This is Disturbing.

(This post has been updated and has changed from it's original content)

I ran across this piece of news a few days ago and, I have to say, it’s a little worrisome.

This news piece is about a Department of Justice memo basically saying they can kill any American citizen without due process (outside of America).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/04/confidential-justice-department-memo-killing-american-citizens-with-suspected-terror-ties-ok/

And here  is the actual text of the memo.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

So to sum this up, our government has decided that it has the power to kill American citizens outside of this country if they deem it necessary. I know that it says there are restrictions and that three conditions must be met. However the final call comes down to the President declaring a person to be a threat, with our without evidence, and that person can be eliminated.

Now I have always been of the mind that if you take up arms against this country, and you are a citizen, then you have committed treason and have voluntarily forfeited your constitutional rights. Much the same way if a person breaks into your home with the intention of harming you or your family he has given up his rights to life and liberty and you may defend yourself accordingly. If you choose to attack American soldiers or citizens you should be ready to face the consequences. My worry is the possibility of the  misuse of this power. The white paper leaves what could be a lot of leeway in it, especially when it calls for there not to be a need for evidence.

I've kind of alluded to this sort of thing before. Any law or regulation that doesn’t clearly state its boundaries and goals can be used way out of context to achieve things it was never meant to lead to. On the flip side, I also understand that the battlefield is not a place for lengthy deliberation and that sometimes action needs to happen alot sooner rather than later.

Basically, my fear is about just how far this power can be taken. I'm not saying our government is going to start bombing political dissenters during the next election. I'm just pointing some stuff out.

I should hopefully have some more posts coming soon. I’ve been writing a bunch of different things so as to build up a buffer to avoid long breaks between posts.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

The Answer (Part Two)

I hope you all had a chance to look into the last posts question. The articles I showed you in the last post come from the constitution of a particular regime. All in all the rights given by it weren’t that bad. Some weren’t too different from our own laws. But there is a twist. So, are you ready for the answer? Well here it is.

That constitution belonged to none other than Nazi Germany.

Shocked or a little surprised? Privacy of correspondence, a representative assembly, elections, and the right to assembly in Nazi Germany? I hate to say it, but it’s true. A common misconception by many people is that when Hitler came to power he abolished the Reichstag (parliament), the constitution and a number of other laws. Not really. He pretty much said he was above all of that and didn’t see a need to change much of it. That is not to say he didn’t do some maneuvering.

 Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany January 30, 1933. After continued political battles between the Nazi Party and other parties in the Reichstag, Hitler asked the President to dissolve the assembly and have new elections in early March 1933. However, before the elections took place the Reichstag building was set ablaze on February 27. Hitler and his cronies blamed communists (though many are of the opinion that the Nazis started the fire). Hitler said the nation was in a dire state and so the Reichstag Fire Decree was issued which took away basic liberties for a time, you know, in the name of security. The elections were held March 6^th but the Nazi’s still did not achieve a majority in the Reichstag.

Later that month Hitler brought the Enabling Act to a vote. This Act would give Hitler and his cabinet legislative powers for four years, again for security. To ensure it was passed Hitler used the provisions of the Fire Decree to keep several opponents out of the vote and the communists were already banned from attendance. After much reassurance and promises to his opponents the Enabling Act passed overwhelmingly. That coupled with the Fire Decree practically made Hitler and his cabinet a legal dictatorship.

Hitler now began to systematically erase any opposition. Rival parties were broken up and banned. Through the scare tactics of the SA, Hitler’s storm troops, he intimidated his opponents into resigning or running. Within months the Nazi Party was the only party in Germany and Hitler was running the show.

But what about the President, Paul von Hindenburg? He was still the head of state and had veto power (this was one of the promises Hitler made to get the Enabling Act passed). Well, on August 1^st the cabinet passed a law that stated upon Hindenburg’s death the office of president would be abolished and all the powers of the head of state would go to the Chancellor. Hindenburg died the next day (in this case, at least, it wasn’t murder). Overnight Hitler had become the absolute leader of Germany. He had become the Führer. And to top it off, it was nearly all legal.

Sure he used physical and political intimidation as a tool. But he was appointed Chancellor, he didn’t take it. The laws that made him a dictator were voted on. His blatant disregard for constitutional law was ignored, especially by the people at large.  Even his becoming Führer was approved by 90% of the vote. He then led his 1,000-year Reich into complete desolation in twelve years. He murdered millions and is responsible for the deaths of millions more. All of this was done without changing or abolishing the constitution. He didn’t need to. He just made some laws that ignored the basic rights of the people and no one challenged him. No one in great enough numbers at least.

So what is the lesson to take away from this? First I want to make clear that I don’t think the current or and administration in the near future is going to be the next fascist regime. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that words on paper don’t mean a thing without belief in what they stand for and without someone to see them through.

