– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
I have always believed that a point of view depends upon whose ox is being gored. With the Second Amendment the media are silent with regard to what our Founders intended and will help push an agenda for anti gun (and anti American) liberals. In order to ignore what our Founders said and what they clearly intended the media will gladly tell us that the Constitution is a living document and that it must evolve with the times. Things change for the media when the right under attack is the one that affects them the most.
The idea that the Constitution is a living document is an incorrect assessment of the Constitution. It is not a living document subject to interpretation based on a particular point in history. It is the Supreme Law of the Land and the Founders did not intend for it to be interpreted this way or that. What they did was give us a method to change it should things change or should new situations arise.
In any event, the media love to bash the Second Amendment and tell us how things have changed. That point of view changes when the right attacked is the one that affects the media.
In light of the Justice Department’s infringement of the AP’s First Amendment right the media, at least the AP, have suddenly decided that the Constitution is not a living document and that the infringement by the Justice department is wrong. Here is what Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the AP, had to say about the incident:
Pruitt told CBS’ ”Face the Nation” that the government has no business monitoring the AP’s newsgathering activities.
“And if they restrict that apparatus … the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment,” Washington Post
Well isn’t it interesting that Pruitt mentions what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment? When it comes to the Second Amendment the media will tell us that things have changed, the framers could not have anticipated modern firearms (they did anticipate which is why they do not mention a specific type. People can have what the government has). They tell us that it is a living document and that we need to advance with the times. They dismiss any argument that claims if people are disarmed there will be no way to fight a tyrannical government as if the government is wonderful and would do no wrong.
It looks like the AP incident and Pruitt’s words now reveal that the media were wrong. The incident shows the tyranny of government and Pruitt indicated that this kind of tyranny leads to people only getting the information government wants it to.
I imagine it will be difficult for many anti gun zealots to see that these two issues are one in the same. Many, and I imagine Pruitt would be among them, will not see how the framer’s intent applies as much to the Second as it does to the First (and all parts of the Constitution for that matter). They will continue to dismiss the valid concerns of gun owners and tell us how we need to change with the times while crying foul over what the government did to them.
Mr. Pruitt, conservatives are on your side because we know all parts of the Constitution need to be defended against all enemies foreign and domestic. We know that the erosion of one right will lead to the erosion of another until the domino effect takes place. We wake up one day and are North Korea where people are disarmed, totally dependent on government and fed only the news government wants.
Mr. Pruitt, you and others in the media are responsible for this. You media folks pushed an agenda for liberals for decades. That was the anti gun agenda and it allowed for the slow erosion of the right to keep and bear arms. You folks in the media carried their water on this issue while cheerfully claiming that things have changed, this is a living document, the framers could not have anticipated the future, blah, blah, blah…
While you were helping with the slow erosion of our Second Amendment right you were putting in place the mechanism that allowed government to start going after the other rights. You allowed the camel’s nose to get under the tent and now you are feeling the effect of your failure.
Without a Second Amendment there will be no protection for the First or any other. Without a well armed citizenry there will be government tyranny. You helped bring this upon us by ignoring or dismissing the framer’s intent when it came to our right to keep and bear arms.
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
You in the media became stenographers for the liberals in government. You abandoned your obligation to the people and stopped being our watchdog. YOU enabled government to encroach further and further on our rights and into our lives. You failed us and now you are reaping what you have sown.
How about you get on board and start supporting the Second Amendment the way you want the First supported? How about you push the message of the people and tout the intent of our framers with regard to the right to keep and bear arms? What say we the people and you the media work together to keep government in check?
Let me help you out with it:
- “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
- “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
- “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
- “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
- ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
I along with most conservatives do not like what took place with regard to the AP. We do not like the violation of a Constitutionally protected right because we support all of those rights. It is time for the AP and all other media outlets to get back to doing their jobs.
You can’t cry that your Constitutional right has been violated when you willfully ignore your responsibilities under that right.
Never surrender, never submit.
