Category Archives: 5th Amendment

If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

Gun control zealots love to get hooked on the semantics of the 2nd Amendment.

Due to the forefathers elegant writing that is more verse than prose, gun control zealots have harped on misinterpreted syntaxes of the 2nd Amendment for years.

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 gun controllers like to say that since there isn’t an “and” between State and the right of the people that somehow invalidates the intent of founders.   The intent being found in the other writings of the time.

George Mason: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Sam Adams: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”

Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed”

Thomas Paine: “Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them (arms)”

So even though the founders had just tossed out a tyrant and basically made a bill of rights that all be exclusively dealt with the aforementioned tyranny, somehow the lack of a word is supposed to undercut the intent?

If we were to extend this logic to the other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights we would have a very different country today.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

By applying gun control “logic” on the 1st Amendment we would have the right of free speech, press and assembly limited to only apply when seeking redress for grievances.  You see, everything before the petition part was an “or”.  You have this right OR this right OR this right, then you can take one of those rights AND petition the government.

Remember, this is gun control “logic”.

So, unless you are petitioning the government for redress of grievances, your right to free speech or assembly or the press or religion would be able to be restricted to the point of prohibition.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

No mention of apartments in the 3rd Amendment.  Therefore the government has the rights to shack up as many soldiers in your apartment as they want.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces

It only says land, it doesn’t say land forces therefore anyone can be held to answer for a crime without due process if it occurs on land.  Therefore the 5th Amendment only applies to crimes taken while either on an airplane or while falling off a cliff.  And since there weren’t airplanes back in the 1700’s and since gun controllers say at best we have a right to a ball and powder musket then the founding fathers meant to enumerate in the constitution a provision to protect the rights of people accused of committing crimes while falling off a cliff.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Since the it’s “and” and not “and/or” between cruel and unusual punishments the 8th Amendment allows punishments that can be either cruel or unusual so long as they are not both.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Just like the previous amendment this one has “or” instead of an “and/or” and as such allows for certain rights to be denied AND disparaged against, so long as both are done when you apply the gun controllers logic to the 9th Amendment.

By applying gun control “logic” to other amendments of the Constitution illustrates how ridiculous it is.  Yet gun control zealots still like to argue that somehow, despite the historical evidence of intent, that the founders somehow wanted to limit the right to keep and bear arms to the military.

But back in reality I argue that the intention of the founders was clear and clearest with regards to the 2nd Amendment.  Not only are there the writings of the day that argue for the personal keeping and bearing of arms but also the anecdotal fact that these colonists OVERTHREW A TYRANT.  They didn’t do it by not quartering soldiers, they did it by the use of arms.

They felt so strongly about it that they included in the 2nd the strongest wording they could and a phrase that is not found anywhere else in the Constitution.

Shall not be infringed

Lies My Government Tells Me

Lies My Government Tells Me

With the recent signing of the UN Arms Treaty and its potential to undermine American sovereignty in regards to the 2nd Amendment, Sec. of State John Kerry and the Obama Administration has assured the public that they are not going after guns.  History, both recent and spanned, tell us that taking the government’s word in regards to “what will and will not happen” is tenuous at best.

Here is a list of just some of the lies our government tells us.

Social Security.  Putting aside promises that may have been made by FDR that the number would not be used for identification or that the program would be voluntary (yeah right) there are concrete promises that have been quickly tossed out.  Did you know that when the government was trying to cram the social security ponzi scheme down the American throats they made a lot of promises and even made PAMPHLETS detailing them.  For instance:

After the first 3 year–that is to say, beginning in 1940–you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then, beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.

Then there is this gem:

What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way.

Considering I am more than 3 decades away from collecting social security yet by the Congressional Budget Office’s own calculations social security will be out of money in 2023, I wonder if the government will live up to its promise that I will get more than I paid into it.  Eventually all ponzi schemes fail and social security is no different.

Speaking of money given to the government under false flags, as a Pennsylvanian I pay a funny little tax that the rest of the country may not know about.  Do to the tragedy and damage from a flood Pennsylvanians pay the “temporary” Johnstown Flood Relief Tax.  Now, don’t think me heartless because it is good to help those who have been victim of a terrible natural disaster…except the Johnstown Flood occurred in 1936!!!

I find that the term “temporary” is just fertile soil for the government to sow a harvest of lies.  They figure that after enough time people will just become used to it and forget about the matter entirely.  I have 77 years of taxation as proof.