The Second Amendment affirms we have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. There literally are law-makers saying we should just ignore it now. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure. This has been violated countless times, especially in the event of an “emergency” (see Hurricane Katrina and the War on Terror). These are just ink blots on paper if no one will stand up for them. Those in power can, and regularly do, ignore the laws of the land to further their agenda. If the Constitution doesn’t fit with how they feel, they work around it. Changing it is too much work.

So here’s my request. When you see a scenario where a politician or any elected official is operating outside of the law or is trying to undermine our Constitution, call them out. Write to them, to Congress, to the President himself (I’ve done all of these). If nobody speaks up then why would these people think they have to worry about opposition? You can sit there and say “that’s not right” all you want but if you and everyone like you keeps their mouths shut nothing will happen. Use that First Amendment that way it was meant to be. We don’t live under a king or dictator (yet) so you can say what you need to.

Remember, the most dangerous enemy we face is denial. Hitler seemed a hero to Germany, (yes, there were a lot of extenuating circumstances). But his actions leading to power were clues if not to the demoralized German people than certainly to the rest of the world, (heck, if you had read Mein Kampf Hitler said exactly what he was going to do years before he did it). And, the most dangerous thing an American can say is “they can’t do that” or “that can’t happen here”. No one in Germany, outside of Hitler’s closest, could have imagined concentration camps designed to murder countless innocents. People say they can’t take our guns. I ask why? If we don’t say anything they’ll try (“try” being the operative word).

So read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They go hand in hand. I consider them to be two chapters of the same document. Know what they say and don’t fall for the crap some people are saying today that it’s outdated and should be done away with. The Founders words ring true even centuries later. Don’t let America slip through your fingers with apathy and good intentions. That is the path to tyranny.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

The Test (Part One)

Firstly I apologize for the massive delay in continuing The ‘76er. As I’ve said before this blog isn’t my job (yet) so I’ve been busy. But again, I thank you for your continued support.

 Anyone who visits this blog could probably tell that I am a staunch believer in the Constitution and the people who developed it. I believe Locke, Paine, and other helped lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration led to the Constitution which defends the American Idea. That document is our earthly guiding light on how to conduct our business as a nation.

Over the past year or so I’ve been in an increasing number of political debates and discussions (go figure). The talks vary from gun rights, to political parties, to states rights and other topics. But it generally all boils down to how things work under our Constitution, the importance of that document, and the ideas of those who drafted it. Much as you’ve heard the slogan “freedom isn’t free”, which it isn’t, I would also say “democracy is not self-sustaining”. The Founders never thought that once they signed that piece of paper that it was a free ride afterwards. Whenever a republic gets lax it falls. That has been seen throughout history.

Despite this I’ve run into a number of people that seem to think either democracy is just a spectator sport or that the Constitution can stop people from doing things. While the words have meaning they are just drops of ink on some paper. The words can mean all they want but without people who believe in them that’s all they will remain. When this topic comes up, especially in regards to government power, I find a lot of people who say what I’ve called the most dangerous words an American can say: “they can’t do that”.

Remember what I said the most dangerous enemy we face is? It’s denial. That can, and quite often, goes hand in hand with saying a person can’t do something just because a piece of paper says they can’t. “They can’t take our guns away”. Why not? “They can’t limit our speech”. Why not? “They can’t suspend the Constitution”. Why not? By the way that last one, suspending the Constitution, they totally can by law. Does that one make sense?

So I got to thinking. If it’s on paper does it really make a difference? If a government tries to operate outside of the defining law of the land can they be stopped? Or if that government knows that the law can get in their way do they have to change it to achieve their goals? Let’s take a look.

Below are some articles taken from a constitution during the 20^th century. Take a moment to read through them.

·         The [nation] is a republic.
State authority derives from the people.

·         As far and as much the [government] does not make use of its right to legislate, the states are entitled to legislate. This does not apply to the areas in which the [government] has the exclusive right to legislate.

·         The [representative assembly] is composed by the representatives elected by the…people.

·         Members of [the representative assembly] represent the entire nation. They have to follow nothing but their conscience and they are not bound to instructions.

·         The…President is elected by the entire nation.
Every [citizen] who has finished the 35th year of his life is eligible…

·         The [nation’s] President, when taking his office, swears the following oath:
I swear to devote my energy to the welfare of the….people, to increase its prosperity, to prevent damage, to hold up the…constitution and its laws, to consciously honour my duties and to exercise justice to every individual.

·         Judges are independent and subject only to the law.

·         All [citizens] are equal in front of the law…

·         …communities speaking a foreign language may not be deprived by legislation of their national identity, especially in the use of their mother language in education, in local administration and jurisdiction.

