The right to keep and bear arms is the cornerstone of our freedom.
The constant erosion of our right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Second Amendment of the Constitution is something that threatens our future freedom and liberty. Every citizen should be alarmed by this attack on this right that our founding fathers were wise enough to add to the Constitution. Even if you do not own a firearm and never plan to, you should still be concerned with the history of legislation that has been passed in recent years that severely restricts our rights as stated in the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment clearly states our rights and is not subject to interpretation. Any law passed that infringes on these rights is unconstitutional. I will not get into the history of gun control legislation but if you would like to read more about this tragic history you can go here. In words that clearly define these rights 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.
Could it be any clearer? Any law that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment was adopted by an emergent republican ideology founded upon the view that:
To deny arms to some men while allowing them to others was an intolerable denial of freedom.
English and American political writers stated that society and government rests upon the popular possession of arms, that arms are the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and that arms are necessary for an individual to protect himself from vicious fellow citizens, corrupt authorities and to defend themselves against tyrannical rulers.
The concept of a militia in the United States dates from the colonial era. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies. This rules out the argument by some that the term militia refers to organizations like the Army Reserve and the National Guard. The arms provided to members of the Army Reserve and National Guard are controlled by the government. This sort of defeats the whole purpose of one of the main justifications for the Second Amendment, to defend against corrupt authorities and tyrannical rulers. If the government controls access to arms the militia is basically defenseless. A key element in the concept of “militia” was that to be “genuine” it not be a “select militia”, composed of an unrepresentative subset of the population.
If you look closely at the relationship between gun control and crime you will see that gun control has done nothing to make Americans safer. Right after World War II many schools in the United States had firing ranges in their basements were basic firearms skills were taught to students. You could buy a firearm by mail and have it delivered directly to your door. The military would even sell firearms to citizens. An America where most of its citizens owned firearms was much safer and had far less crime than an America of today where its citizens are being slowly but surely disarmed. I defy anyone to provide statistics that prove that more gun control legislation and fewer citizens legally owning firearms has led to a decrease in crime.
The right of private citizens to keep and bear arms led to our very independence from tyrannical British rule. The militia that fought the British consisted of private citizens who provided their own firearms. The founding fathers recognized this fact, which is why the Second Amendment was later added to the Constitution. How far west do you think this country could have expanded if the settlers had not had firearms to protect themselves from Indians and outlaws? The military at the time certainly did not have the resources to protect them. A large portion of the United States would still be owned by Mexico if there had not been armed private citizens and a militia present to defeat Santa Anna and the Mexican Army. Our very existence today is founded on the words of the Second Amendment. Our future existence and freedoms likewise still depend on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
So the next time you see legislation introduced whose aim is to further weaken the rights guaranteed to you by the Second Amendment, stand up for those rights so that you will be able to defend yourself against the threats to your freedom that the Constitution empowers you to protect against.
Comments
By subrot0 on February 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I agree with the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is vital to the country. But lately its gone loopy. People want the right to keep and bear “automatic weapons”! What next, “a grenade launcher” not that’s not enough, Joe’s got one. I need an electric minigun. Gee, Amazon’s selling a recoiless rifle with free shipping and they throw in a box of bouncing betties.
There seems to be how much we can push the envelope mentality for gun owners. Its critical to have a Second Amendment, its also critical to have a polity that really understands the necessity of that amendment. The Second Amendment has degenerated into a ” I need a bigger badder gun than my neighbor.” That’s a detriment to the people, the Constitution and the nation as a whole.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
By RipRip on February 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
It’s not about need it’s about want!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Gunowner on February 3rd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Subrot0,
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from tyranny, including our own government. How do the people pose a credible threat to corrupt politicians who control militarized police if the people do not have equivalent firepower? Yes, the people need full auto arms with silencers and RPGs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Jay in VA on February 3rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
subrot:
I don’t know of any instances in the news that support your contention; also, I know a lot of gun owners and I don’t know any who possess the mentality you describe. Can you give concrete and verifiable examples?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Chris on February 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Subrot0, I would not disagree that there are limits that have to be established. Imagine the extreme example: personal nuclear weapons! Clearly not anticipated by the Founders, and clearly not desirable. On the other hand, I do not think there was anything in the early 19th century preventing a very wealthy individual from outfitting, say, their own warship with 32 cannons. It may have even been done; I don’t know. That would have been enough to intimidate most coastal towns; and it is certainly comparable to the threat you perceive from your neighbor owning a minigun.
