Tenche Coxe, founding father, defines a militia.

 As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

The left has been trying to redefine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for decades, so it's no surprise that most of the letters seem astonished at most pro-gun arguments; let's see if we can cut through the bull and find out what our founding fathers were talking about. "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". Many are confused as to the meaning of a "militia". The meaning in context is quite clear. Our finding fathers were concerned that a strong leader would emerge and enslave the United States citizenry, using the nations own standing army . They decided however, the American citizenry would be deemed an armed militia, not controlled by the state or federal government, would be able to stand up to any army. Now read the second amendment and see if it makes more sense. This also addresses the "they meant muskets" and  "you don't need a 20 round clip to kill Bambi" arguments; so the arms in the 2nd Amendment were to arm the citizenry to defeat an Army, not to go hunting.

Here are some examples of those letters from those confused and ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 Recent rhetoric from the NRA tries to make the case that we should be focusing our efforts on addressing the causes (i.e. crazy people) instead of treating the symptoms (i.e. banning automatic assault weapons designed with only one purpose -- to kill people). Living in a culture in which people with access to guns routinely commit massacres makes people crazy. And why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied by the NRA, anyway? They're not elected officials. Let's put this issue to a national vote and see what the rest of the country thinks. And by the way, the Second Amendment ensures a well-armed militia. We have one of those. It's called the National Guard.
Jayme Kelly Curtis, Felton

My response:  
Jayme Kelly Curtis, you sound like from the Huffington Post. #1 the NRA has a membership and 4.3 million and represent over 100 million gun owners. As a member I give them permission to bully you or anyone else that seeks to mitigate gun ownership. Further the idea that gun massacres are routine is absurd and just another attempt by the left re-define reality to fit their agenda. According to the FBI's own statistics, gun crimes in the last 10 years have gone down 49% while ownership has increased 25-30% in the same time period; how does that jive with your world view of cause and effect of gun violence?

As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Then there was a bogger name "Will Sharp" who was a walking talking point from the Huffington Post (or similar left wing information media).  True the nra is only interested in protecting gun profits period. They and their followers have nothing to do with freedom and many are unbalanced extremists who are out of touch with what the vast majority of real Americans want common sense laws that protect our society. At the end of the day we will get those laws eventually because the gun violence will contunue and the public will demand it. Gun nuts can spout off about the constitution that they barely understand all they want the solution is obvious less guns on the street period. Will Sharp



My response;
Will Sharp, here is a statement by another gun nut on the 2nd Amendment, Tenche Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress at the time of the ratification and implementation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights 1788-1789; "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Things change with time as does the the constitution. In fact the second ammendment (sic) is just that an ammendment (sic) or change. I think the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" trumps gun fanatics right to menace the vast majority of real Americans. And it's a matter of time before these same extremists abuse the second amendment and it's amended. Will Sharp

My response:
Will Sharp appears to be a typical liberal the continually accuses those he disagrees with his own shortcomings. While "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Constitution, it is implied; the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights was meant to innumerate those rights under specific circumstances (they were not meant to change the US Constitution in any way). A bill of rights was actually quite contentious at the time, as historically a bill of rights was a concession by a monarch and the belief was if a Monarch could grant rights he could also take them away. The Declaration of Independence defined individual rights as not given by man but endowed by their Creator, therefore all the rights enumerated in the original 10 amendments of Bill of Rights are also "unalienable Rights" that were "endowed by our creator". The right to bear arms is a necessary component of the right to, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the second amendment simply articulated that the right to bear arms would also be protected by law.

The Fallacy of "If Only One Life is Saved"

In the typical twisted logic of a progressive, President Obama recently said of increased gun control, "if there's one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try." This is simply a collectivist idiom designed to make giving up ones rights sound noble. Millions of Americans sacrificed their lives for the freedoms we now enjoy, but President Obama would have us believe that if a freedom might lead to the injury of some  innocent person, than that freedom should be mitigated or excised away; it's government saying, you are not smart enough to make the decisions that rule your life, so the government must step in and do it for you; it is the road to self enslavement. The collectivist will always take some tragedy and drive up the hysteria ("never let an emergency go to waste"), then explain that unfortunately some individual rights will need to be given up for the greater good and there is no tragedy that can not be politicized by the left; it is not out of the realm of possibilities that Gabrielle Giffords injured brain was unable to even understand her anti-gun speech given recently in a congressional hearing ). The reasoning of "If only one life is saved," is collectivist rhetoric that  will never accomplish it's stated purpose of saving lives, or like gun bans, the regulations will only be symbolic at the time, but will morph into into the call for more restrictive regulations in the future. Even worse, we give up our freedoms because we are told, every individual right taken away may have the consequence of saving a life). The collectivist politician(s) continue to promise not only what they can never deliver, but what the have no intention on delivering. The purpose behind such actions are described by Thomas Sowell ;