·         The rights of the individual are inviolable…

·         Every [citizen’s] home is an asylum and inviolable…

·         Privacy of correspondence, of mail, telegraphs and telephone are inviolable…

·         Every [citizen] is entitled, within the bounds set by general law, to express his opinion freely in word, writing, print, image or otherwise…

·         It is the supreme obligation and natural right of the parents to raise their offspring to bodily, spiritual and social fitness…

·         Youth is to be protected against exploitation as well as against moral and spiritual dissipation, bodily neglect…

·         All [citizens] have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed; such assemblies do not require any prior notification or special permit.

·         The education of the youth has to be provided by public institutions.

Text in brackets replaced terms that would have otherwise revealed the name of the nation.

Now here’s the part I want you to do. I want you to try and figure out what government operated with this constitution. I’d prefer you didn’t try and use Bing or Google but that’s fine. But I want you take just a moment of your time and see if you can discover it. This is part of the “get involved” thing about democracy.

I’ll give you a few hints. The constitution was in effect for roughly 26 years. The country was formerly a monarchy. This country is in Europe. That may give it away if you just guess. But go ahead and try. If you get it right and want to let me know email the blog: freedomblog76@gmail.com.

In a few days I’ll make another post revealing the answer and go over the results.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

A Battle Ensues?

First of all I would like to welcome you back to the ’76er. I hope everyone had a great Christmas and a Happy New Year. A lot has happened over the weeks that the blog has been on a break (sorry for the major delay). Most of all, and on the forefront of all our minds, is the massacre of twenty innocent children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. And we’ll be going over that in this post among other things.

I titled this post A Battle Ensues? for a number of reasons. While the Constitution has been whittled away for decades and the size of government has grown explosively in just the last few, we have in the last eight or so years seen an aggressive drive to take the power out of the hands of the people and place it firmly in those of the government. It is something that needs to be talked about out loud because if you refuse to address the existence of the problem then it can never be solved.

I know that many people have notice that I have railed against the Obama Administration and they sometimes draw a conclusion that I must have loved Bush’s presidency. I hate to tell you, but that’s false. I petitioned against that administration many times throughout its term, called for criminal charges against Bush himself,  and I can partly thank it for contributing to my becoming politically active. And so we shall begin with President Bush and the War on Terror.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for the perfect President. That’s a tough search because such a thing doesn’t exist. I’ve been known to say that everything started going downhill after Washington. But something changed on September 11, 2001 and it took a while for most of America to see it. Those who are diligent caught it pretty early on though. That day marked the first real time mainland America was attacked (significantly) and the result was devastating. Nearly 3,000 Americans dead, buildings destroyed, and the feeling of safety shattered by an enemy we never thought could touch us. We were right to be afraid at the time. But fear often leads to action. And action born of fear is usually not well thought out. At least not with the rights of citizens kept in mind.

I’ve quoted Benjamin Franklin before as saying anyone willing to give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither. Keep that in mind as we move forward.

In the whirlwind of activity that followed the terrorist attacks we started two wars, initiated a global “war on terror”, and passed major legislation all in the name of security, freedom, and justice. At the time it was generally hailed as a triumph against our enemies and a show of force to those who would aid or shelter them. However, in those achievements of security we have to stop and ask ourselves at what cost were those strides against terror paid? Remember Ben’s words.

The Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly and practically without opposition in 2001. The Act can grants expanded freedom of wiretapping and surveillance on American citizens. It allows the government to name anyone an “enemy combatant” or “terrorist” no matter what the circumstances of evidence of guilt. It even threatened the privacy of citizens of British Colombia. That’s in Canada, a whole other country. But would our leaders really allow infringements on our Constitutional rights? They probably had no idea. Congressman Jim McDermott is on record saying that the Senate didn’t even read the bill. So there’s that.

The Military Authorization Act and other bills allow the President to use the U.S. military as a policing force inside the borders of America. This is a direct violation of law but in the wake of the terror attacks it passed as well. I’ve had numerous conversations with people about these and various other bills that have been passed in the interest of security. I do agree that steps were needed, and still need, to be taken to ensure our safety. However, those measures should never come at the cost of the Constitution or our inalienable rights. Warrantless wire-tapping, arrest without cause, denial of due process and numerous other violations of our freedoms should be cause for alarm.

People say that it makes us safer and in some instances is does. But we have to consider the cost: our rights. I’m a big believer in “the slippery slope”. A person can be detained without reason for an indefinite amount of time under the suspicion of terrorism, which in itself is loosely defined. That goes for American citizens as well. You may say “well they won’t do that to innocent people”. Let’s be clear, if an American can be arrested and thrown into isolation for several years without contact with a lawyer or anyone for little to no reason, (this did happen by the way), then they can do it to anyone. It sets up the ability for tyranny.

