My Musing on "the line" that can't be crossed

Ive been doing some thinking as of late, what with the current attitudes in politics, the current attitude i see simply in the small town , and cafes i live in. the change in my town isn't as alarming as one would thing , being i live in a very conservative area, but the political attitude both state and federal do sort of surprise me, there is , not seems to be a very large divide on the national scene,that if not addressed and allowed to continue on the course its taking will eventually lead to consequences I nor anyone else really want, but no choices are really being left.
The local changes , are very easily fixed though with the electoral process,its a matter of holding our local elected officials to account for their votes , and if we still don't agree , we the people can simply decline to consent to their governing , when they again ask for permission , that's basically what happens when you cast a vote you give your consent for that particular candidate to govern.
On the national level , things are a bit more complex, you cannot expect to have 50 separate states , decide to send over 400 elected officials to a single district ,and expect them to agree, i don't think it has ever really happened.even with the drafting of our own Constitution,that's why our Constitution was a compromise effort , and is the best anyone could actually hope for, and i do know there is no way we can get over 300 million people to agree on exactly what that constitution dictates as to delegated powers even though it spells out precisely what those powers are. the problem i do see is the congress are allowed to pass laws with no citizen approval, because simple sending a rep to dc , doesn't necessarily mean your going to agree with the job they are doing, and frankly , people need to wake up[ and realize , they are the bosses , not the elected officials , remember con cent of the governed , and that consent is contingent on the people , not a single vote every so often.It is our responsibility as citizens to inform our elected officials , what we want them to do , not to leave the playing field open for them , to interpret and do as they , or the national party dictate, if you want your reps to buck the party, which a lot of reps want to as is evidence when either party had control and the amount of reps voted against their own national party , which is it should be , the reps we send to dc , should be representing us , we the people , not the party , not the nation,not special interest groups or lobbyist, they represent the individual states they were elected to serve , and its time to remind some of them of that , now if that means removing them from office by recall, or just voting them out , that's entirely up to the citizens , and its the citizens that will have to start doing that, government wont do that for you, what government will do however , is gain more power if you the citizens allow it.
An example of this can be found in the Patriot act , the current healthcare legislation in congress , and the litany list of laws and regulations , both federal and state and local that curtail we the peoples rights. i don't think anyone cannot think of an example.
I was an enlisted member of the US Armed forces , and that oath , did not have any expiration date , and the only problem that i have with it being an open ended oath, meaning it never expires, is the clause in it to follow the orders of the president of the US and the officers appointed over me, well I am no longer a military member on the payroll of the government,I gain nor receive any benefit nor compensation, my obligation of service as laid out in us code , has been fulfilled , so , even though that oath did not expire, i have taken my oath before god , to do as a civilian , exactly the same as the oath of enlistment or for any office in this land , and i have consciously excluded following the orders of the president or officers, because unless i consent , they are not my officers, yet i still swear to protect the document that is the core of our governmental processes , that codifies our natural and god given rights. No man , nor group of men have the power to strip those inalienable rights from you , unless you allow them to.
So as in an earlier post i ask where your personal line in the sand will be , what line will you not be allowed to cross? its time again for we the people to think and decide , and the decision is only one that you can make for yourself.
Personally , i will keep my oath , and follow the tenets of the oathkeepers with the 10 orders they will NOT follow. They espouse a non violent approach and they mean it , they aren't looking for a fight , they want to remind the government , in the cases they say they wont do , the government will not have cooperation or support locally, something i have no problem with, there are many ways to and ideas on how to let the government know they are going down the wrong road.The problem i see with this approach , is people will be getting arrested, because there is no threat of any consequence other than public opinion, and we see how public opinion can be manipulated.

Another tenet out there is that of the 3%ers, no real organization exists, you will find no rolls , no organizational charts , or charter, what it is is an idea, an idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right , and it is not violable, by anyone, and if anyone should try to violate the right to keep and bear arms they should be met with resistance , and there is no limit on what that resistance may be. Another tenet of the 3%er if they will not fire the first shot, they will defend themselves. against anyone that attempts to by use of force disarm them.

So as you see , there are groups out there, and as i said in the previous post you have to do some checking into their background and beliefs as to what they are and stand for, and the choice is ultimately yours , as to what you will do, just as ultimately its your choice , as to where you will put the line you will not cross, and that is a very personal choice , but one i think if you haven't already made, should be thinking about now. Because after you realize a line has been crossed , its hard if not imposable to push that line back to where you want it to be. Hopefully you've got something to think about.



UPDATE: After a google search , there is a Threepercenter group out there , and scuttle butt is there may be one starting in Texas,as with anything , i only say check things out , to make sure its what you think it is.In other words research.