So the answer probably needs to be somewhere in between. If one accepts that the second amendment supports armed citizenry in order to counterbalance or prevent the eventual tyranny of the state, then I would conclude that the armed citizen needs to be roughly comparable to the individual armed representative of the state. For practical purposes, I think this includes access to weapons and warfighting technology roughly comparable to the typical individual infantry soldier.
If I use that as my metric, I think we have that today. In a rough sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Edward Lunny on February 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Well, subrot0, your argument is someting of a strawman. Can you cite any legitament references to your position that “lately its gone loopy” ? Where and how has it ” gone loopy” ? Do your neighbors participate in the ” I need a bigger badder gun than my neighbor.” game ? Your premise has been oft repeated without support, so I’d be interested to see yours. That being said, since those whom can and do legally own firearms tend to be more law abiding than the general public, and since the vast majority of firearms related crime is perpetrated by those whom are not legally allowed to posess firearms, what is your concern with people owning automatic weapons ? Your position seems to be that the freedom to keep and bear arms should be restricted to only those arms you approve of, those that the government approves of, which, on the face of it, is exactly the infringement that the 2nd amendment prohibits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By seguin on February 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
So, subrot, if the citizenry isn’t supposed to keep some semblance of parity with the government or criminals, then what exactly is the necessity of the Second Amendment? Automatic weapons are carried by the citizens of Switzerland (in fact, it’s a duty), and they seem to be doing fine. I’m still undecided on the heavier stuff, but still – if it’s necessary for private citizens to have a mechanism to confront tyrannical government or foreign invaders, then what’s the point if they’re only allowed Daisy gun?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By aaron on February 3rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
One of the reasons we were able to expel the British was that the American citizens had weapons that were better than their opponents military. (Rifle vs Musket)
Despite the previous commentors misinformed opinion: machine guns and automatic weapons ARE illegal in the USA and have been since the 1920’s. Double speak doesn’t improve ones argument. It just makes me suspicious of one’s intentions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Scottie on February 3rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
subrot0,
Private citizens actually did own everything from privately owned and armed warships up to and including fully automatic machine guns between the time of the American Revolution up to the 1930’s.
It was only during the 1920’s or 30’s and Roosevelt’s “New Deal” government that the federal government began enacting gun control – and the very first one was actually a tax law. They did not ban a weapon because they were concerned about 2nd amendment issues, so they taxed it heavily instead.
As others have pointed out, the average gun owner is a more law abiding citizen than the general population, so issues of what kind of weapon are *allowed* are less relevant than how the person conducts themselves.
As long as they are not trying to commit murder, then the weapon they possess should be irrelevant to any government entity as they are not hurting anyone.
As far as I’m concerned, if one so desperately wants some sort of general rule regarding what kinds of weapons are *allowed*, then I would set the bar first at the kinds of weapons that a single person can carry and operate. This would clearly fall under a militia type weapon and would be conducive to a *militia* capable of fulfilling it’s role as a counterweight to federal military power.
Much beyond that it becomes more of an academic than a practical discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Scottie on February 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
aaron,
Full automatic machine guns are legal. You just have to fill out the paper work and pay the appropriate tax on each one.
You are also limited to weapons manufactured prior to May 1986 as the sale to civilians was prohibited after that date – but you can still purchase as many as your wallet will allow that were manufactured prior to May of ‘86.
If I’m not mistaken, the only time a legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime was by a rogue police officer many years ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Mack on February 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
The 2nd Amendment is about citizens possessing the individual arms and accoutrements common to the infantryman. Hence, the milita part in the amendment. Today, those arms would be m16s, m14s, ak47s, G3s, and many others. Yes, fully automatic, egads! I dare say m240s and M249s also. Nothing crew served, no nukes. Those could be controlled and registered; there’s your reasonable regulation. Perhaps grenades. Perhaps RPGs. This guy is nuts, you say. Well, harken back to the purpose of the amendment and be intellectually honest with yourself.
Anything else is an infringement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Ken Mitchell on February 3rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Subrot0; I’m willing to compromise on the Second Amendment, and your point is a good one; some weapons are too powerful to be left in private hands.
I’d like to suggest that crew-served weapons should be subject to “reasonable restrictions”, even though the Founders knew all about cannon, and there were privately-owned frigates in Revolutionary days. They were called “Privateers”, and the Constitution EXPLICITLY grants to the Congress the authorization to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. So the weapons that one would need in order to NEED a Letter of Marque must be presumed to be constitutional.