Now I’m not saying all laws work this way and lead down that path. Making it illegal to j-walk won’t lead to your freedom of travel to be taken away. But if you ban a few things people can say you set the precedent to ban any or all speech. If you ban one kind of gun you can ban any gun. There are some glaringly obvious dangers in laws out there and we need to sit up, take notice, and say something about it.

So, we’ve touched on Bush’s administration (I know we could go farther back but I’m trying to keep it short). Let’s move up to Obama. Obama has nearly finished his first term and is about to begin his second. His first four years have been interesting. He has signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. Some things are still coming out about it but it has sections so vaguely worded about how to define actions as “aiding terrorism” that some journalist made a point that simply asking their questions could be consider illegal.

Most controversially he championed his healthcare reform, more commonly known as Obamacare. Does/did healthcare need an over haul? Yes, it has for years. However we need to look at this thing very closely. I won’t get into the details about the tax increases and rise in healthcare costs (which most analysts in country are predicting). People still haven’t finished reading the darn thing yet so I’m sure more will show up later. What frightens me is just what this bill says the government can do and scarier still, that the Supreme Court said was constitutional.

Obamacare states that you have to have health insurance. I’m sure nobody thinks it’s a bad thing to have insurance. However, if you don’t get it you will be fined. Wait a minute. How can you say you want to help people with their medical bills and then bill them for not being able to get insurance? But here’s the scary thing I mentioned above. This means that the government can coerce you into doing what they want, so long as they can call it a tax. What? That is not how the Constitution was meant to be used. This is a blatant misuse of power. And that misuse has spanned multiple presidencies.

Now, let’s take a look at more recent events. Last month, a madman murdered his mother, stole her guns, and slaughtered twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. This was a nearly incomprehensible act of evil committed in a place where we would like to think our children are safe. It was terrible, cold, and it is something we won’t forget. That being said, there were some expected results of this.

Gun control was instantly thrown to the forefront of the situation practically within minutes of the event. Now I know we just spent a three part series about gun rights so I’ll try not to make this an impromptu “part four”. Whenever something like this happens this subject always comes up. Without getting into too much detail we already know that gun massacres are not nearly as common as the media tries to say they are (they’re less than 1% of all gun crime). We also know that “assault weapons” aren’t widely used as crime weapons (all rifle types make up less than 4% of gun crime). And we also know what where there are more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens there is less crime (juxtapose gun violence in Chicago with the levels of Phoenix). I could give a load more of facts that basically disprove everything the main-stream media is saying about guns and gun control. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Didn’t help, did it?

The only way guns can be brought into this scenario is that the mother displayed irresponsible gun ownership. She feared her son was mentally disturbed enough that she may have committed him. Then why did she allow access to the weapons and teach her son how to operate them? There’s your problem.

But back to gun control. Now you have all the usual people involved. Bloomberg, Feinstein, the Brady’s, and Code Pink to name a few. They paint gun owners as mentally disturbed at best and murderers as worst. They blame the NRA for the evil perpetrated by a single disturbed individual instead of the murderers. So, just like always, new legislation is being proposed. Obama (we’ve gone over his record before) created a panel and gave them thirty days to come up with ideas. Being headed by vice president Biden (very anit-gun) I can guess as to what those ideas will be. We’ve heard of the use of Executive Orders and the banning of magazines, ammo, and “certain types” of rifles. Senator Feinstein’s proposal is the most restrictive gun legislation ever seen.

Like I said above, I’m not going to hinge this post on gun control but it is a large part of the bigger picture. The Second Amendment exists so that the citizens of this country can defend themselves in the event of invasion or from tyranny. It is not about hunting or sport shooting (although those inherently come from gun ownership). I’ve said before, the Second Amendment holds up the rest of the Constitution. That’s a fact. Look up what the Founders said about firearms. And now, because of the actions of a few madmen the rights of millions are in jeopardy. This goes far beyond gun rights by the way. This is about our rights as a whole, period. Ask any gun owner.

Looking back, the previous administrations have slowly but surely expanded the power of government and chipped away at the strength of the people. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. But now we look at those currently in power and see the things that are happening. Never before has the Constitution been on such a perilous edge as it is right now.

I mentioned earlier why I entitled this post A Battle Ensues? I chose this title mainly for this reason: this country hasn’t been this divided in over a century, both politically and socially. It seems, to me, that the country has split into two general camps. One moving forward towards a secular, government dependent, big government, unarmed future. The other trying to hold on to what made this country what it is and to honor those that came before us. The recent attacks on our rights, in particular our right to keep and bear arms, has caused further division and has greatly angered one side. The 49% that didn’t vote for Obama, which would be the latter of the two groups I described, is furious. I speak for most of this group when I say I am not happy in the least with the direction this country is headed. Those in power need to understand that they work for us, not the other way around.

