The tyrants are in charge, and they want your guns.
While the left has denied it for decades, anyone who pays attention knows that the ill-named “progressives” want to totally eliminate the Second Amendment. Period. The so-called “red flag” laws popping up around the country, as well as the gun-hating zealot nominated by Biden to head the ATF, are just two examples of Marxism’s accelerated drive to disarm law-abiding citizens. It won’t be long before the Democrats attempt to push through a gun registration law, always the final step before total confiscation.
We can’t allow this to happen. We can hope that Republicans in Congress, aided by a handful of rational Democrats (assuming there are any left), will make a stand…but don’t hold your breath.
In the history of this Republic, there has never been a time when protecting our right to keep and bear arms was more important. Whether it’s the Biden administration’s open borders, the defunding of local law enforcement, the massive retirement numbers at police agencies, the skyrocketing crime rates in urban America, or the violation of individual rights that we have long taken for granted, the Second Amendment is the final roadblock against total federal tyranny. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is exactly why the Second Amendment was created.
Liberals are quick to mention increasing homicide rates as their rationale for creating more redundant gun laws, but this is another left-wing lie. The highest modern homicide rates in the United States were recorded from 1950 through 1995 when the yearly total averaged 9.22 homicides per 100,000 population. The worst year was 1980, when the number hit 10.4 per 100,000. The number in 2018 was 5.9, almost half of what the homicide rate was in 1980. While there was a spike in homicides in 2020, many analysts attribute that to the China Virus lockdowns; the widespread and uncontrolled rioting; and the defunding of police departments, especially in urban hotspots.
Come and get them
If you dare
WHY GUN CONTROL??? Because armed people will not willing load themselves in railroad boxcars. There is an important History Lesson here. DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR WEAPONS FOR NO REASON.
In light of the recent ruling (6/3/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..
Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma
In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.
I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. 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.”
Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.
If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)
The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”
The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.
It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”
Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.
In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.
Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..
And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”
“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;
The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”
Clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.
I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.
William Heino Sr