Our freedoms are under blatant attack.....
The NRA has been reluctant to back Olofson. Gun Owners of America and JPFO are backing Olofson with GOA financially supporting Olofson's legal defense. I may cancel my NRA membership and send more money to GOA and JPFO.
Maybe they did.
One of the arguments against an individual's right to bear arms is that the second amendment needs to be interpreted in the context of the time in which it was written. Anti-gunners claim that the Bill of Rights was written with the idea of maintaining a militia against foreign forces (i.e. the British during the American Revolution) and not with giving individuals the right to own firearms for personal defense.
Anti-gunners also argue that we (people who favor gun rights) cannot claim that the second amendment could be about individual rights or personal protection since we could never really know what the people who wrote the Bill of Rights were thinking at the time.
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson disagreed when he borrowed a quote from the 1700's criminologist Cesare Beccaria: "The 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."
So people were thinking of personal defense against criminals well before modern times. Fascinating......
From Neal Boortz and Nealz Nuze: Obama on guns: "Just how does The Chosen One feel about the 2nd Amendment? After the Supreme Court ruled on the DC gun ban Obama was somewhat trapped. His previous position in favor of the ban was inoperative, so he had to come up with a new position. So ... what would that be? The Big BO's position on guns is that nobody in this country should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon unless they are retired law enforcement officers or members of the U.S. military. We could phrase this another way: Nobody can carry a concealed weapon unless they work for the government as a member of the U.S. military or civilian law enforcement, or used to work for the government as a police officer. This is Obama, folks. Privileges for government and those who work for government ... but for the common man, not so much.
Ahhhhh .... But he's so suave, so debonair, and he speaks so well! It doesn't really matter what he says, but he sure says it good!"
I could not have said it better myself.....
Benjamin9 over at DISTANTMIRROR21 has posted an excellent analysis of the language of the second amendment and what the words that make up the second amendment really mean.
To give credit where credit is due, I have reposted Ben9's blog entry in its entirety and included links to the posting, lest I leave something out.
"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."
This blog entry is a must read for anyone who feels compelled to set anti-gun commies straight about the constitutional protection of an individual's right to gun ownership.
DISTANTMIRROR21: WORDS OF LIBERTY
The recent SCOTUS decision in the DC vs. Heller case is only the beginning in restoring our individual right to own firearms. There is much left to do.
But in the meantime, I call for proclaiming June "national firearm ownership month" and 26 June as "Dick Anthony Heller Day" - a perfect prelude to the Fourth of July.
This is preliminary, but it looks as if our individual right to protect ourselves with firearms is alive and well. wOOt!!!
Foxnews.com: Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Court: A constitutional right to a gun: "Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed."
An excellent article by one of my favorite political commentators and radio hosts, Tammy Bruce: Great News For Mass Murderers.
"Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has signed an executive order to ban guns on all property owned by the city.
After the roar of approval from psychotic murderers died down, Nickels explained the new ban was necessary after a shooting at the Folklife Festival wounded two people at the Seattle Center.
You know how that works–make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry guns making them even more vulnerable to the beasts who don’t care about laws, also known as “criminals.” I do hate to break it to the mayor, but shooting people is also banned, but criminals do it anyway.
After years of certain cities finding their violent crime rates on the increase after banning firearms, we now have proof that gun bans actually create more violence and subject law-abiding citizen to more risk. — Just ask the people of Washington, D.C., who know all too well how banning guns simply broadcasts a message to violent criminals where the most vulnerable population lives. Just this week, the “gun-free zone” of D.C. (on whose handgun ban we still await the Supreme Court’s decision) has been reduced to implementing road blocks into certain neighborhoods in an attempt to stop, er, gun violence.
After all, it’s just so much easier to invade a home, jack a car, or murder someone when you know your victim won’t be able to protect herself. Despite the history of gun bans putting more people in danger, and to say nothing of the unconstitutionality of that act, politicians still have the gall to exploit instances of bad guys ignoring existing laws (like those against shooting people) to pass laws banning the best self-protection method we have.
Make no mistake–just as climate alarmism has nothing to do with fear over a 2-3 degree increase in temperatures and is simply a manufactured excuse for government to tax and fee us to death–the acts of criminals continue to be used as a manipulative excuse to disarm the law-abiding public while keeping government officials immune from the law, and well protected."
One of my favorite sections of the monthly NRA publication "America's 1st Freedom" is the "Armed Citizen" pages. The accounts of average law abiding citizens protecting themselves and their families are also posted online.
For your reading pleasure: Armed Citizen
There has been little activity since the oral arguments were presented to the SCOTUS in the DC vs. Heller 2nd amendment case.
Right now it looks as if a ruling will be made sometime in late June.
NRA: DC vs. Heller, The Supreme Decision
Three-hundred and five members of Congress signed on in favor of Heller and gun rights. I applaud all of them.
Here are the commies in our Congress who are supporting D.C. and its gun ban:
Representative Robert A. Brady (PA-01)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14)
Representative Danny K. Davis (IL-07)
Representative Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Representative Sam Farr (CA-17)
Representative Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Representative Al Green (TX-09)
Representative Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Representative Michael Honda (CA-15)
Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Representative Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Representative James P. Moran (VA-08)
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Representative Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)
Representative Albert R. Wynn (MD-04)
I'm not surprised that the socialists Maxine Waters and Carolyn McCarthy have signed on against gun rights. However, I am surprised at the absence of the Congressional drunkard, Ted Kennedy. Maybe he hasn't yet found time to put down his Chivas Royal.