Now there have been people appearing on various media networks referencing revolution and a new 1776. Truthfully a lot of these people do not represent the majority of conservatives and they are chosen to appear to make them look bad. I personally believe in the idea set forth by the Declaration of Independence. That idea is that when a government becomes destructive in the execution of its role, it is the right and duty of the people to abolish said government and replace it. I’m not saying pick up your rifle and let’s go. That wasn’t our Founders first choice. What I’m saying is that just as the government needs to realize they work for us, we need to remember that they work for us and remind them of that. Write your Senators and Congressmen, I have repeatedly. Write to the President and the political organizations that you think need to change and start listening to us. Grass roots starts with you. Our path to Independence centuries ago was grass roots. Without the individual citizen a country, a cause, an idea is nothing.

A Battle Ensues? I think a serious battle is on the horizon. One that will decide the course of this nation. One that will decide the role of our Constitution in the future. One that will show where we stand as Americans. Will you sit back and watch from afar? Will you be in the thick of it? Or will you, in apathy, leave the fight to others and hope for the best? The battle is here and it’s time to choose.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

Thank You....

The ‘76er will be taking a break until after the first of the year. With my work schedule as chaotic as it is going to be I don’t want to leave you all hanging until the next post. But I didn’t want to just say adios for a couple weeks without saying thank you.

Thanks to you, the readers, The ‘76er has grown to over two hundred visitors and it has some international readership as well. I only write this but with no one to read it then I may as well not write. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone that has shown their support by being a regular reader. I also want to thank anyone that was just curious enough to read just once. It means a lot to me if anyone simply just checks this thing out.

I also wanted to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. There is a lot that will be happening over the next year, I’m sure, and you can bet the’76er will be there talking about it and speaking out for liberty. I also hope to put up some history posts as well to spread some knowledge about our nation that usually gets glossed over in schools these days. Our history is a rich and exciting one and I want to share it with everyone.

The future seems uncertain at times. The election is past and as I wrote before the die has been cast. We shall have to see what will develop from here. But as always I must urge you all to remain vigilant. We are the guardians of our Freedom and Liberty. Those are things we have inherently and they are not given to us by anyone other than our Creator. The Constitution was written to show we were free but that piece of paper can’t fight for itself. Patriotism starts with you at an individual level. Without that fire our independence would never have happened and our nation would not have survived this long.

Over the coming years we do have an uphill fight for our liberty and maintaining the dream our Founding Fathers started. What began at Jamestown and Plymouth has blossomed into the most powerful, prosperous, and blessed nation on the planet. But democracy is not self-sustaining. So be vigilant.

Again, thank you all for reading and supporting this blog. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year. The ‘76er will be back by January 5^th.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

Part Three: The Future of Gun Ownership in America.

Writers Note: In light of the events that transpired several days ago I feel the need to address it before continuing this series further. What happened on December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut was an absolute tragedy. The slaughter of twenty innocent children and six adults is unforgivable. Personally I think it’s still too early to start going into politics about it, however due to the overwhelming outcry from the anti-gun community I think I need to at least respond.

Yes, guns were used to commit a crime. I am not trying to take away from the horror of what happened. However, we need to try and keep a level head about this. The rights of millions should not be taken away because of the madness of a few. We have gun laws and restrictions that do their job, despite what the media and Hollywood try to tell you.

While I won’t comment on any details of this event because information is still coming to light I will say this: As always, we need to do our research. Like how often do these kinds of crimes actually occur (they are less than 1% of all gun crimes). Were the proper precautions taken by the gun owner in securing the weapons? Were there signs that the shooter was mentally unstable prior to the attack? We need to look at the root of the problem and the root is not guns, it’s the criminal. It’s the why not the what. A gun can do nothing out of the hands of a criminal. So please let us not attack the Constitution because of a criminal.

Finally, I would like to say that my prayers go out to the families that have been rocked by this tragedy. I agree with President Obama, my heart is broken as well. To target a child is unspeakable and to lose a child is unfathomable. I pray God’s comfort over the families and the town. You can be sure God is with you and you can be sure that I and your country are with you. God bless you all.

The following post has not been altered from its original text to include the events of Sandy Hook Elementary.

 

If you’ve kept up with the series this far I thank you. This will be the third and final installment on gun rights and ownership. Again, thank you for your support.

Over the past two posts we covered the history of the Second Amendment and the current place of firearms in our society. We’ve shown how guns were used to sustain this country in its earliest form and win its independence. We looked at how guns are used responsibly today and how there is a social taboo associated with them. Now that we’ve looked to the past and present it’s time to look ahead into the future.

I understand that speculation and conjecture are ill-advised was of trying to figure out where one is headed. I’ve always been a believer that to see where you are going you need to look at the past. You need to know where you came from to see where you’re going to end up. With that in mind, let’s take a look at past attacks on gun rights and the future plans of the anti-gunners.

