The Declaration of Independence proves the Individual's view, it says in part " We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty (freedom), and the Pursuit of Happiness--".
" Nature's God " shows God created all men, but the gun made all men equal (equality). The reality is, the gun exists, and if some have guns and others don't, then inequality is present. The "Laws of Nature" state, that one has a right to defend himself/herself (within reason). Is the use of a gun reasonable? In light of the fact that criminals have guns, the answer is yes. One has a right to defend their "Life" with a gun, which allows for the "Pursuit of Happiness--". Keep in mind that "Freeman own Gun's, slaves don't!" Firearms are Liberty's Teeth! Guns have no equals as self-defense tools.
Here are some of my opposition’s views: Gun control advocates say, gun control is a humanitarian issue since it saves lives. My rebuttal is: if gun control advocates were such humanitarians they should be pushing legislation to ban motor vehicles, because in 1990 there were 4 times more deaths from auto accidents, than gun homicides of that same year. So I ask. "Who will give up their motor vehicle to save lives?" So why should gun owners give up their guns?
Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, when the Constitution was written, the gun only shot one bullet at a time, thus it was not intended for Americans to have assault rifles. My rebuttal: The musket was the weapon of assault in its time period, just like the AK-47 is today. Equivalent weapons for equivalent times. [Nicki Fellenzer] Additionally, if the framers of the Constitution didn't mean for assault rifles to be protected by the 2nd Amendment, then they certainly didn't mean for TV, radio, and the Internet to be protected by the 1st Amendment. The intent was not to ban technology.
Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. My rebuttal: Well, if you don't want criminals to have guns, keep them behind bars. Punish the criminal act, not the law abiding gun owner! In 1856 the United States Supreme Court held that a Maryland sheriff had no duty to protect a private citizen ("South vs. Maryland"). Therefore citizens must take on that responsibility themselves. Other similar cases: (1898 "Cocking vs. Wade" and 1982 "DeShaney vs. Winnebago County"). Gun control does not control criminals; it only strips law-abiding Citizens of the Right to defend themselves, in effect making the law-abiding criminals.
Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, children should not have guns. My rebuttal: I have one question and one statement. First the question; "Do children have a right to protect themselves?" Yes, they do! Now the statement; "I had guns as a child, and I grew up to be a law abiding citizen". The government cannot regulate a parental responsibility, because the children belong to the parents and not the government. --- The National Defense Act of 1916, (Title 10, U.S. Code Sec. 311 --- last updated 1956) say's in part, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age, and under 45 years of age...". Is a 17 year old a child?
Opposition view: Gun control advocates say, gun control will reduce the hazards to law enforcement. My rebuttal: Many times law enforcement is the problem. Remember Rodney King? Ruby Ridge? or Waco, Texas? Thomas Paine once said, "The balance of power is the scale of peace."
Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, citizens should not be allowed to carry guns, because there will be daily shoot-outs in the streets. My rebuttal: As of today 32 states have right to carry laws and your worst fears have not come true. Crime has actually decreased in states with right to carry laws.
Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, we don't want to ban deer rifles, just assault rifles.
My rebuttal: That's a lie, because the Violence Policy Center on the World Wide Web, has indicated their next goal is to vilify the deer rifle by labeling it a sniper rifle.
Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, why do you need an AK-47? It serves no purpose but to kill. My rebuttal: Why is it that, over the centuries of world history, the right to liberty, (that our Declaration of Independence declares to be "unalienable") has been more often abridged than enforced? Who knows what the future holds? Remember Hilter, Stalin, and Pol Pot? Remember the Great Depression of 1929 and now 9-11? Could they happen again? Yes! For these reasons, in order to maintain your "freedoms," you need an AK-47, because the demand for police to defend us, increases in proportion to our inability to defend ourselves. Thus "the right to keep and bear arms" is preventive --- it reduces the demand for a police state. (Joe Olson) The Framers left in place the infrastructure for Citizen Power.
Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, that the entertainment industry is not responsible for gun violence. They claim the 1st Amendment and say, "art imitates life." My rebuttal: They can claim the 1st Amendment, but we can't claim the 2nd Amendment. Even though there was greater access to guns in the 1950's, we did not have a problem with misuse of guns. Thus, at a time when there was almost no gun control on the books, we had very few shootings. Could the entertainment industry be responsible for socially conditioning our youth, into violent behavior? Example: Violence in video games, "The Jerry Springer Show," music lyrics, and movies like "Natural Born Killers."
Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, the 2nd Amendment is a collective right and not an "Individual Right." My rebuttal: If the 2nd Amendment was just a collective right, then why as an individual citizen do I own a gun? Is not the "Bill of Rights" the Rights of an Individual? The fact is, gun owning Individual Citizens make up the state militia. Individuals come together to form an armed force, in time of need, for example; the 13 militias from the 13 colonies in the days of the American Revolution (the minute-men). Again, the 2nd Amendment Right is Individual in nature, even if for a collective purpose. The militia members are Individual gun owning Citizens. Not the National Guard! (See the 2nd Amendment, Militia Act of 1792 and Title 10, U.S. code Sec. 311.)
Furthermore, for over the last 200 years, the American way of life has set a precedent with an "Individual Right" of gun ownership. It is a fact, that to this day, Individuals own guns, thus proves the "Individual Right" because, if it was not an "Individual Right". Why, for all these years, have Individuals owned guns? It is called past practice, in concurrence with the Constitution Protected Right. I have just proven that the 2nd Amendment is both a "state" and "Individual Right." (Historical)
I would now like to show you one of my most prized possessions, the AK-47. I defy my opponents to show in the "Bill of Rights" where it bar's civilian ownership of such a gun? You can't because I lawfully purchased the gun, with in the framework of the Constitution. The Constitution (Article 1 Section 8, Commerce Clause {so-called}) allowed the gun to be imported into the country, the state of Texas (Article 1 Section 23, Bear Arms Clause) allowed it to be sold. I have just proven beyond a shadow of doubt that I have a Constitutional Protected Right to own a AK-47, I say this because, if no Right existed. How was I able to buy the gun? Now I ask you. What gives gun control advocates the right to take my or anyone else’s Constitutional Protected Rights away? I have just proven for the 2nd time, that the 2nd Amendment is both a "state" and "Individual Right."
My view is better than my opponents view because, the 2nd Amendment in the "Bill of Rights" is intended to limit the power of the federal government, and not that of the states. It is the "RIGHT of the STATE," to determine firearm legislation (from current criminals), with no infringement by the federal government. (Constitutional protected right) The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from disarming citizens under the pretense of regulating the militia (Read Patrick Henry's June 5 and 7, 1788 speech before the Virginia Ratifying Convention {The Anti-Federalist Papers}).
The 2nd Amendment also gives the Individual the Right to own a gun, as indicated by the words "the people." Thus, not only does the "Bill of Rights" give the power to the states, but the words "the people” in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments implicitly imply a "Individual Right." Furthermore, if the words "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is not an "Individual Right," then what makes the words "the people" in the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion and speech) and Individual Right? (Language) I have just proven for the 3rd time, that the 2nd Amendment is both a "state" and "Individual Right." The "state" has a Right to regulate guns from current criminals, but not deny the law-abiding citizen firearm ownership. It is "The People" as "Individuals" who make up the "STATE", and it is these same "INDIVIDUALS" who will ultimately protect the "state". There is nothing that says a Individual Right cannot serve a collective purpose. The militia clause helps to explain why we have a right to bear arms, but it's not necessary to the exercise of the Right. --- Lets look at this part of the 1st Amendment, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” can individuals peaceably assemble for a collective purpose? Yes, and so can gun Owners!
So what is reasonable firearm ownership? Well, whatever type of firearms that police and swat teams use, these same weapons can be owned by Individual Citizens, thus creating equality between the Citizen and the law enforcer. Known as a balance of power.
Furthermore the government (state or federal) cannot make the firearm owner use "Smart Gun Technology", because it would create an imbalance of power. Do to the ability of government turning off or destroying the Citizens firearms, via satellite, magnetism, laser or some other means. Smart Gun Technology can never replace sound, common sense gun safety. All legislative mandates won't make guns safer. Such legislation may lead some people into the false sense of security and a lax disregard for the rules of firearms safety.
The federal and state governments can not tax, license, or register firearms, (or other gun products, like "ammunition"), because the only reason for such schemes is to one day destroy or take away the 2nd Amendment. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The 1st Amendment gives us Freedom of Religion, and churches (as far as I know) do not pay taxes, so why do gun buyers pay taxes? The 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st Amendment; they were passed together as equals. Taxation will lead to licensure or registration. Lets not forget, once a "Right" is licensed or registered it is no longer a "right," but a privilege, and a privilege is subject to be revoked by the government.