 "The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone". Obama's Rhetoric

In a society with individual rights, regulations and laws are a governmental request for voluntary compliance. But with a concentration of power and a loss of individual rights (history has shown that collectivist societies breed totalitarian and oppressive regimes) there is no need voluntary compliance. Collectivists like President Obama like to use the same terminology as our founding documents but give them a collectivist meaning. A perfect example is the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution. Any person who has spent any time reading the Federalist Papers, know that far from being a social mandate, " promoting the general welfare"  was  the end result of the Constitution, and it's guarantee of individual rights and limited government. Finally lets look at the gun problem logically. There hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and only a handful of nut-jobs that may want to slaughter the our children in the schools. Do we ban future sales of certain weapons that are rarely used in this slaughter, or do we guard the children? I have a son starting High School next year and I know what I want..and it's not a symbolic gesture.

Gun Control; the Australian model

 Below is a letter to the Editor espousing the Australian model of buying back guns. It is a straw man argument that still requires rebuttal.

Mentally unstable males are being blamed for many of the killing sprees. OK, but is everyone overlooking the obvious? A mentally unstable person cannot go out and kill 10, 20, 30 people without the aid of semi-automatic handguns and military style assault rifles. It's the guns stupid! Stay on message. And people keep saying there are no easy answers to gun violence. Wrong again! Australia is an excellent example of what can be done to stop mass murder with guns. In 1996, a lone gunman killed 32 people with semi-automatic guns. Within weeks, the Australian government was working on gun reform laws that banned assault weapons, tightened licensing laws and financed gun buyback programs. Since the laws were enacted in 1996 there has been a reduction of gun violence and no more mass murder rampages. Yes, something can be done. Ron Lowe


Before I discuss the Austrian buy back model, lets look at your statement  "A mentally unstable person cannot go out and kill 10, 20, 30 people without the aid of semi-automatic handguns and military style assault rifles." Perhaps you forget that terrorists currently and throughout history use bombs to commit mass causality slaughter. While an assault weapon is deadly, bombs are cheaper and are capable of much more destruction and death.

The Australian buy back is another strawman argument buy the left. The Australian mandated buy back program resulted in 650,000 firearms being turned in. While the result was a reduction in gun violence,  non-firearm violent crime increased; so the end result was a wash in violent crime. Australia has a population of about 20million; the US has a population of 300 million. For every 100 Australian, 20 owned guns; for every 100 Americans 80 own guns. Australia has not bill of rights or a constitutional right to own a firearm; the US has both; the right to bear arms in Australia has no where near the significance than it does in the US. There is also nothing in the Australian constitution that guarantees human rights, only five explicit individual rights in the Constitution. They are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117). Australia also has a limited separation of powers, so the government can pretty much dictate whatever it wants and the citizenry is expected to obey. The national laws of other countries are not created in a vacuum, a fact conveniently not brought up by the Left; remember how Obama praised China, "Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business … you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option." Why aren't we doing the same thing?." If Ron Lowe thinks the US should model Australia, he best go to Australia, because it ain't happening here!

The Terrorist Attack At Sandy Hook School

Imagine that terrorist sleeper cells were attacking Americans in schools, movie theaters, churches and malls; all places that are traditionally gun free zones. Now Imagine that the President of the United States said the country will be responding to this terrorist attack with a gun ban; there would be a collective, "what?"  Well you don't have to imagine anything, because it's happening in the US right now. Psychotic killers are targeting Americans and leaving mass casualty massacres in their wake; the most recent took the lives of 20 children and 6 teachers at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Connecticut. Now the President has numerous options at his disposal, such as Homeland Security to protect Americans from terrorists, but instead he targets law abiding citizens who want to buy a firearms for protection. Obviously there is no way a gun ban will stop terrorists attacks, not now or in the foreseeable future. So why is the President and other Liberals pushing so hard for weapons ban? Are we surrendering?