After every act of terror that involves radical Islamists we are reminded by the left not to rush to judgment and that we cannot condemn an entire religion or its followers for the acts of a few. I agree that people should be judged individually. I also know that when a large group of those people or their individual governments support their acts then it is OK to paint them with a broad brush.
Unfortunately, the very people who tell us not to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few are the same people who condemn all gun owners for the acts of a few people with guns who do bad things. The reality is that most people who do bad things with guns have already broken countless laws to do so and usually do not own the guns legally. This fact escapes the gun grabbers as they paint all gun owners, law abiding citizens who exercise a constitutionally protected right, with a broad brush.
After the Newtown shooting, where a gunman who used guns he stole to murder a number of people (mostly children,) Barack Obama wasted no time condemning the act and then vowing to pass tougher gun laws. These laws would only affect law abiding gun owners as they are the only ones who would follow them. The guns that would be banned and the hoops people would have to jump through would only infringe on the people who obey the law. The people who do bad things will still get guns, won’t worry about the gun being on some approved list, and would not go through a background check.
That did not stop Obama and his anti gun zealots from vowing to pass tough gun laws. Some states did just that and ended up only harming those who did no wrong. In fact, some people were then targeted to have their guns confiscated. This all happened to people who did no wrong.
Now we have a terrorist attack that happened in Boston during the Boston Marathon. While we were cautioned not to rush to judgment Obama’s stenographers in the media wasted no time blaming the right wing, gun owners, rednecks, people who hate taxes, white people, and any other group they could paint as a right wing entity. I did not hear Obama asking them not to rush to judgment.
It turns out the bombers are followers of Islam. That should come as no shock as most of the acts of terror are committed by followers of that religion (notice I said most – added for liberals who have trouble with comprehension). The Muslims involved in 9/11 murdered more people than the gunman in Newtown. Hell, they murdered more than the recent mass shootings combined. George Bush did not say we should ban Muslims; he just went after those who intended to do us harm.
Since Barack Obama sees fit to go after all gun owners for the acts of a few deranged people I want to know if he will now ban Muslims.
You see, he was quick on the trigger after Newtown but slow and cautious in his response to the Boston bombing. Unlike his call to action on tougher gun control after Newtown, he was vague and asked us not to rush to judgment. He did not even use the word terror in his first address.
It is now abundantly clear that those who did this are Muslims. Will B. Hussein Obama now apply the same standard he did with regard to Newtown and ask Congress to ban Muslims from the United States?
In this country when a person drives drunk we go after that person not alcohol or cars. When a person stabs a bunch of people we go after the person using the knife, not the knife. When a gun is involved things get murky because the liberals go after the guns of all citizens.
Well Muslims have murdered more Americans than gun wielding morons in mass shootings.
If Obama is to apply the same standard then he must go after Muslims and work with Congress to get them banned.
The mantra from the left is; if we only save one child…
Well, banning Muslims would do just that (so would outlawing abortion).
This might not be a popular position but neither is gun control and the fact that it is not popular has not stopped Obama and the rest of the anti gun crowd from working to disarm us. Hell, they even lie about support.
I can’t say for sure but I bet more Americans support a Muslim ban than a gun ban.
I don’t support either (I believe in going after those involved in bad stuff) but if I had to choose I know America would be a lot safer with armed citizens than it would with Muslims (especially if it was disarmed).
Obama will probably not ban Muslims. What the they do is from the same textbook his buddy Bill Ayers uses.
Never surrender, never submit.
Apr 8, 2013 Second Amendment
The left’s answer to bad people with guns is to ban law abiding people from having guns thus insuring that only bad people will be in possession of firearms. Criminals do not obey the law, they do not submit to background checks and they do not register their illegally owned firearms. The answer from those who violate their oaths is for you to call 911 and then pray a person with a gun gets there before you are dead.
In reality, the police show up to draw a chalk line around a dead body. If you are armed they draw that line around the bad guy. In the liberal world, they draw that line around YOU.