Finally, to those worried about concealed carry license, the main objective is to NEVER give the government the serial number of your gun (even if they ask for it), because if you do, you will be signing away your RIGHTS, and thus making it a privilege to own a gun. Privileges given by the government can be revoked. Remember a revoked privilege can not be challenged on Constitutional grounds, but a revoked Right can be Constitutionally challenged. Keep Your Rights, and thus your serial number to yourself.
My call to Action:
Protect your gun rights; join both the National Rifle Association and Texas State Rifle Association. Vote for pro-2nd Amendment candidates. Write your representatives in favor of the 2nd Amendment, and take "Responsibility" for your life, liberty, and happiness, go buy a "GUN".
In conclusion the 2nd Amendment did not get in the "Bill of Rights" by accident. It was put there to give the people the final say in our governments system of checks and balances. The people are the final check in the system, 1st by the vote, and if the vote is subverted then by the gun.
I would like to end my speech with Patrick Henry's famous quote. "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death, if this be treason, make the most of it."
Bibliography
Schmidt, Shelly, and Bardes "AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS TODAY"
West Publishing Company, 1991-92.
Adams, Les "The Second Amendment Primer" Odysseus Editions, 1996.
C. Q. Researcher from Temple College Library, June 10, 1994.
From the Internet, The National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc., Violence Policy Center,
The Department of Transportation, The Journal of Firearms and Public Policy, and Gun Owners
of America.
Questions for discussion.
1. From a historical point of view what was the Framer's intent?
2. Who is the "Bill of Rights" referring to when it uses language like "the people"?
3. When we look at the 2nd Amendment what does past practice indicate?
4. Is the "Bill of Rights" a living/breathing (evolving standards) document or a concrete document?
5. When interpreting the "Bill of Rights" does one give a consistent interpretation to all
Ten Amendments?
6. What is the difference between a privilege and a RIGHT?
7. Does one discount the 2nd Amendment because they feel it is no longer necessary?
8. Since we licenses car owners. Why not licenses gun owners?
9. As of today, are Americans more familiar with cars or guns?
10. What is a Constitutional Protected Right?
11. Do you know the difference between a democracy and a Republic?
Answer's to discussion questions.
1. Individual gun ownership, "the minuteman militia". The National Guard did not exist until 116 years after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Read Militia Act of 1792, the 1903 Dick Act, and the 1916 National Defense Act ( Title 10, U.S. code sec. 311 ).
2. The Individual, read U. S. Supreme Court: U.S. vs. Verdugo-Urquidez --- It is called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Privileges. Lets look at the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, (which are Individual Rights). In context of the 2nd Amendment, we secure "the right of the people" by guaranteeing the Right of each person. The 2nd Amendment protections are not for the state but for each individual against the state --- a deterrent to government tyranny, and not just government tyranny but tyranny in all its forms.
3. Individual gun ownership! Individuals have "Rights" and governments have "powers". Read the Constitution. For example: If a police officer turns bad for his own financial benefit (on the take) he has the power to murder me, but he does not have the Right, because the Lord gave me Rights (my Rights) and only he can take them away. Even though I am dead, my Rights still exist, just as the Lord exist.
4. A concrete document, it may disappoint many of you but the Constitution is not a evolving document. Just because people's opinions may change, the Constitution only changes one way and that is the Amendment process. If one say's the Constitution is a living/breathing (evolving standards) document, then I want to play him/her a living/breathing game of poker, by my living/changing/breathing rules. The Constitution can only be change Constitutionally, and that is by the Amendment process. (Except the Bill of Rights, read # 9) Go to Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
5. Yes, if one reads one Amendment with a strong interpretation, then one must read all Amendments with a strong interpretation. The "Bill of Rights" was passed as a package deal.
6. A privilege is something that is given by the government. God gives us Spiritual Rights, and in order for God to transform these Rights (to us) in an earthly sense, he also developed the concept of Ownership. Ownership is the foundation of American society. We own our Rights; they are born in us, and are only given by God and not granted by government. Rights are conferred through Ownership. The Constitution was put in place to protect those Rights, but it does not give them, just enumerates them. Only GOD gives them!
