dollars per firearm. (liberal)

13)  No limitations of magazine or “clip” capacities. (conservative)

14)  The provisions of this Amendment would be immune or exempt from any declaration of a State of Emergency or  Martial Law. (conservative)

These are my ideas for the new Amendment.   I realize my fellow gun enthusiasts will immediately attack me for the gun registry and the requirement for a background check for all gun sales or transfers.   However, realize this is an amendment to the constitution.  Lawyers using language that would make it as “liberal-proof” as possible to prevent twisting of the meanings would be deployed.   If we reach a point that the government “infringes” on these rights defined above, then we have much bigger fish to fry, like a total collapse of the government in progress or the government going totally rogue.

Most liberals, would get exactly what they claim they want.   The pipeline of guns to inner city democrat foot soldiers would eventually dry up, other than the truck loads brought in from Mexico along with drug shipments, but that can be dealt with by sealing the border.

There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in America possessing somewhere around 300 million firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition.   There are about 1 million law enforcement officers total, federal, state and local.  Since roughly a third of Americans (that admit it) actually own firearms, then that means there is only around one law enforcement officer of any type per 100 gun owners.

Obama and his merry band of America hating democrats have done a masterful job of totally alienating virtually all levels of law enforcement.   Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that even most federal law enforcement agents are America loving conservatives.   My point is that there could not be a lawful basis for inspecting (except for the exception of fully automatic weapons) or confiscating guns owned in accordance with this 2nd Amendment and any law enforcement officer attempting to do so would be in direct violation of his oath.  Few would have any actual incentive for doing so and all would have absolutely no basis in law for doing so.

There would need to be some sort of addition my recommendations to address “mental stability” in order to pass the background check and to attempt to qualify what constitutes “reasonable” use of firearms in self-defense of self and others.  Since the current thugs infesting the Whitehouse consider Christians who believe in the bible, conservatives, libertarians, nationalists and gun owners, as already having one foot in the “terrorist” camp, then obviously some thought and safeguards would have to go into the background check in order to prevent liberals from deliberately declaring rational and sane people too mentally incompetent to own firearms.


If Hillary gets elected next fall, assuming she’s the democrat nominee and not up on federal charges as she should be (Loretta Lynch under Obama’s orders likely won’t attempt to convene a federal grand jury and present charges), she may replace one or more of the “conservative” judges on the supreme court; Ginsberg, a liberal almost certainly to go and Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are in the 80’s.  One more flaming liberal on the court replacing one of the three conservatives or Roberts or Kennedy will end our second amendment as we know it.   Why not roll the dice and “fix” it while the nation will well support it?  Public sentiment changes quickly, remember it was just 15 years ago that sodomy was a crime in all fifty states, now recent polling suggests that nearly half our people are now on board with their queer neighbor drilling a hairy —hole and foisting this depravity upon a nation as good and wholesome.

The democrats only need four things to happen and ALL of our gun rights could be stripped away.  1)  The supreme court tipped in their favor, almost certain to happen if a democrat is elected this fall.  2)  A democrat president, 3)  A democrat senate (willing to finally scrap the filibuster, simply a matter of time) and 4)  a democrat House.  At the rate we’re going with the continual ongoing process of dumbing down young Americans and the importation of millions of democrat voters, that alignment is almost a certainty to occur within the next decade or two.   By having our rights so well defined and enshrined in the constitution as shown above, our rights could be protected for many more decades as it would take that long for the liberals to conquer enough republican (red) states to do away with the amendment.

Both Hillary and Obama have stated multiple times that they approve of the Australian style of gun confiscation, the disarmament of the people and most lap-dog democrats will easily fall in line.

“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. 

Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.”  Obama, 2014.

In defense of the D.C. gun ban, Obama stated, “just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right”!!! Can he be any clearer as to his intentions than that??????

“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.”  Hillary discussing the Australian gun buy back and confiscation program that disarmed the nation, last fall, 2015.

A 2013 Obama Department of Justice memo stated that –

“A gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation.” 

Obama as state senator voted twice against a bill decriminalizing the use of a handgun in self-defense in the event of a home invasion.  (In Chicago, since it was illegal to have a handgun and its use was also criminal, the bill ultimately passed over the Veto of the Governor, although it was still illegal to have on in possession in that city.) Obama is on record in favor of outlawing all handguns and semi-automatic weapons. 

What did the Australian gun ban actually accomplish?  From the website, posted on January 3, 2013 we read –

“It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. 

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in: 

Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate 

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban. 

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate. 

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

 In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent” 

And the democrats want to imitate this in America!!??

The plain truth is that liberal judges will do exactly what they WANT to do.  Liberals create “rights” or strip out real ones at their leisure.  Liberals find or deny rights in the constitution after examining their crystal balls, such as murdering babies in the womb, banning God from schools and the public square, healthcare or legalizing depravity by foisting the homosexual agenda on a nation that is repulsed by it.   To liberals it doesn’t matter what the constitution says or means.  It doesn’t matter what the founders intended or what the historical context was when the laws were written.  Parsing words is their specialty.

Liberals believe the constitution to be a “living document”, meaning that the laws and liberties it guarantees vary depending on what is “good for society” at any given time, in their opinion.   The Supreme Court is far too often merely an instrument to dictate liberal preferred policy instead of dispassionately determining the constitutionality of a law or government action, based on original intent.

Our guns are safe from government restriction up to confiscation based solely on the tolerance of 5 non-elected, de facto unaccountable lawyers immersed in legal theories, on “Judges” who want to shape America to conform to their own philosophical vision, who relish the favorable praises heaped upon them by a liberal media, who believe that they are a significant part of a ruling elite that must force the nation down a liberal path to attain perfection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.