But in a bipartisan spirit of compromise, I am willing to allow regulations on firearms that cannot be operated by a single person. So keep your grubby mitts off my M1 Garand, my handguns, and the Browning 50 that I hope to purchase real soon now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Bishop Hill on February 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I wrote something a while back about how we in the UK might have gun control to blame for our alarming loss of liberty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Diggs on February 3rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
When the time comes, fully automatic weapons will be available.
The only question will then be: are you on the side that is familiar and comfortable with weapons and ready to defend personal freedom, or are you on the side that is scared sh*tless to be anywhere near a weapon and praying for the government to arrive to protect you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By willis on February 3rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
To think that there have to be limits, reasonable or otherwise, on gun ownership imposed by government, I say fine. Put your constitutional amendment on the table and lets vote on it. Don’t think your little town council has the right to abridge the constitution because its elected members think the way you do. Constitutional rights can be legally taken from us. Consider the right to private property has now been modified to allow the government to take as much of our property as they desire, between the income tax and estate tax. They don’t take it all, but that’s a self-imposed constraint, not a constitutional one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Fen on February 3rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“To think that there have to be limits, reasonable or otherwise, on gun ownership imposed by government, I say fine. Put your constitutional amendment on the table and lets vote on it.”
But first, he should be forced to register his ideas with the Ministry of Information and attend safety classes on hate speech, before being allowed to exercise his freedom of speech. Oh yeah, free speech zones will be altered frequently and without notice, so keep abreast of new changes so you don’t spend the mandatory 5 years rotting in prison.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By frankg on February 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
No, I’m not worried about the right to own heavy infantry weapons. I seriously worried about the creeping efforts of government and bureaucracy to define all firearms, in some way or form, as off limits to private ownership. I don’t know what the exact answer is, but absolutely believe in the right of citizens to own and carry guns. Plus, I have read of proven ways to greatly reduce gun violence (it requires punishing repeat offenders, harsher penalties for criminals who use guns in commission of crimes, and letting offenders know ahead they will face harsh sentences to deter them). We MUST stand up for the second amendment, and not be cowed by the false arguments that only cause us to waver while big government redefines yet another right DOWNWARDS, or into an impractical, vilified pursuit.
FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By John Plunket on February 3rd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
A couple points. First, vocabulary…”Militia” as used in the constitution refers not to an organized group but rather, as was common usage at the time, to all persons (men)of age and ability to serve in the military. “well regulated” as used in the 2nd amendment does NOT mean “subject to lots of good regulations”, but rather, again as was common usage at the time, “well EQUIPPED”. Second, keep in mind that there was no standing army in existence at the time, and the founders were vehemently against having one –although they obviously had a clear, fresh, first-hand understanding of the importance of being able to assemble an armed fighting force quickly to protect the people and our republic against tyranny.
Re-read the 2nd amendment in that context, and with the original meanings in mind –the ONLY meanings the writers would have had in mind– and its purpose and intentions become that much more clear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By John Plunket on February 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Also, keep in mind that 2nd amendment protects the right only to bear arms that are suited for military use by individuals. Thus, there is no right to “keep and bear” sawed-off shotguns, or some of the other weaponry mentioned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By SigChick on February 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
re: Subrot0 – Folks, please don’t feed the trolls.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Edward Lunny on February 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“Also, keep in mind that 2nd amendment protects the right only to bear arms that are suited for military use by individuals. Thus, there is no right to “keep and bear” sawed-off shotguns, or some of the other weaponry mentioned. “….. and where, exactly, does this foolishness appear in the 2nd amendment ? The 2nd amendment establishes no restrictions on the type of firearm that the people may keep and bear, only on the power of the government to restrict the stated right of the people. It quite clearly states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By subrot0 on February 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
First of all, I am a gun owner. I like weapons of all types. I had the good fortune to join the military and to use a whole lot of ordnance that made me really happy. My DD 214 says marksman, which disappointed my father. I fully support the Second Amendment.
Self defense is the primary purpose of the right to bear and keep arms according to the NRA. If you can’t frighten off a vandal with a handgun unfortunately you do not know how to use a weapon and I am sorry to say you shouldn’t own a weapon. A weapon is not a fashion accessory. Its a serious skill that takes a long time to acquire.
