A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ~ Seconed Amendment US Constitution, 15 December 1791
The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right. It does not grant a right and it does not allow for caveats. It states that the right (a preexisting condition) to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
The liberals who are against gun ownership and who do not like the Second Amendment are working overtime to develop ways to ignore it and confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens. We have heard all their schemes. They want background checks (which we have and that many of the people who did bad things passed despite their questionable background. Chalk one up for government efficiency) to ensure only the right people have firearms. By right they mean the government and its enforcement agencies.
They want all firearms registered so there is a database of firearms and who owns them. They tell us that will allow them to track firearms recovered during criminal investigations and help with law enforcement but the reality is it will allow them to track people, see who has firearms and then target those people. It will make it easier for the government to confiscate firearms when that directive is given. Does anyone put it past Obama to issue an Executive Order mandating they be turned in?
The Nazis required firearms registration. Part of the information gathered was what religion the gun owner was. Then when Hitler decided to eradicate Jews he had THEIR firearms confiscated. No longer able to resist the Jews were rounded up and murdered.
Places like New York have registration requirements and they have a database of firearms owners. But there are plenty of ways for government to collect that information. Has anyone gone to the doctor’s office and been asked if there are firearms in the home? What does that have to do with your medical treatment? The VA asks veterans if they have firearms and doctors are paid a bonus to adjudicate people as mentally deficient so their guns can be confiscated. It is a scheme designed to do an end run around the Constitution.
In New York and Navy Veteran and former police officer had his firearms confiscated and pistol license terminated after he sought treatment for insomnia. He was diagnosed as having mild depression and insomnia (keep in mind everyone gets depressed throughout life and bouts of transient depression are different than a clinical diagnosis of chronic depression). The clinical notes clearly indicate he is not a danger to himself or others but his visit was shared with the State police who then notified the local Sheriff.
The Sheriff confiscated his guns.
This is why registration is dangerous. They will make up laws to use the database to disarm people and in this case they even violated their own law to do it.
Do not divulge to your doctors that you own firearms. If you are in a place where they make you register (like Maryland, a state that says it is voluntary but requires you to sign the voluntary registration to receive the firearm) then do not seek treatment for anything that might get your guns confiscated (obviously if you are having a real mental health issue you need to see a doctor) because they will find a way to take your guns.
If your doctor asks about guns tell him it is none of his business and ask how it pertains to your care.
As an aside, Obamacare provides for them to ask but specifically states that none of the information will be used to establish a database. Looks like they are violating that law as well.
Democrats put that in to circumvent the Second Amendment and they have been working on many clever things to get your guns.
They are evil people and leaders like them are the very reason our Founders felt it necessary to protect this preexisting right.
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 9, 2010 Political
I am not sure exactly what this meeting is about but anytime liberals have meetings about guns it is not good. The Senate Judiciary Committee is having a meeting entitled “Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process” which is rather vague but when they talk about reform or a regulatory process it cannot be good.
The other concern is the word Commerce is mentioned. Given how Democrats think they can regulate anything by invoking the Commerce Clause it is not a stretch to assume they might be trying to regulate firearms through commerce in a more restrictive way.
We will need to be vigilant and ensure these gun grabbers are not trying to backdoor us before they are thrown to the curb.
We must always be on the lookout because they will never allow us to protect ourselves unless we force them to leave us alone.
This man defended his family and property with a legal AK 47 and he was arrested for firing warning shots into the ground. Why did he shoot? The place he lives has the shot detector technology and he knew if he fired the police would arrive quickly.
Why was it necessary? A gang was congregating and threatening him. If the gun grabbers get their way he would be at the mercy of the gangs.
Which is just about as bad as being at the mercy of the government and its willful disregard of our right to keep and bear arms.
November cannot come soon enough.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 17, 2007 General
Some groups are up in arms (pardon the pun) because the Boston police want to search homes for guns without a warrant. On the surface this sounds like a bad thing and if this were the whole truth it would be. The article goes on to describe that police want to search homes without a warrant after asking permission from the homeowner. If a police officer asks if he may search your home and you say yes he does not need a warrant. You are free to say no.
I will admit that the plan to search children’s bedrooms has flaws. The idea is that parents are so fed up and afraid of the gun violence that they will allow the searches and a warrant will not need to be obtained. In order to get a warrant the police would need probable cause, if they ask the homeowner and are allowed to search they do not need the warrant or probable cause. I would not allow the police to search my home without a warrant. I have nothing to hide but I will not give them access without probable cause and they need that to get a warrant. What will happen to the homeowner if they have other illegal items? Suppose they illegally copy DVDs and they are in the open? A warrant would specifically state what is to be searched and what they may look for. If the homeowner lets them in they can arrest for anything they find. I don’t condone illegal activity but I do not condone bypassing the rights people have. Of course, if someone is not bright enough to know his rights or to exercise them, perhaps he gets what he deserves. In any event, using fear to search a house is not a good way to conduct business.
The bigger issue here is why are there so many illegal guns in Boston and why are there so many shooting? Massachusetts has very tough gun control laws and the gun grabbers all tell us that the way to get guns off the streets by having these kinds of laws. If they are correct then there should be very few guns and very little gun violence. Perhaps there is some realization that criminals do not obey the law. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), ‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’ [Federalist Patriot]
So how do so many guns end up in a state or a city in that state when the gun control laws are so strict that people get jail time for having BB guns? Obviously those who have little or no regard for the rule of law will not follow the law.
There are two issues here. Should the police be allowed to search without a warrant? No, unless of course the homeowner gives permission and only a fool would do that. Secondly, why is there a problem if gun control laws really work?
The founders recognized that we had an inherent right to carry arms in order to defend ourselves against invaders, the lawless and a tyrannical government. This is undeniable and clearly explained in their writings on the issue. We are also protected against unlawful search and seizure so it would be in the best interest of Boston homeowners to just say no…