Over the past years there have been many groups formed to fight against the right to own and carry firearms. Among the most known today are The Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. They all have a trend that they follow. Whenever there is a mass shooting in the country they are the first ones on camera demanding harsher restrictions on guns and asking for donations to fund their campaign. But when guns are used to stop crime and save lives they are nowhere to be found. They refuse to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a responsible law-abiding gun owner.

Despite this they are major players in the war on guns. But these groups can do nothing without the backing of the government, local and federal, to make their dreams a reality. So what can we expect from the people that swore to defend our Constitution? It gets kind of grim. We first need to take a look at the man currently in the White House and what exactly he thinks about guns. Hold on, this is a long bumpy ride.

There are many who say Obama is pro-gun. They say he is even the most pro-gun President we’ve had in years. Why, he even signed the National Park Carry Bill (Hint: that doesn’t exist). I beg to differ. Obama has a very, very long history of anti-gun statements, actions and legislation. Let’s take a look.

·         September 9, 1996 State Senator Obama supports a ban on the manufacture, sales and possession of handguns and semi-automatic weapons, erroneously calling them “assault weapons”.

·         July 2, 1998 Obama endorses a ban on all sales and transfers of semi-automatic weapons.

·         December 13, 1999 Obama proposes banning gun store within five miles of schools and parks.

·         January 1, 2000 Obama co-sponsors a bill to limit firearms purchases to one per month.

·         February 20, 2011 Quoted as saying “There is no reason anybody should need an assault weapon”.

·         March 13, 2003 Obama votes to ban hundreds of Common rifle and shotguns.

·         March 25, 2004 Obama votes against lowering Firearm Owners Identification Card age from 21 to 18.

·         April 27, 2004 Obama reaffirms his opposition to concealed carry.

·         October 24, 2004 Obama says it’s a “scandal” Bush didn’t renew the assault weapons ban.

·         July 29, 2005 Now U.S. Senator Obama votes against prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

·         September 22, 2005 Obama votes against pro-second amendment John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice.

·         January 31, 2006 Obama votes against pro-second amendment Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice.

·         April 22, 2007 Obama favors a ban on standard-capacity ammunition magazines.

·         April 2, 2008 Obama again reaffirms his opposition to concealed carry.

·         November 13, 2008 President-elect Obama weeds out gun-owning applicants from his staff.

·         December 1, 2008 Obama nominates staunch anti-gunner Eric Holder for Attorney General.

·         February 25 2009 Obama and Eric holder seek to re-instate the assault weapons ban.

·         May 26, 2009 Obama nominates anti-gun Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice.

·         October 14, 2009 Obama reverses stance on a treaty to regulate arms trade.

·         May 10, 2010 Obama nominates anti-gun Elena Kagan for Supreme Court Justice.

·         November 15, 2010 Obama nominates anti-gun Andrew Traver to head the ATF.

·         July 7, 2011 An Obama aide says gun legislation is in the “near future”.

·         February 13, 2012 Obama cuts the budget in half for armed pilot counter-terrorism program.

·         June 20, 2012 Obama uses his position to withhold document tied to gun smuggling probe.

·         August 6, 2012 Obama confirms renewing support for semi-automatic rifle and magazine ban.

·         October 16, 2012 Obama calls for reintroduction of semi-auto firearms ban.

So Obama is pro gun, really? And this isn’t even a complete list folks. Check out this site for this list and more info.

It’s evident, if you bother to look at the facts, that Obama does not have your Second Amendment rights in mind. Unless, that is, to limit them any way he can. Now I’m not saying it’s time to bury your AR’s in the backyard because they’ll come knocking tomorrow. Nothing moves that fast and he probably couldn’t get that far….constitutionally. But what I am saying is that we need to be vigilant. We need to see where we are on the slippery slope before we take a plunge and end up in a pit we can’t get out of.

Now what about the U.S. Supreme Court? Currently there is a dangerous 5-4 split on the gun issues. With one to two and possibly three Justices retire during Obama’s second term you can bet he’ll fill those in with more anti-gun friends. But let’s take a look at the current Supreme Court and where they stand.

Chief Justice John Roberts: Pro-gun (nominated By George W. Bush)

Justice Antonin Scalia: Pro-gun (nominated by Ronald Reagan)

Justice Anthony Kennedy: Pro-gun (nominated by Ronald Reagan)

Justice Clarence Thomas: Pro-gun (nominated by George H. W. Bush)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Anti-gun (nominated by Bill Clinton)

Justice Stephen Breyer: Anti-gun (nominated by Bill Clinton)

Justice Samuel Alito: Pro-gun (nominated by George W. Bush)

Justice Sonya Sotomayor: Anti-gun (nominated by Barack Obama)

Justice Elena Kagan: Anti-gun (nominated by Barack Obama)

Two things seem pretty evident here. One) its obvious which party is the party of gun control. Two) if any Justices retire this term we can guess how the new ones would rule on any gun related cases.