According to the NRA, about 15% of all firearms in the USA are semi-automatics. Both of my neighbors have semi automatic weapons in the house. One of them has a weapon in every room in the house with specialized bullets. Is that excessive? Yes it is. Is that pointless, yes it is. Am I jealous, possibly, but I wouldn’t admit to it. That 15% is extreme.
Yes I do worry about limitations on gun ownership but I worry more when it gets taken to extremes. It does not help the citizenry or this country when this issue gets so polarized. I disagree with Senator Goldwater, extremism in defense of liberty is a vice, most of the time.
P.S. My most profound apologies for the flames and trolls that start talking about a “well regulated militia.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Scottie on February 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Regarding “sawed off shotguns”, they do indeed have a history of military usage, and as such under Miller vs US would have apparently been considered by the US Supreme Court to be just the type of weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment IF such evidence had been presented (it wasn’t).
If in doubt about that statement, just go back to the history books – the cavalry in the civil war, and I believe again during the trench warfare days of WWI, used short barreled shotguns. Short barreled shotguns (as well as rifles) are currently in wide use by the military as well as the police.
As I said before, as long as the gun owner is hurting nobody it really shouldn’t matter what kind of gun he owns.
Regarding the troll….
At least in my neck of the woods semi-automatics are the norm, not the exception. Deer hunting where I grew up often involves multiple snap shots in thick brush in front of a pack of hounds, and as such semi-automatics are the weapons of choice. I rarely saw other types of rifles being used.
Based upon personal experience, I’d question the 15% quoted, and suspect it’s far higher – at least in certain parts of the country. So don’t make the mistake of assuming that what’s normal in one area is true everywhere regarding hunting weapons.
At any rate, it’s a false line of argument to include hunting in a discussion regarding the 2nd Amendment anyway.
Duck hunting ain’t got nothin’ to do with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By A. C. on February 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
One item the supreme court decision completely ignored is that just a few years before the Bill of Rights was enacted, the American colonies had revolted against _their_own_ government. The Declaration of Independence was such a big deal, because the signers recognized that this wasn’t war against France or Spain, or the Native Americans, but their own government.
The majority of the bill of rights guarantee protections against the _government_. If a newspaper declines to publish your letter to the editor, it’s not violating your first amendment rights. If the government told the newspaper not to publish it, then it would be. Your company can still punish you by firing you if you decline to speak about where the money went, the fifth amendment notwithstanding. The company can call it whatever it likes, it’s a form of punishment. But if the Government were to punish you _because_ you took the fifth and lacking any other evidence, it would be violating the fifth amendment. Likewise, the purpose of militias in the second amendment is to allow people to organize to defend themselves against the depredations of their own government. This is the one basis for the second amendment that the Supreme Court very carefully avoided mentioning in their last decision. It’s also the reason that we can’t allow the government to erode our rights in this with “reasonable” laws. The Bill of Rights protects us from Government first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Broadsword on February 4th, 2009 at 9:50 am
President Bush, for eight years,(‘SHRIEK!!!’) “Shredded the Constitution!”. But attacks on the 2nd Amendment represent “commonsense gun laws”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Alhefner on February 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Keep up the good work! We need more people who understand the Second Amendment to publish not only here on the web but in print as well.
Alhefners last blog post..The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and why it exists
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Ed Hudgins on February 4th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
What difference does it make to anyone if the gentleman’s neighbor has a gun in every room not to mention the type of cartridges in each? Is he a nosy busybody?
If the neighbor is law abiding and minds his own business. What’s up Doc. It ain’t your business to start with.
The neighbor probably made the mistake of sharing too much info or bragging out of hand. Too bad!
pfatz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Warsong on February 5th, 2009 at 9:12 am
subrot0,
One of the best things that ever happened to me was taking a little course, called, “Colorful Words, Inflamatory Phrases, Advertising, Propaganda, and, Brainwashing that my College English Teacher included in her curriculum. It was only one semester, but, it opened a whole new world to many people. The things you fear, like your focus on “Extreme Weapons,” fall into the category of Propaganda. There are no extreme weapons, only weapons that are too heavy or powerful to be carried by a single Militiaman.
You think in terms of “illegal Weapons,” when in fact, a weapon cannot be Legal or illegal, it’s an inannimate object, lacking the ability to have ‘intent.’ A proper definition that you might understand is: An innocent object in the hands of a person prohibited from owning or possessing a Firearm of any type, or, ammunition for a weapon (even one Bullet).