Foxnews.com: In Second Amendment Case, High Court Majority Appears to Support Individual Right to Own Guns
Some quotes from the Foxnews.com story:
"The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns."
"But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation. Justice Breyer said: 'Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?'"
Does it make it unreasonable to say "no hand guns here?" I say yes, since the handgun ban is one of the reasons why crime is so high in D.C.
Of course, a bunch of commies decided to show up and protested the individual's right to protect oneself and property with a handgun. These are often the same people who argue that we have the right to kill our unborn children but we don't have the right to own a gun.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made an appearance and chanted "guns kill." While their goal of preventing killing is a good and noble one, guns don't kill because people have to pull the triggers. People kill. If they want to ban guns then I guess we need to ban cars, knives (stabbings), baseball bats (beatings), feet (you might be kicked to death), electricity (including lightning), physicians (even physicians make mistakes), pools (kids are much more likely to drown in a pool than be shot by a gun in the home), rope (people might be strangled) and buildings taller than 1 story (one might jump or be pushed). And , of course, if we ban guns I know that the criminals will be sure to turn their weapons in and play nice. Then we could all get into a hippie circle and sing Kumbaya!
The Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to begin hearing the District of Columbia v. Heller case on Tuesday, March 18, 2008. This case could be pivotal in the continuing battle over the second amendment which has pitted freedom loving gun owners (the good guys) against anti-gun commie pinkos (the bad guys).
Here is a current NRA link which list the good guys and bad guys with .pdf's of their respective amicus briefs regarding the case. From the NRA page here is an extensive list of the good guys who are supporting the individual right to own firearms:
"These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies."
-Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor
"Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children."
-Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
These pro-gun quotes and others can be found at MilSurpStuff.com
I came across the article below on the Drudge Report. Its very interesting regarding the recent school shootings. I wonder what I would think if I were in a classroom when a psychopath came in with a firearm and started shooting into the crowd. I'm pretty sure I would want my .45 close at hand.
Here is a repost of much of the article which I found on Drudge:
Another Massacre At A "Gun Free Zone" College Campus:
"One gun, one person trained how to use it and willing to do so could have stopped most of this.
If you know anything about guns, or ever fire on a range, take any semi-automatic pistol with, say, two extra loaded magazines, and see how long it will take you to fire every single round in those magazines. It doesn’t take but a few seconds. Then imagine firing into a crowded room filled with unarmed people.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
This one, like some others before him, even stopped to reload. One gun. That’s all it would have taken. But that campus, like all the others, is a “gun free zone”.
A number of briefs, in defense of Dick Anthony Heller, have been filed in the DC vs. Heller Second Amendment Supreme court case. Dick Anthony Heller was denied the right to own a gun in the nation's capital because of DC's ridiculous gun bans.
JPFO Files Amicus Brief for Heller Case
Gun Owners of America Files Blockbuster Brief Before The U.S. Supreme Court
There has also been an Amicus brief filed by members of Congress. The NRA link complete with a list of those who signed it and support the second amendment.
There are also a bunch of dopey commie liberal hippie gun hating groups who have filed briefs against Mr. Heller. I don't care to mention their names since they all suck and they don't deserve any press on my blog right now.
More later......
From ScotusWiki:
"The case of District of Columbia v. Heller is about a handgun, a pistol, that Dick Anthony Heller would like to keep in his home in Washington, D.C. He tried to register it with the city, but was turned down — the city has banned the registration, and thus the possession, of all privately owned handguns. Heller argues that he has a Second Amendment right to have the gun in his home for self-defense; he says he lives in a high-crime neighborhood. Heller, so far, is winning..........The D.C. Circuit Court, dividing 2-1, ruled last March 9 that Dick Heller has a Second Amendment right — an individual, personal right — to have that gun, and to keep it at home, loaded and unlocked."
Dick Anthony Heller, you are my hero!!!
I believe opening arguments start next month.
This is a case all gun owners should keep an eye on. I know that I'll be watching it closely.
With Super Tuesday fast approaching, I'd thought it prudent to repost the following websites which list the presidential candidate's stances on the Second Amendment:
The NRA's website: http://www.nravalues.org/
Also, the Gun Owner's of America website: http://gunowners.org/pres08/
On Saturday a botched robbery in Chicago resulted in the death of 5 innocent people.
Police Search for Gunman Who Killed Five Women in Illinois Strip Mall
This savage murderer is still on the loose. So, not surprisingly, I looked into the gun laws in Illinois and apparently carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited with very minor exceptions (i.e you can carry in your house).
I'm not saying that a concealed carry owner would have stopped this carnage, however, the odds might have been changed just a bit and the murderous thug might be in a body bag (where he belongs).
I'm going to go and oil my .45 now.
With the Florida Presidential primary this coming Tuesday and Super Tuesday fast approaching, I'd like to repost the NRA website that lists the presidential candidate's stances on the Second Amendment:http://www.nravalues.org/
Also, the Gun Owner's of America website with similar information: http://gunowners.org/pres08/
I am in the middle of studying what might be one of the most aggravating subjects in the world: calculus. So I haven't had much time for posting as I have a quiz tomorrow night and an exam fast approaching.
Anyway, here is a thought from one of our founding fathers. Wise words indeed.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes" - Thomas Jefferson
NRA has a regular monthly summary of cases of ordinary Americans using firearms to protect their lives, families and properties, check it out: Armed Citizen