So the President is obviously anti-gun. One look at his past and you can figure out his desires for the future. This is especially true when you consider his remarks to the Brady Campaign. He assured Sarah Brady that gun control was on his agenda but it has to remain “under the radar”. That’s a little sneaky, don’t you think? And the Supreme Court is practically split with the very real chance of it falling completely to one side. Is there anyone in Washington on our side?

Congress, for once. Currently there is no strong desire to push gun control either in the Democrat-held Senate or the Republican-held House of representatives. This is a good thing considering Obama’s support for the UN Arms Treaty. Should he even sign the treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate for it to take effect in our country. Luckily, even with a Democrat majority, there is a strong pro-gun majority in the Senate that would not approve of the treaty. At least not as the treay stands.

Ultimately the thing we have the most to fear is the use of the Executive Order by Obama. As we have seen in his first term, Obama has a tendency to wield the pen quite a bit (yes, I know Bush signed a lot as well, and while anyone who knows me knows I can’t stand Bush either, he was a war-time President during the peak of two wars. So it’s kind of expected).

Many people feel validated in their fears of what the second Obama term could bring. Gun sales have skyrocketed since the election. So I guess Obama is helping at least one corner of the economy, just not the one he wants to.

So to sum up this series I’ll leave it at this. We don’t know for sure what the future will bring in terms of the Second Amendment and your right to own and carry a firearm. But looking into the past we know how important guns were to the founding of our nation. We know our Founding Fathers saw our ability to keep arms as essential to maintaining liberty and democracy. We know how often firearms are used to prevent crime, defend our home and businesses, and to be vigilant in the face of evil. And now that we know what we may face ahead, we must remain constantly at the ready.

The rights the Constitution confirms for us are always on a slippery slope. Put too much regulation and restriction on them and soon the lines between “unalienable rights” and granted privileges starts to blur. We can’t destroy the liberty of many because of the crimes of a few. A madman walks into a theater with an assault weapon and kills multiple people. The gun didn’t do it, the crazy murderer did. Personal responsibility for crimes should start with the criminal not an inanimate piece of plastic and metal. The Second Amendment holds the others up. An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject. I urge all of you readers, as always, to do your research and check the facts. The most dangerous words an American can say are “that could never happen here”.

I’d like to take this time to give my personal thank to some people and organizations that have made it their task to fight for our Second Amendment freedoms as well as advance the all-American culture of gun ownership. They have inspired me and encourage me through their actions. My thanks go out to:

The National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, The Second Amendment Foundation, The Virginia Citizens Defense League, The United States Concealed Carry Association, Mark Walters, Sean “Seanto” Young, Rob Pincus, David Codrea, Mike Vanderboegh, George “The Mad Ogre” Hill, the late Mark Craighead, Ted Nugent, and so many more I think I could actually run out of internet trying to list them all.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

Part Two: Gun Laws and Restrictions and Modern Ownership

In the last post we covered the history and origins of the Second Amendment. With the Constitution as our foundation, let’s build the picture of modern day gun ownership and the role firearms play in current society.

Guns are irreversibly woven into the fabric of America. They’ve been used to protect our lives and liberty. They’ve been used to defend the freedom of countries other than our own. And that seems to be okay with everyone. However, when it comes to civilians owning or using firearms today things seem to get a little fuzzy.

As was demonstrated in the last post, gun ownership was common and not thought of as weird in any stretch of the word, unlike today. I myself am a gun owner and a proud member of the National Rifle Association. I have been asked the question “why would you want to own guns?”. I answered, “Because it’s my right to own a firearm and my right to defend myself, my home, and my family”. They replied, “Guns should just be outlawed”. I won’t go into the rest of the lengthy discussion I had with this individual but what it basically boiled down to is this: Take away guns from law abiding citizens and the crime rate will explode.

I’ve been scoffed at for making that statement. I can understand the watered down idea that if we made guns illegal then we could stop gun crime and crime in general. That sounds great in a world free of lawbreakers. But what makes a criminal a criminal? Their refusal to follow the law. If we outlaw guns, will those who commit crime suddenly see the error of their ways and turn in their weapons? I think not. In my home state of Virginia on the Lower Peninsula, there has been a wave of crime committed by a man dubbed “the bearded bandit”. He’s held up over two dozen businesses in the last year. I’m pretty sure it’s been stated sometime in the last year that robbery is a crime however that doesn’t seem to deter this man.

Interestingly, the last time this man attempted robbing a business, a local Auotzone, he was stopped. Devin McLean, the retired Airman working at the Autozone, took an opportunity to bolt out to his car and retrieve his Glock 40. He re-entered the store and demanded the crook drop his weapon. The robber took off running and is still at large. The local Sheriff proclaimed McLean a hero and that he saved not only his life but the life of his manager. Two days later he was fired. It was cited that he brought a firearm into the store which is against company policy. Don’t get me wrong, I get company policy, but the man saved his and the managers life. Do the right thing for a change and let that one go.