As to “Sawed-off Shotguns,” what most people don’t know is that it was the famous “Trench Gun” of World War One, and, traveled to Europe in WWII in the hands of many a good country boy. One thing that amazed German Soldiers in both wars was the Wing-shooting ability of those “Country Boys,” shooting down Grenades with a wall of Birdshot every time they tried to launch an attack.
In the Revolutionary War, and, the Civil War, almost all of the Cannon were privately owned, loaned to Militias in towns and Counties from Main to Florida.
Both Militia Laws were written to ensure a Militiaman had a weapon the equal of any armed enemy he might face, and, preferably, he should be better armed. The object is to win, and, he who has the best weapons, and men trained to use them, usually wins. The Framers of the Constitution truly intended that the Militia would be better armed and trained than the Government, and, only the Government (and their programmed subjects) denies that, now.
I’ve got David E. Young’s 830 page tome, “The Origins of the Second Amendment” setting within reach to my right (30 years in the writing). It is now an official “Supreme Court” reference work, and, I’ve read it from cover to cover. It contains every word written during the Period preceding the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and, every word Printed up to the day the Bill of Rights was passed, and, engrossed into Law. I have yet to find one quote in it that might be misinterpreted to imply that the Second Amendment is a Collective Right of any kind, at any level of comprehension, except as Individuals coming together to fight in a coordinated manner with their privately owned arms.
As to “Militia Arms,” a pair of Scissors can be used as a weapon to kill enemy soldiers, and be deemed a Militia Weapon, as can F16’s such as those owned by a private citizen, Warren Buffet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Sovereign American Citizen on February 5th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
For the benefit of those who may not have recognized that combining the words ‘right’ and ‘Arms’ ( as in- ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ ) is in actuality combining the philosophical concept implied by the word ‘right’ –always applicable only to an individual–and a physical object (objects) identified by the word-reference ’Arms’…
allow that I respectfully issue the following challenge to any thinking themselves to be in possession of a thorough understanding of the concept, and bold enough to make the attempt to–
“Define the word ’right’.”
“Like ‘time’ I say, everyone knows exactly what a ‘right’ is– that is, of course, until someone requires a thorough explanation.”
There’s no real shame if you cannot–just relegate yourself to be no more or less than one among the millions who really don’t know what they’re talking about.
Sovereign American Citizen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Sovereign American Citizen on February 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
A PROCLAMATION
Upon this Nineteenth Day of April, Two-thousand and Nine Years A.D.,
We The People, Do Hereby Declare and Proclaim Ourselves;
To Be in Agreement with the Spirit, Meaning and Intent of the Constitution which Established the Republic Acknowledged as that of These United States, and In General with the Spirit, Meaning and Intent of Constitutions Having Established Our Respective States within the Union.
We the People, Do Hereby Declare and Proclaim Ourselves;
To Be Peaceful and Law-abiding American Citizens and Hold every Honest Intent to Assent, Abide and Bind Ourselves to;
All Constitutionally-Permissible, Just and Rightfully-Enacted Laws.
In Honor of and Having Respect for, Those Patriots who Responded to the Crisis which Occurred on the 19th day of April in 1775;
In Honor of and Having Respect For, Those Righteous Persons who Sacrificed All Which They Had to Cause Tyranny and Despotism to Be Abolished;
In Honor of and Having Respect for, Those who Courageously and Brilliantly Brought Forth from the Articles of Confederation a System of Government by Consent of The People;
A System which Separated the Powers Within and Limited those Powers Afforded to the New General Government;
In Honor of and Having Respect for, Those Who Sacrificed and Died, those now Passed Away, Those who Served and those Now In Service Defending Our Nation from Our Enemies
We The People, as Self-Governing, Self-Regulating and Responsible American Citizens, Do Hereby Issue to All Federal, State and Local Governments;
All Branches, Agencies, Agents, Authorities, Officials and Representatives of The People Thereof and Therein,
An Order To;
Cease and Desist from Any and All Further Attempts to Infringe Upon the GOD-Given and Common-law Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
As Any and All Governments within these United States Derive their Just Powers Only From The People; and
Continue to Govern Only In Accordance With the Will, By the Grace and With the Consent of The People;
We the Independent, Peaceful and Intentionally Law-Abiding American Citizens Residing as Members of the Whole Body of The People;
Do Declare and Proclaim by All which We Hold to Be Morally Right, Just and Consistent with Individual Rights Endowed Upon Each Person by Their CREATOR;
Not In Any Way Granted or Afforded by Any Lesser Authority;
In Accordance with our Moral Obligations and Duty to Ourselves, Other Citizens, State and Nation;
WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT EVER RELINQUISH OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
As Testament To and In Accordance With Our Will;
We The People Do Hereby Declare and Issue This PROCLAMATION.