I published this in a previous blog Weapons Bans And Other Symbolic Nonsense; but it's too important not to repeat; In 2004 The Nation Institute of Justice released it's report on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 In general the finding were there's no evidence that an assault weapons (AW) ban accomplished it's goal to reduce gun violence; this included the fact the pistols with large capacity magazines (LCM) were classified as assault pistols and pistols are used in far more crimes that AR(s). " ...the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading." So I say again Obviously there is no way a gun ban will stop terrorists attacks, not now or in the foreseeable future.

They Thought They Were Free; The Obama Legacy

The current battle over the 2nd amendment is simply a continuation of the left's attempt to do away with individual rights. Our forefathers founded the United states on individual rights and personal freedom, which is the diametrically opposed by the left; or to be more accurate the collectivists. The collectivists believe that to achieve a safe and fair government, individual rights and personal freedoms must disappear; and in it's place will be forced equality. But most Americans would not agree to give up their personnel freedoms, so the collectivists hide their true in intentions and try to steer society incrementally toward collectivism.

Below is a statement made by Barrack Obama before his first election; every word speaks of need for collectivist government (the collectivists have been trying to back peddle these comments from the day they were made public). 

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

When Obama calls the Constitution a charter of negative liberties, while not really redefining the meaning, but he is bemoaning that the Constitutions restricts government from forcing collective policies on the citizenry and making it sound negative liberties are bad; Erich Fromm, a humanistic philosopher praised negative freedom, saying it marks the beginning of humanity as a species conscious of its own existence free from base instinct; doesn't sound bad to me. The collectivist have taken the General Welfare clause of the constitution and redefined it when they say individual rights must be given up for the general welfare of society, or the need for Social Justice, which has become a collectivist metaphor for the redistribution of wealth. Other collectivist speak is the need to sacrifice for the "greater good" and the rich needing to pay a little more in taxes. President Obama's only economical plan seems to be a 3% marginal increase for those that make over $250,000, and it's well known that this plan will have no real effect on the debt and is symbolic at best; that is symbolic of a collectivist stoking the fires of class warfare and the need for the intervention of government for the purpose of the redistribution of wealth.

This is a small portion from a book about the rise of fascism (a form of collectivism) from the prospective of the German citizenry; book is called "They Thought They Were Free"; I have included this in an earlier blog but it bears repeating.

 "What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it."

 "This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter." 

 "To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

2nd Amendment for Muskets?

The following is a couple of responses to the Santa Cruz Sentinel blog on Gun Control. The first addressed the belief by some that our founding fathers would have drawn the line at muskets.  

When the Second Amendment was crafted, our Founding Fathers had no idea how guns would evolve over the next two centuries. They were under the belief that Americans should have the right to bear muskets! Not automatic weapons. The Obama administration should keep that in mind as they decide new guidelines on what guns Americans should legally be able to possess. William Wright, Santa Cruz

William Wright, yours is an opinion that usually comes from ignorance of the Constitution. Believe it or not the founding fathers believed that every American was in charge of his own life; and to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg..it is of no concern. The only time Americans were expected to come together was as an armed militia when "the security of a free state" was in jeopardy. Therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," by the state, as it may be the the state itself that is threatening the existence of the free state; our forefathers did not trust government. The type of weapon was to be a contemporary military grade weapon; as a matter of fact the idea that one militia member with an assault weapon could be more deadly than a platoon with muskets would have been welcome when we were fighting the British; they had already learned that couple regiments of rifleman could destroy three or four regiments of Tories with muskets; the rifle was pretty much the assault weapon of the day.. However firearm innovation did not stop with rifles.100 years later the Henry rifle, "gave a single man the firepower of a dozen marksmen armed with muzzle-loading muskets." There is little doubt that a 150 year old Henry rifle would give a modern semi-automatic assault weapon a run for it's money. So no William, our Founding Fathers did not write the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution under the belief that Americans should have the right to bear muskets. Our Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution under the belief that the Americans citizen should be able to repel an army to preserve the Constitution itself using whatever contemporary firearm that would be available at the time to accomplish that goal.