The previous examples just deal with money but the lies the government tells us have been much more nefarious.  I’m speaking of things such as the Tuskegee Experiments.  The Tuskegee Experiments was a clinical study conducted over FORTY years from 1932-1972 wherein the government lied to 600 black American men in order to conduct experiments on syphilis.  The poor black sharecroppers were told they were receiving free health care yet were unwilling guinea pigs of the researchers.  Syphilis is CURABLE with penicillin yet these men were not told they had syphilis nor were they given treatment for it.

Now, at this point you may say, “sure, but the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutionally guarenteed right, the government can’t lie their way to violate that.”  Not so.  The 5th and 14th Amendments BOTH have protections of due process yet in 1942 over 80,000 US CITIZENS were rounded up and locked up in internment camps just because they had Japanese ancestors.  The lie there is that Due Process and any other right enumerated in the Constitution is sacrosanct. and cannot be violated on the governments whim.  It’s just not true.

These civil rights violations aren’t relegated to the history books either.  One need look no further than the past year in order to choke on all the lies that the government has been forcing down our throats with the NSA spying on every American.  At first it didn’t happen, then it was only non-US citizen terrorists, then only US citizens with terrorist ties.  Now, with the lies falling apart the truth emerges and we are all being spied upon.  So much for the 4th Amendment.

Of course these are only a few of the lies, ones that highlight the lies that have deprived us of money, liberty and life.  The lies that have gotten us into wars, that have kept officials in office, and the ones we do not even know about are more prevalent than I have time or want to list.

So no, I do not accept the lies coming from the Administration when they say the UN Arms Treaty will not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.  The US government has a long list of lies and this is just another on to add to the pile.  The UN Arms Treaty has the groundwork to undermine the 2nd Amendment utterly.  Here’s how:

The most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

We’ve been paying for a flood for 77 years…who knows how long we would have to pay if this international influence is allowed to take root.

Between the taxes, civil rights violations, inhumane experiments why would anyone take the government at their word?

9/11/13 : Twelve years of letting the terrorists win

9/11/13 : Twelve years of letting the terrorists win

I’m going to sidestep the normal gun heavy discussion I tend to have and focus on my Libertarian roots.

I cannot help but look at the past twelve years and see all that we lost.  Starting with the 2700+ killed in New York, the 343 fire fighters who died in the line of duty, those in the pentagon and those in the plane that struck it.

Then I think of Flight 93 and the heroes on board.  The first and the last victory the people of this country had against the war on terror.

Because everything afterward has been a continued and steady victory for terrorism.

See, when terrorists commit to something, dying is pretty much a moot point.  Therefore killing them doesn’t actually change the scoreboard.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for killing terrorists, but that is just a show to cover the continuing defeats that we have faced over the past 12 years here at home.

“What defeats” you say?  “We haven’t had anymore buildings get blown up or planes get knocked down” you exclaim.

No.  We’ve taken the fight to the terrorist and we haven’t had buildings blown up, planes taken down by shoe bombers or underwear bombers or chemical/nuclear/biological attacks.  Those attacks are on broad scales and easily defined.

We, as Americans have been losing by small degrees.

Those degrees have culminated in the loss of our way of life.

“We’re told to go on living our lives as usual, because to do otherwise is to let the terrorists win”

“If Americans begin to yield their own freedoms at home, the terrorists have won.”

“Our response to terrorism should be carefully measured. If our First Amendment rights suffer as a result of a terrorist attack the terrorists have indeed, won.”

Any of these sound familiar?

Unfortunately, it was then that President Bush made his biggest blunder.  The Patriot Act.  And most of the county, like willing supplicants begging for alms to quiet their fears lapped it up.

I’ve no doubt Mr. Bush had good intentions with the Patriot Act, the TSA, Homeland Security and all the rest.  But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So now we find ourselves in a country, led by President Obama who has expanded on Bush’s mistake and we find ourselves with no privacy, no free travel, no 4th Amendment rights, at the whims of federal and local authorities to shred the constitution on a whim all for the dog and pony show of combating terror and to keep us (the sheep) safe.

Ben Franklin, founding father and all around genius once put his thoughts on the matter so eloquently that they cannot be improved upon by saying:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

To anyone who was molested by a TSA agent, thrown in cuffs “just cuz” in NYC, or had the IRS try and ruin their lives because of what they wrote on the internet; I’m sure you have a very personal take on what this blanket of safety really feels like.

We have been losing the war on terror for the past 12 years because we have been losing our way of life.  Bush started it but Obama has made it so much worse.

Unfortunately, it seems only Libertarians are willing to acknowledge the fact that both major parties have had their hand to play in this, so R’s and D’s just keep fiddling with each other while the Constitution burns.