7. NO! But if you feel the answer is yes. Then who will decide what part of the "Bill of Rights" is no longer necessary?
8. Americans have a Constitutional Protected Right to own a gun (given by GOD), and no constitutional right to own a car, but if you want to treat them the same, it will not please the anti-gunners. Example: If I Own 50 acres and I want to drive my car on the 50 acres (that I own), do I need a licenses or even a licenses plate. Treat the Gun Owner the same. "NO licenses or registration".
9. Cars of course. In 1791, 98% of Americans were familiar with the gun. The 2nd Amendment has not changed since then, and cannot be changed, because the "Bill of Rights" was the agreement by which "the people" gave life to the Constitution (passed as one document). So lets make Americans as familiar with the gun as they are with the car. Thus, we will help keep America a Constitutional and Freedom loving country.
10. In the biblical sense,” Rights" are given to individuals by GOD. They are innate and can only be taken away by GOD. The Declaration of Independence uses the terms "GOD" and "unalienable Rights", and the preamble to the Constitution says in part "and secure the blessings of liberty". What is a blessing; a gift from GOD. Article 7 of the Constitution says in part "... in the year of our Lord...". --- The Constitution does not give a Right and has no authority over Rights, but merely protects those Rights (unalienable Rights). --- Rights = Property Ownership (earthly sense) = Responsibility = the same Rights of Others.
11. In a democracy the majority vote rules, thus only the majority have any rights. In a Republic there are some thing that cannot be voted on. Lets say a law was passed that stated, "males under 20 years cannot go to Church". The government must (should) step in and declare the law unconstitutional, because it violates the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion. Thus, freedom of religion is not up for a vote, as with all other Rights, in the Bill of Rights. --- Protecting the minority's Natural Rights.
Responsibility is very important as it relates to your Rights, because if you are willing to let the government take on (pass un-just laws) more responsibilities that you should be assuming, then you (we) have less power (Rights) and the government has more power. For example: I have just finished reading about "Lewis and Clark". In 1804, Lewis was hunting for food in the wilderness, in the ~area of present day Montana. He shot a buffalo and in the process, the sound of the shot attracted a grizzly bear. At about 80 yards Lewis noticed the bear coming at him, and since he had not immediately reloaded his gun, he ran toward the river, and went in up to his waist. At that point the bear was on the bank, but refused to pursue Lewis into the water. Lewis resolved to immediately take on the responsibility of reloading his gun after discharge. --- The purpose of this true tale is to help you understand that the grizzly bear can represents bad governments, (unconstitutional laws) or bad individuals. The problem is perception, humans can see that a bear will be willing violating the laws against murder, because a grizzly bear, will be a grizzly bear. In that same way, Jeffery Dahmer will be Jeffery Dahmer. Someone like this could be standing in line next to you at McDonalds. Don't be fooled by perception. I ask that you take on all responsibilities against evil in all its forms, and not leave it to bad government, (unconstitutional laws) or bad individuals, who will eventually grow into a grizzly bear if not kept in check. Be RESPONSIBLE it's your life and not the governments.
ALL babies are born communist, in that they are totally dependent on their parents for food, clothing, warmth, and shelter. As a baby grows into an adult and matures, he takes on more responsibilities and becomes more Independent. Thus, maturity could be defined as those persons who desire less government and more personal responsibility, and those persons less mature, want more government and less personal responsibility.
We hold from GOD a blessing (gift), this blessing is called God’s LAW. Each of us has a Natural Right ---- from GOD ---- to defend his person, his thought, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of Life and all three are equally dependent on each other. 1.Without the ability of self-defense a person cannot survive. 2. The thought process determines how a person will survive. 3. A person is born of this earth/property and cannot survive without it.
Thus the Framers of the Constitution put God’s LAW as part of the Bill of Rights. (Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.) Self-defense is the 2nd Amendment, the thought process is the 1st Amendment, and the ownership of property is the 5th Amendment.
When the 13 colonies were under the control of the sovereign king of England. The king had all rights (from God) transferred to him and he gave out privileges as he saw fit (called the sovereign right). The U.S. Constitution removed the sovereign right and gave "the people" basic Natural Rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Now instead of god giving the king rights, many of these Rights are now transferred to Individuals.