The second was a response from a very inarticulate liberal, with their typical emotional response, but he did hit on some points the "holier than thou" liberal tend to bring up..The writer, Jack Hoff (apparently his name and self description) was responding to a Mike Marketello who wrote, "I'll take it slow and in steps so you can follow along. Yes, we do have police, and we do have a great 911 system. It is your contention that nobody needs a gun, the correct response being not to protect yourself from violence, but to dial 911 and wait for the police to show up and protect you?  Well Jack, we have police, we have 911, give it your best shot and explain to the folks here why we still have crime? I mean we have the cops and 911, nobody need be a victim it's 2013, so why do you suppose people choose to be a victim of crime instead of just dialing 911.
The forum excitedly waits your reply, it should be a good laugh."

Heh Mike, that is why we have 911 and a police dept. Get a grip pal, this is 2013 not 1774!
Gun owners==kooks!

Mike Marketello: 99% of gun owners are so called "hunters". Can't wait to play "dress up" in camo clothing, get together with a bunch of their drinkin' "BUDDIES", and go out and destroy a living animal. Let's not forget the high power scope so the animal can be shot from 200 yards away! I'd rather spend the weekend with my girlfriend.....however, I'm a straight male.
All hunters are cowards! I learned karate and earned my black belt over 30 years ago.
A real man can defend himself without a gun. P***ies are gun owners!
Get off you lazy asses and take a self defense class.
Oh, and I love how hunters carry their "weapons" on the gun rack in their rear pick-em-up
window! Like I'm a real man because I have rifles in my truck window. Jack Hoff

 Jack Hoff, you sound like a typical liberal, if the facts don't fit your world view, just make them up as you go along; 99% of gun owners are hunters? really? The reality of course is your world view is shared by very few, but your right to share them came at the barrel of a gun. Perhaps you've haven't noticed but we live in dangerous times. I am a retired Police Officer and I can tell you that 99% of the time we arrive after the fact and help clean up. Having a firearm simply gives you one more option,"If you have a gun you can decide if it's necessary to use it; if you don't have a gun that is not a decision you will be able to make." Also there has never been any correlation between gun ownership and violent crime (Britain has more violent crime per capita than the US). Yes, the US has a much higher murder rate, but subtract the gang members killing each other and suicides, the number drops considerably (these are two areas where the killings and death would still occur with or without firearms). Oh, and carrying firearms in the back window of a pickup is to be lawful; when transporting a firearm it must be unloaded and either somewhere beyond reach (ie a trunk) or in full view and most gun owners don't want their firearms rattling about in the beds or their truck. BTW, I think you parents named you right.

Thank's to VP Joe Biden for Making Guns Cool Again

The one saving grace of an over reaching government is the constant misreading of the citizenry. It should be obvious to any thinking person that with over 300 million firearms already in circulation a gun ban of newly purchased firearms will have no effect on gun crimes at all. But what it does do is make  guns really cool again and the thing to have. Before Prohibition, many Americans seemed satisfied that if they could buy a drink, it didn't really matter if they had one or not; but with a pending gun ban led by VP Joe Biden and the anti-gun lobby,  we now see Americans scrambling to buy firearms and ammunition at a here before unheard of rate, much the way the citizenry during Prohibition pursued a speakeasy. And it's not because of Zombies; it's because Americans do not like being told what they can and can not have.  The state has thrown out the straw man arguments, such as assault weapons are not designed for hunting, as if there is something in the second amendment that says the right to bear arms is for hunting. When a person that actually understands the Constitution explains the reason for the right to bare arms is to protect the citizenry from an over reaching and tyrannical government, the main stream media treats this like an extremist belief, as if our forefathers vision of a government built on the foundation of individual rights was also the act of extremists. But somewhere in the sole of every American is the belief in freedom and Liberty; one of the most common replies by Americans is, "Hey, its a free country".

I heard a British journalists that is a member  of the US media, refer to the Constitution as a book; and said during a debate that he debated the second amendment many times and he knows what is says. The reason that this journalist is so ignorant is because, while he may had read the Constitution he has never lived it. He doesn't understand that while Britain has already given up it's individual freedoms and sovereignty, partly due to the Britain's lack of a Constitution with a guarantee of individual rights, however in America our Constitution is still alive and still guarantees that America is a free country. The reason we want our guns is not just for hunting; and not just for personal protection; and even not just to fight off a tyrannical government; it's because it's is our Constitutional right to own them. Something an non-American will never understand.So thank you VP Biden, for as long the citizenry believed guns were available, gun ownership really wasn't an issue. But now your just not hip (or a true patriot) unless you are armed. VP Biden says part of his gun control program is to confiscate all unregistered firearms. How's that working out for you Joe? Found any unregistered firearms yet?