As It Has Been Said, So It Shall Be.
Anonymous
*****
A PROCLAMATION has been circulating on the net for I think about 3 years now.
As I recall, the idea was, in part– that it be copied, revised and edited if desired, and necessarily disseminated by all manners of conveyance, Email, print & etc, and in part- be sent to appropriate officials, authorities and representatives as well as posted on websites, storefronts, town squares & etc. on 19 April 2009.
In addition, it’s been suggested for those who don’t already, to fly the Gadsden Flag on 19 April.
Gadsden & Culpeper American Heritage Shoppe, Ltd. ‘the Official Don’t Tread on Me Outfitters has excellent quality, a good selection and from experience fast, friendly service.
http://www.gadsdenandculpeper.com/
Copy of A PROCLAMATION also available at
http://chris-horton.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Warsong on February 6th, 2009 at 5:34 am
A worthy proclamation, and, one to which I so swear.
However, there is a better one out there that supersedes the above, and, it is the new Resolution working its way through the New Hampshire Legislature at this moment.
It is written in the manner and with the wording of Thomas Jefferson, and, cam be found at this link: HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6
This Bill has been passed by the House, and, is now working it’s way through the Senate. It leaves the Federal Government in a position where anything they do that encroches or impinges on a Constitutional Right, or, any Section or Article of the Constitution will automatically sever the compact between New Hampshire and the United States (“in Congress Assembled”).
I would recommend that everyone copy, sign and send it to your State Legislatures (espescially the Governor) with a strongly worded suggestion that they pass a similar resolution poste haste.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Tim on February 6th, 2009 at 6:32 am
subrot0 says, “There seems to be how much we can push the envelope mentality for gun owners. Its critical to have a Second Amendment, its also critical to have a polity that really understands the necessity of that amendment. The Second Amendment has degenerated into a ” I need a bigger badder gun than my neighbor.” That’s a detriment to the people, the Constitution and the nation as a whole.”
Well if Our government can have these devices? Why can’t the People?
You seem to miss the Point that it’s Historically Government that ends up misusing these devices all over the World or against its own People, The Majority of the Time.
People can own fully automatic weapons now if they pay the fees and registeration, each Year. People own Tanks Bud. They collect them.Could these people make them operable if they wanted to fire the Gun on their Tanks?
It’s called a lathe.
Military surplus Use to sell tons of spent artillery brass. People gobbled them Up. WHY? Why not?
Some went to the Junk Yard. Much did not.
What People like you are affraid(paranoid of ), is that Good people would not stop mis-use of such extreme arms. We already do, yet People like you think we common people shouldn’t have them.
Back when access to such arms was more excessable?
there was ….Less crime. Less government scandal.Less fear of government for the need of such arms.
When our country was founded? The people(Not just the Gov’t) had access to the most Modern arms available.
See? You trust Government? Which could loose its mind and use a nuke on YOU out of Necessity, but not your neighbors to own military style machineguns, etc.?
Do you really think a simple Law would deter a criminal element, from possession of the arms you speak of?
It doesn’t.
I Pray Someday you will understand the reasoning & attitude of maitaining your own Freedoms & Liberty.
It isn’t up too Government. It’s Up to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Tim on February 6th, 2009 at 6:43 am
One more thing I would like to add.
Historically the most common denominator to the rise of Dictatorships in World History is?
What is it Johnny?
It’s Government disabling its people, from owning the most modern arms of the Day to protect themselves, from the rise of that very cruel government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Sovereign American Citizen on February 6th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Re; Warsong
Appreciation extended for the link.
With regard to HCR 0006;-Heartening indeed to see tangible evidence that certain persons still retain the ideas and ideals embodied by a system of representative government.
Since no-one has yet accepted the challenge of attempting to define the word ‘rights’;-
in the view of those who founded the most sophisticated and evolved system of government ever devised as that of our beloved Constitutional Republic, the Source and Origin of ‘rights’ is poignantly phrased and most elegantly penned in one of the most profound and moving passages ever written– as part of the American Declaration of Independence.
‘Sovereign’ as an entity, ‘American’ in Heart and Spirit, ‘Citizen’ by choice.
Humble, Indebted and Grateful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Trackbacks