If remembrance of 9/11 makes you sad it’s all right, it was a tragedy and pain should be tinged with the memory.  For me, looking at what my country has become over the last 12 years holds the same.

Lost rights…lost freedoms…lost liberty…

I just hope that it is not too late and the war is not lost.  I hope that the sleeping giant that is America (and not its government) rouses from its slumber and smashes the chains of its own imprisonment before they are shackled too tightly.

9/11 is a day of sadness…but also a day of hope.

Come on America…let’s roll.

I guess having to shoot someone who looks like the President’s pretend son means you face double jeopardy

I guess having to shoot someone who looks like the President’s pretend son means you face double jeopardy

I wanted the weekend to see where things were going to shake out with the whole Zimmerman not-guilty verdict.  As you may know if you are a regular follower of this blog that I believe that Zimmerman acted within the constraints of the law when he shot an aggressor who was trying to murder him.

Whether the events that led to that moment were of the best choosing, I withhold judgment one way or the other.  But, I do not believe Zimmerman threw the first punch and I do believe that he had one two choices when he was pinned to the ground, either get beaten to death or shoot.

A jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges despite the best efforts of a Judge who was completely in the tank for the prosecution as well as pressure from DC in the form of the Department of Justice rallying people against George Zimmerman.

Think about for a moment.  The Department of JUSTICE facilitated mob rule in order to swing public opinion in a trial that was still in process.  Justice may be blind but apparently the DOJ can still see colors.

Which brings us to Obama and his flunkies “respecting the jury’s verdict” by pushing to retry George Zimmerman.  I guess when you don’t like the result and banked a lot of political capital on lynching the Latino kid because the guy assaulting him “looked like your hypothetical son” respect for double jeopardy and the constitution in general takes a hike.

But then again, is anyone surprised at this point that Obama uses the Constitution to wipe his own ass?

Obama and his cabal of race baiting sycophants are mulling whether to try Zimmerman again for the same crime with different wording.  Saying that, even though the jury acquitted him of 2nd Degree murder (the one that specifically means that his acts were imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life) somehow Martin’s civil rights were violated because Zimmerman is a racist.

Double Jeopardy is supposed to protect us from EXACTLY this type of thing.  Because make no mistake, this is simply the powers that be not liking a verdict and wanting to try again until they get the conviction they crave.

Here’s what a petition from the NAACP had to say as they implores the Justice Department to act:

“Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act” 

That cannot be read any other way than to mean, “We didn’t like the outcome, keep trying him again until he’s guilty”.

I mean, this is middle east dictatorship type action here.  At what point does the legal system just completely become a dog and pony show with the outcome predetermined and the only question is how many trials it will take to get there?

Fortunately for Zimmerman, with being found not guilty he at least won’t have to fear a civil suit from the Martin family as the “Stand your ground law” gives him immunity with regards to paying damages through a civil suit. But that doesn’t mean he won’t be bankrupt by a malicious federal civil rights case.

If anyone should be suing and seeking a civil trial it is George Zimmerman.  After watching the circus of a trial that the prosecution presented, in which 80 percent of their witnesses were vouching for Zimmerman, it seems clear that this is a case of malicious prosecution brought on by political pressures and as such Zimmerman should be reimbursed for his legal fees and HIS civil rights being violated.

The taxpayers may all ready be on the hook for his legal fees (thank Obama) but this whole trial was a political farce and Zimmerman was the victim of it.  As such he should seek to have the time that was wasted and the stress that was placed on him justly compensated.

And let’s not forget the NBC selectively altering the 911 tape completely taking what he said out of context to make Zimmerman look like a racist.

Perhaps that is asking too much though.  With a media who all ready had him strung up before he was even arrested, a President who basically said Zimmerman murdered his son, a Justice department who will circumvent justice in order to get their way and a myriad of race baiters who propagate the myth this had anything to do with race…is this still America?

I won’t even get into the hypocrisy of what if Zimmerman was black and Martin was Latino.  See, I would still be on the side of Zimmerman because he was being beaten to death.  The NAACP, Obama, Holder et al would be on his side then because he was black.

Pathetic really.

I guess the caveat here for gun owners is that if you find yourself being beaten to death (or any life or death situation where you have to shoot) and you have to shoot…hope that the perpetrator isn’t black.  In the Obamanation Justice isn’t blind…it sees color just fine, facts and truth be damned.

And I still stand by my theory that if George Zimmerman went by Jorge Mesa, this story is covered by NO ONE.  Thanks race baiting media.