The Framers drafted an extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, and God’s LAW can only survive through the Bill of Rights if it stays alive in the hearts and minds of the American people, which is perhaps the most enduring lesson of a government made up of ORDERED LIBERTY. Look at the 2nd Amendment's sentence structure, it has two parts: (1) An explanatory or introduction ("A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"....), and (2) a command ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."). A explanatory or introduction is general in scope and a command is specific in scope. Thereby putting the weight of the sentence structure in the category of the Individual Rights. {Read, Prof. Robert J. Cottrol and Prof. Raymond T. Diamond.}
The Lectric Law Library's Lexicon say's, a preamble is "A preface, an introduction or explanation of what is to follow."--- Justice Joseph Story wrote in Rules of Interpretation, "Where the words are plain and clear, and the sense distinct and perfect arising on them, there is generally no necessity to have recourse to other means of interpretation." What part of "shall not be infringed" do the anti-gunners not understand?
Does "well-regulated" mean government control? No! I contend the facts show that if you want something "well regulated" the government must not be involved. The only way the government can marginally regulate anything is to throw billions of dollars at it. The Framers true intent of "well-regulated" was to have "the people" well armed with firearms and ammo supplied by them on a Individual level. The New York Ratifying Convention referred to "well regulated militia" as "the body of the people capable of bearing arms". Dollar for dollar a volunteer (independent) militia can supply itself at
a huge cost savings when compared to (in a level playing field) government involvement. "Well-regulated" does not mean well trained.
I am a member of The Temple Gun Club (~300 members) we have monthly meetings, an Internet site and a hands-on shooting facilities. We are not well trained, but we sure are "well regulated". Maybe the Temple Gun Club should change its name to the Temple Militia (What’s in a name?). Only armies are "well trained", militias are only "well regulated" (functionally trained).
Law Professor Nelson Lund; imagine if the 2nd Amendment said "A well-educated electorate (qualified voter), being necessary to self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed". Surely, no rational person would suggest that only registered voters have a right to read. --- The reading of books is Individual in nature just as gun ownership is Individual in nature.
If you say, "The teacher being ill, the class is cancelled", the phrase "the teacher being ill" doesn't modify or change anything in the other clause "class was cancelled". Class was cancelled means the same thing, even without that introduction of explanation.
Now let's view (by R. Greenslade and C. Ellsworth) the 2nd Amendment through the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The Preamble says in part "... in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:...”
A declaratory clause is a simple assertion. A restrictive clause is a statement that restricts or limits. If the 2nd Amendment is read through the preamble, it reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (declaratory clause) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Restrictive clause, restricting the government.)
Article. 1 Section. 10. "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ...keep Troops, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Ask yourself, if a state cannot keep troops, how can the state defend itself if invaded? Now if a state keeps paid standing militia members, would not the state be keeping troops? Yes! --- Since the state cannot keep troops, how was the state expected to defend itself if invaded? The answer is the Citizen's militia members! Militia armies are good at defending their own countries, but are no good at attacking other countries, and thus help to avoid foreign wars. Both militia defense and neutrality thus promote the ideals of peace through strength of the people and not government.
Jury Nullification: Juries can merely free someone for good reason, even though the law was formally broken. The 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Jay writing in Georgia vs. Brailsford (1794), concluded:
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy". Please keep in mind that the judge will give the Jury instructions as to how to deliberate, you as a Juror may disregard his instructions. I humbly ask that the judge's instructions be taken with a grain of salt, and that you vote your conscience.
The 6th Amendment: Trial by Jury --- Government Judges and Prosecutors routinely attempt to influence a jury decision by not letting the jury know that they may vote their conscience. The Courts only want jurors who will blindly follow lesser laws of their government and not the Supreme Law of the Land (The Constitution). Yet, at the end of World War II, during the Nuremberg trials, Americans Judges told German soldiers that they should have followed their conscience instead of their government when it did wrong.
It has come to a point where Jurors need to practice Jury Nullification on all so called gun crimes in where there is no victim and thus no crime. The Juror's justification is the Supreme Law of the Land, The 2nd Amendment (Read Article 6 of the Constitution). No jury has ever been punished for a verdict it rendered (and in theory a jury can not be punished). Web site www.fija.org --- Fully Informed Jury Assoication.