But this happens all the time in America. Law abiding citizens will use firearms to stop crime and save lives but are than punished or demonized for it. A 71-year old man in Florida stopped a robbery by two armed suspects in an internet café by opening fire with his lawfully concealed .380 handgun. The two criminals fled and were eventually caught. However, there was at least one major new agency (CNN) who refused to do more than make a passing mention of it. Their reason? They didn’t want to encourage copy cats. You mean you don’t want to encourage a citizen to stop a crime and defend his life and the lives of those around him? Then I guess you didn’t air even one hour of the never ending coverage about the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. You wouldn’t want to encourage someone to copy cat that, right?

You’ll see figures of how many people are killed every day by guns. But do you ever hear how many times guns are used to stop crime? Well, it’s been estimated by some, including Gary Kleck of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, to be between 500,000 and 2,000,000,000 times a year. That’s also taking into account the times it may not be reported to police.

So what about the relationship between firearms and crime? Is it true that if we limited the amount of guns and ammo on the street, banned assault weapons and normal capacity magazines and increase the size and number of gun free zones that crime will diminish. Well, let’s take a look by starting with gun free zones.

A gun free zone is exactly what it sounds like; an area on a map where you cannot carry a firearm at all. These range from schools and federal building to movie theaters restaurants. Even if you have a permit you cannot carry a firearm. Once again, that sounds great on paper but falls apart in reality. Can you guess how well it works? Nearly every single major shooting massacre in the United States has happened in gun free zones. They aren’t gun free zones, they’re victim disarmament zones.

Let’s move onto assault weapons or “the bad black guns” as some call them. I’m not exactly sure why these things get a bad rap. I assume because they are a military style weapon then non-gun owners don’t see the point in owning one and therefore they are bad. Let’s be clear, they are not any more deadly than any other firearm. You can kill a person with a .22 or an assault rifle. And the argument that the use of assault rifles in crimes is rampant is not factual. In 2011 there were a total of 12,664 murders in the U.S. Of those 8, 853 were with firearms and 6,220 of those were with handguns. So how many rifles were used? Just 323. That’s less than 4% of all fire arm related murders. (Here’s the crime report straight from the FBI).

Now what about ammo and magazines? That’s just common sense thinking. Even if you limit the capacity of magazines that are legal, every single magazine that was sold before such a law could take effect would still exist. Which means they would still be available to anyone who was looking enough for one. That and if a criminal needed the extra ammo he would just carry more magazines. Can’t carry a 30-round magazine then just carry three 10-round magazines. Ammo is a non issue. There are already some restrictions on the types of ammo available to people. Attacking ammo across the board would really only hurt law-abiding citizens, as per the usual.

Lastly, let’s take a look a gun laws and crime prevention. Do gun sale restrictions, limitations, and the non-issue of concealed carry permits lower crime? The short answer is no. It’s been shown that the parts of the country with fewer restrictions on gun ownership and restrictions have lower crime rates. There has also been an interesting trend over the past five or so years. Gun sales and concealed carry applications have sky-rocketed. On Black Friday of just this year the FBIs website went down for several hours due to an overload of background checks for the purchase of firearms.

If we are to believe the anti-gunners out there then it should make sense that as the amount of guns in public hands rises so should the crime rate. Well, not really as it turns out. Due to the overwhelming amount of data provided here by the FBI I’ll just cover murder rates. They are down 3%-4% across the board. So it would seem with more guns that crime goes down. That goes against everything we are told by the main-stream media and anti-gun groups.

So as we’ve see, despite facts that are readily available, apparently easily ignored as well, people still seem to think that the problem lies with pieces of plastic and metal, not the person behind the trigger. Crimes are committed by people not things. It’s a social and moral issue, not a material issue. Maybe we should look at why these people are holding up business and joining gangs. I bet the kid forgotten by his parents didn’t join a gang because they had guns.

But people like me will continue to fight and educate for gun rights. I’ll keep supporting groups like the NRA, USCCA and GOA to lobby for your right to bear. Guns stop and prevent crime, despite what some may make up in order to sway your opinion. The left gun-hating media and their supporters will continue to present opinion and feeling instead of facts. Just read their headlines next time a shooting occurs, or even when a citizen defends themselves. I implore you, as always, do your own research. Don’t take my or the anti-gunners word for it. Dig into it yourself and do your homework.

We’ve taken a look into the past of gun right and we’ve covered what’s been going on in the present. So now we need to take a look into the future. With a known anti-gun President in office there’s thing we need to look for. And we’ll go through that in the next post.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

Next Post: The Future of Gun Ownership in America.