I have already documented how the police were called (via 911 no less) within a minute of the Newtown shooter shooting his way into the school. All the victims were dead within 5 minutes and the police arrived after that. They got to draw chalk lines around the victims.
Fortunately, there are still states in this union that believe in freedom and uphold the Constitution. Fortunately there are states where the words shall not be infringed have meaning. As an aside, Maryland is not one of them. The Communist governor and his comrades in the legislature have violated their oaths and made law abiding citizens of the state into one of two things; criminals or prey.
Back on point. The great state of Texas is one that believes in upholding and protecting the God given right to keep and bear arms. One police officer is alive, and thankful, that this is the case.
There was a dispute in a neighborhood (a trailer park at that) about dogs relieving themselves on other people’s lawns. This has been an ongoing issue and it came to a head when the neighbor whose property was under doggie assault (Charles Conner) got a gun and murdered the dog’s owners (David House and Iris Valentina) and shot their dogs. Someone called the police and the responding officer (SGT Steven Means) was not able to exit his car before he was under fire from Conner. The shooter was well protected from return fire because he was behind a tree. The officer was trying to keep from getting killed by hiding behind his car.
It turns out that a neighbor (Vic Stacy) who was home watching TV saw what was going on and after watching he assessed that the officer needed help. He had a direct shot, albeit at a distance, at the shooter. Stacy fired a shot and hit Conner knocking him down. He fired several other shots and SGT Means was able to shot him as well.
More police officers arrived (well after all the shooting had taken place) and placed Stacy in handcuffs. SGT Means explained what happened and Stacy was released.
No charges will be filed (who would even contemplate that) and Stacy is being hailed as a hero though he shuns that idea. He agonized over getting involved and had some trouble sleeping after. In other words, he is not some Wild West zealot who wants to kill. He saw an officer in distress and he intervened.
Let’s look at the facts. The nut job Conner murdered two people BEFORE police arrived. He then held an officer at bay placing that officer in grave danger (is there any other kind) and backup did not arrive until AFTER the nut had been dispatched with the help of a private citizen. The police were not even there in time to help one of their own even though the original officer responded to a call for shots fired.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The state of Texas is a place where the rights of good guys are not infringed upon.
SGT Means is probably very happy he is not in a state where the law abiding are disarmed or he might not be alive today.
One can either be protected or prey.
Liberals want to make us prey. Communists like Maryland’s gun grabbing Governor, Martin O’Moron, do not care about the law abiding and they don’t care about the Constitution. They know what is best for you and what will make you safe. And if you listen to them they will tell you just that.
If they can get their voices past their army of ARMED body guards…
Never surrender, never submit.
The public schools in Marietta GA have installed panic buttons that can be pushed in the event of an emergency. The buttons were installed in the wake of the Newtown Connecticut shooting and their purpose is to immediately place a call to 911. The police say that once the button is pushed they will send everything they have until they figure out what is going on.
The panic button will not reduce the number of people murdered and it is nothing more than a feel good measure.
How can that be?
It is quite simple. Notification of 911 was not an issue in Newtown. Records indicate that a call was made within a minute of the incident. That is as fast as recognizing a problem, getting to and pushing a panic button. The problem is it took nearly 20 minutes for police to arrive. By the time they got there the children and teachers had all been murdered.
To recap, notification was not the problem, response was.
A panic button addressed a problem that never existed in the first place.
Governments at all levels across this nation have been working on gun control. This is allegedly in response to the Newtown shootings but the reality is that the shootings were a catalyst to put into place that which the socialist left has wanted all along; a disarmed America. Armed Americans are a threat to their evil intentions. It is nearly impossible to enslave an armed population. The left (the same left that supports murdering unborn children) knows this and will walk on the graves of murdered children (children who were murdered because of government policies) in order to disarm the law abiding. This is why the federal government, through its agents in the VA, are classifying veterans as unable to own a gun. Veterans will defend this nation against the domestic enemies so the government is working to keep them from being armed.