Criminal intent was once a bedrock of legal protection, but its been consistently and repeatedly eroded over the history of the United States. [Because these days criminal intent is not usually an issue that relates to bearing of firearms in defiance of unconstitutional laws.] --- Many gun owners now sit in jail and prisons, even though they had no intention of harming anyone. Example: Carrying a gun in a holster (on hip) or rifle over a shoulder in public. --- They are political prisoners, and rather than government talking about "amnesty" for illegal aliens, the government should give amnesty to imprisoned citizens whose only "crime" involved exercising their 2nd Amendment Right. If there is NO criminal intent, there is No crime.
Militia Act of 1792: All able bodied men aged 18-45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense, and participate in annual musters.
Militia: ~Citizen's turned soldiers (non professional), appear bearing their own weapons, for defense of themselves, the community, state, or country. --- Read a dictionary printed in 1790-1828 thereby giving original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. --- Did you know that in the years between 1776 and 1783 there were about 2.6 million people living in the 13 colonies, of these 2.6 million people somewhere between 5 to 8 percent of them fought with George Washington. Thus approximately 150,000 men fought for Independence, of these about 100,000 were Citizen's turned non-professional solider. They walked out of the house with gun in hand ready to do battle. The other ~ 50,000 were Continental troops and toward the end of the Revolution ~ 5 to 7 thousand French soldiers helped the American cause.
Texas Declaration of Independence says in part "[The Mexican Government] has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defense - the rightful property of freeman - and formidable only to tyrannical governments." As with the Declaration of Independence of the U.S...."institute new government...". The first act of both new Republic's was to abolish the existing government with the extensive use of arms.
Article 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government authority over 3 crimes: 1. Treason 2. Piracy 3. Counterfeiting. There is no authority for the federal government to be involved in prosecuting rape, robbery, murder, or any other common crime. Whenever state crime laws are duplicated by the federal government, the risk of double jeopardy is greatly increased. Please read the 5th Amendment "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
Forty four states in the U.S. have some variation of "the right to keep and bear arms" clause in their state Constitutions. Another indication of an "Individual Right".
The anti-gun people talk about the cost of firearm related injury to the health care industry, but never account for how much gun owners save the health care industry, with the use of firearms for self-defense.
Trigger locks and gun safes put gun owners and their families in greater danger, because safe storage laws retard the gun owner's quick access to their self defense gun. {Children who do die from gun accidents usually live in a home where there is a criminal history. --- Read John R. Lott.} The anti-gun crowd wants to mandate so-called "Smart Guns" and Gun Locks to protect children, but their hidden legislative goal is to kill Gun Owners with it. Parental responsibility cannot be regulated because children do not belong to the government but to the parents.
Guns... are simply guns. For better or for worse, they are an integral part of the American Constitution and American society. They can be used. They can be misused. But they are nothing by themselves. John Hinterberger, The Seattle Times, Nov. 16, 1988.
The Preamble to the Constitution uses the term "promote the general Welfare,"it does not say "provide for the general Welfare,". By paying Americans not (who will not work) to work, or allowing Americans to have 15 credit cards, is not promoting the general Welfare. Promoting the general Welfare is cutting taxes, the government not treading on "The Bill of Rights" and encouraging Individual Responsibility. The government can provide for the "general welfare" only if the provision is within the power listed in "this (the) Constitution". --- Please remember, some people will try to tell you there is an elastic clause in the Constitution, but as of yet I can not find it. Show Me! There ain't one! Read the Tenth Amendment!
There is cost and benefits to everything; the benefits of gun ownership out weight the cost. Read any book on Stalin or Hitler (talk about Death by Government in the millions). The Framers had it right, with the 2nd Amendment, as an "Individual Right". All Rights under the U.S. Constitution are vested in Individuals.
The government has no rights, only power, and power corrupts. The Constitution is in place to set limits on that power. The United Nations constitution "grants rights", but this is a play on words because "granting rights" is another way of granting a privilege, and government can revoke a privilege. Governments do not confer Rights only God does. The United States Constitution merely enumerates those Rights, but does not "grant rights". Only God Grants Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects those Rights by "enumeration" (listing). See the 9th Amendment!
The RIGHTS of the INDIVIDUAL were inspired by GOD and the Framers put that inspiration into words called the "Bill of Rights".
Laws of God + Laws of Nature = Natural Rights, which are unalienable (Bill of Rights). Our Bill of Rights is not negotiable. A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless. --- Justice Antonia Scalia, Supreme Court Justice. [The Bill of Rights was put in place to reduce the power of the federal government and to protect minorities, like gun owners.]
