Barack Obama on Guns

Obamessiah's stance:

• As U.S. senator voiced support for ban on semiautomatic weapons

• As Illinois state senator opposed letting people use a self defense argument if charged with violating local handgun restrictions when they used weapons in their homes.

• As Illinois state senator supported allowing retired police officers and military personnel to carry concealed weapons

• Supported recent Supreme Court decision overturning District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The libs know they can not eliminate guns from a free people, so they will slink back into the shadows on this issue.

But make NO mistake, Obamessiah is anti gun, and so are those of the our beloved 9% approval rated Washington leadership.

The attacks will not be frontal. The libs are beaten there for the moment. The attacks will come from lumping all gun owners together, both criminal and free(nothing new). The attacks will come from a position of trying to show ALL guns as a public health issue(using suicides and youth deaths as focal points). The attacks will want to limit ammunition purchases and will want all free men to register their guns(why? since the law abiding are just that and do not use their firearms to commit crimes). Ammunition serialization, gun "finger printing", ad nauseum. None of these things limit criminal activity but do subject free people to the loss of Rights.

WORDS OF LIBERTY

The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute violated the "Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.

Known as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be ac companied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege."

"All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote. Thus, in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."

"Keep" was defined as "to hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; to have in custody for security or preservation." "Bear" was "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat." And "arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body." Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms"suggest a right to hand-held arms that a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."

"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." "Regulated" was defined as "subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.

What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state?"

"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite." "Security" was "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind" and "free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."

"State" was defined as "a political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.

During most of our history, an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.

It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean government power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.

The founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy-to-understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.

Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.

Stephen P. Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at the Independent Institute (www.independent.org) in Oakland, Calif., is the author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

SUPREME COURT RULING NULL AND VOID IN D.C.???

Only a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case, which struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and allowed having a firearm in operable condition at home, D.C. has passed "emergency" law and new police regulations intended to retain as much of the ban and storage requirement as possible. The law was crafted in consultation with the Brady Campaign, according to the Washington Post.

There are many objectionable features to the new D.C. law and regulations, but two stand out as particularly egregious. Though the Supreme Court ruled that D.C. could not ban handguns, the new rules would still ban all or most semi-automatic pistols. And in spite of the fact that the court ruled that D.C. cannot ban the use of guns for protection in the home, the District still prohibits having a gun loaded and ready unless an attack within your home is imminent or underway.

Without Congress' intervention, D.C. can violate the intent of the Heller decision indefinitely. That is because under "Home Rule," D.C.'s emergency bills are not subject to review by Congress, and D.C. can reinstitute "emergency" laws every 90 days. The city's officials are already thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court.

REPRINT FROM NRA.ORG SITE

VIGILANCE

No circumstances exist in which you can suspend Rights(not given to man by gov, but are universal rights predating and preexisting the Constitution)of free men.

Democracy, able to be born because Western warriors stood in the face of invasion in places like Plaetea, Thermopylae and Marathon, is only won and secured by free men with the ability to stand in the face of tyrannical forces with the ability to shout "NO" and mean it.

The angles being played to attack our Right come from many directions. Ammunition serialization, weapons being shown as a negative public health issue(suicide, etc.), ammunition rationing. The list goes on and on.

Without vigilance, our Right shall be stolen from us.

NRA.org

WE HOLD THIS TO BE SELF EVIDENT

Some interesting facts worth reading:

http://smithrecruiting.com/supreme_court_dc_v_heller

P 53:..re "Miller" Scalia states:

"....This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”)...."

P.59:

"..We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179...."

"...It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

A MORE COMPLETE MILITIA

In light of the SCOTUS decision on our 2nd Amendment God given right, I propose that we, the people of the United States of America, demand our politicians to eliminate all publicly funded Police forces in the US, and replace them with citizen militias.

We will supply our own guns, ammo, body armor, uniforms and patrol vehicles, the government will train us (well regulated). An all volunteer force to maintain order, in times of emergency and peace. There are over 100,000 CCW carriers here in the state of my residence. I would suspect that a goodly number of these folks and others would volunteer for our own security sakes.

Under this plan, taxes can be completely eliminated that relate to inter city/state security. Police force corruption will be removed. Police brutality will be removed. People will no longer be harassed over the most ignorant of causes anymore.

Since the entire US population would now be armed(as should be)and well trained, the need for immediate response will decline. Neighborhoods that were once given up for lost will be regained, drug corruption on the streets will cease, and any threat of any tyrannic force, either foreign or domestic, will ebb away forever. This militia could patrol our borders, no longer would the people of our sovereign states be at the mercy of foreign drug lords and gun runners. Our borders again will be sovereign, guarded not by political forces, but by the flesh and blood who actually live there and have everything to lose.

Personal responsibility for our homes, neighborhoods, towns, states. All this adding up to 50 states worth of well trained citizens.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