The anti gun crowd wants us to call people with guns and let them come address the issue. Give up your guns and you can just call 911 when there is a life threatening issue. Guns were already banned in this school so how did the gun ban there work out?
Their answer is for you to call the police and wait for them to arrive. During the wait you end up murdered like those in Newtown. Once again, almost all of the murders in that school took place after the police were notified.
One armed person in that school could have reduced the number of lives lost. If the right person had been armed (or more than one person) then it is likely no one in the school would have been murdered.
The politicians who want gun bans are surrounded by armed guards. Obama, Biden (who is no friend to gun owners, no matter what he claims), Bloomberg, and countless others have armed security details for themselves (and in some cases their families) while they work at keeping you from being protected by the same tool their guards have at their disposal.
Our money is protected by guns, our gold is protected by guns, there are armed guards at nearly all government buildings and politicians have armed guards. For some reason they seem to think that these things are more important than us or our children which is why they want us disarmed and they designate our schools as gun free.
My children and grandchildren are more important than any of these things including the politicians and they deserve as much or more protection. Our children deserve to be protected by people with guns.
Banning guns will not stop gun crime any more than prohibition stopped the manufacture, distribution and use of intoxicating beverages (our politicians drank during prohibition). Gun bans will be no more effective than laws against illegal drug use. Criminals simply do not obey the law.
Gun control is about control of people and has nothing to do with guns.
It is time to push a button. Not a panic button in a school and not one that alerts government agents with guns.
It is time to push the button that musters patriots who will fight the tyranny of government.
Never surrender, never submit.
Reporter Jason Mattera approached New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at the governor’s conference in DC and asked him if he would disarm his security guards in the spirit of gun control. Bloomberg responded that he would get back to Mattera on that. His five armed guards worked to keep Mattera away from the Mayor and were not too happy about the questions. It seemed the question about why Bloomberg has armed guards when he wants to deny others the right to protect themselves struck a raw nerve.
As Bloomberg was whisked away by some of his detail one of the New York police officers who protect him approached Mattera and asked for ID. Mattera provided his press credentials and the officer asked for his driver’s license. Mattera told the officer he did not need that but the officer explained he needed to make sure the name on the press credentials matched the person presenting them. I am not sure if this officer had any authority in DC to make such a request. In any event, Mattera showed his driver’s license and the officer started to write down information until Mattera said something about him doing so.
This was nothing more than an attempt at intimidating Mattera. It was an attempt to make Mattera feel threatened and to let him know they were going to investigate him. Why else would the officer need to write anything down? Do you suppose he would have asked Chris Matthews for ID?
The officer followed Mattera around DC and asked him his date of birth (more intimidation) to which Mattera responded that it was none of his business.
Mattera had it absolutely right. Here is Bloomberg, in our Nation’s Capital, and he is surrounded by at least five armed guards. Why is he any more important than the people of DC or New York? Why is it the taxpayers of New York foot the bill to protect this jerk when he is bound and determined to deny those people the right to protect themselves? He has no problem taking their money and spending it on his own protection (when he is a billionaire to boot) but will not let them have guns to protect themselves. If they don’t need guns then he does not need armed guards, period.
Michael Bloomberg is the kind of politician our Founders had in mind when they protected our right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment. The right preexisted the Constitution and the Amendment does not give us the right, it acknowledges that it existed prior to the Constitution and protects it.
Any politician who tries to disarm American citizens is a traitor and should be treated as such. These are the kinds of people our Founders were wary of because they will usurp the Constitution and then abuse the people. Governments have disarmed people around the world and then murdered lots and lots of them. In fact, governments around the world have murdered more of their own people than any citizens ever have.
I have added Bloomberg to my terror watch list. He joins Barack Obama and Martin O’Malley (among many others) on a list of people who are represent threats to the Constitution.
Mattera showed what happens when the elitist traitors are confronted about their hypocrisy.
Mattera had better watch his back of he might end up Breitbarted.
Never surrender, never submit.