Thanksgiving Day

Greetings form Wyoming on this Thanksgiving day.
The turkey has been primed and is roasting, the other sundries that go with the meal are awaiting their turn on the flame. This is but a short respite until I have to go back to the labor , that is this holiday. The smells at the moment wafting thought the homestead here , bring back memories of my childhood and my life. Having grown up in Northern New England , both in NH, and Mass, my family has always had what would be considered a traditional Thanksgiving from that area, I have been blessed with being able to celebrate 47 Thanksgivings to date and only but a few of them was i not able to spend the day with those that mean the most to me, due to military service. Around here , usually the meal is a traditional new england affair , and as of late, and meaning by popular vote, I have been chosen to cook the days meal and coordinate the feeding of the clan , here where i have moved, this is not to say, that others do not work along side me, but for the most part , its a family affair, where everyone doers something even if its just being here to enjoy the day.
Today , particularly right now , I'm reflective on exactly what , i have to be thankful for , and in today's climate of uncertainty, and apprehensiveness, about the future, something i usually took for granted while helping my grandma in the kitchen when i was but a nubbin, now i am in the kitchen , toiling as did she and my mother and father did , to make this day at least a bit more memorable for my children and now grandchild. I think about what this day really means to me, of course the usual thankfulness of health and the fact that we will close out another yr together with no major accidents illnesses , or disagreements comes to mind.
I'm also thankful that , my children are able to think and see for themselves what they need to, being this is my grandchild's second , Tday , but the first she will probably remember, i await the marvel she will show and the anticipation of teaching her , what is this family's traditions , for that i am thankful.
I have to also say i am thankful for being able to say i am a free citizen, with all the responsibilities that come with it, i am thankful for living in a nation, where my beliefs and traditions can be practiced , I'm thankful for the many men and women that serve and sacrifice this day in whatever capacity to ensure that we can all enjoy this day.This list can go on and on , because , we can all be thankful for every little blessing , seen and unseen, to us, some we see outright , some go unnoticed or taken for granted, some are more personal , some are more civic oriented, in the end , today , as id the tradition of my clan, i give thanks , and try to think of all the reasons why i am thankful, and resolve to always try and work towards having reasons to be so.
With this, i extend , my warmest holiday wishes to all, and hope that today brings everyone something to be thankful for.
To all , may you have a bountiful and joyous Thanksgiving.

Musings on the Bill of Rights Pt 5

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What this means to me is that , though the people have rights , they in no way impeade or supercede the rights that others have , meaning your rights are there as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to exercize their rights.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What this says to me , is that unless the constitution states that the government has a specific power , the government cannot unless a constitutional amendment approves take power that is not in the constitution, and it further grants those rights to the state as long as it is not forbidden to them by the constitution , and if not mentioned , the rights belong to the people.


This is the end of this series , and it was posted , with the actual amendments and what my thoughts were as to what they mean , and there can be as many meanings as there are people , but if the plain text of the english language is to be adhered to these simople 10 amendments are plain enough for even the most simple amoung us to understand.Our forefathers , didnt use modern day linguistic tricks , nor were they in the practice of twisting things , they were straight forward , and hopeful, and wanted everyone to have an even chance here , they wanted to get away from a tyranny they percieved as inhumane , and oppressive, my thoughts are that the origional founders , wanted to insure that the government stayed in the hands of the people , not the other way around. What do you think?

Musings on the Bill Of Rights Pt 4

After a slight hiatus , I'll deal with the next in the series on the Bill of Rights , and since the next 3 amendments deal with the judicial system , I will tackle all 3 in 1 post.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

To me , what this amendment states is that an accused person , has the right to be tried in the area he committed his crime , and has a right to be judged by a jury , and has the right to question those witnesses to the charges , and has the right to provide witnesses in their defense , as well as the right to council in their defense.It also guarantees that the accused is to be ad viced of the nature of the charges against them.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Basically this amendment , re affirms the right to a jury trial , and it also states that once the jury has decided , the court cannot re examine facts after its been judged by the jury, meaning the jury has precedence over the judge in deciding guilt.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

What this means to me is that bail, fines and punishment are to be commiserate to the charge. To take an extreme here a million dollar bail or fine for jay walking would be excessive,as would a 20 yr sentence be for the same charge if found guilty.

To me these 3 amendments protect the people from an over zealous judicial system and guarantee certain rights for the accused in the hopes of fairness.

Pt 3 of Musings on the Bill of Rights

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Because of what happened before the Revolutionary War, housing of British troops in with civilians against their will , the Founders were apprehensive of standing armies and where they could be housed , and they figured that the people needed protections , so that they would not have to house and feed an army of strangers, thus they made it so that the people could decide what they wanted to do irregardless of what the government wanted, this amendment basically tells the government that the citizens not them can decide , and that even in time of war, that the government has to follow what laws there are, and usually the laws have provisions for just compensation.something that wasn't always the case before the Revolution.again , its a limiting amendment on the government , and leaves the people with the right to decline.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A protection of the people from the government, i think this came about for reasons of political dissent, meaning , that though the people have the right to free speech , protected by the 1ST Amen, they also needed protections from a government that they spoke out against, and in this amendment , it lays down that unless the government can make a case to get a warrant , the government is not allowed to just arbitrarily harass those that speak out against it , and that if a warrant is obtained , it must specify exactly what it can do, it also says that personal property is protected as well as their papers , meaning documents, pretty simple and straight forward.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This lays out , the peoples rights , if charged with a crime , it basically says that you have to be informed of what you have been charged with, it also allowed the government just one chance to prove its case for a specific crime , they cant try a person loose , then go digging for more evidence and charge you again later for the same crime, it also says that you have the right not to provide evidence that may convict you, they have to prove your guilt , not you prove your innocence, the government is also not allowed to take your life , freedom or property with out due process, meaning you get a day in court to fight it, it also says the government cannot seize your property , without having to pay for it, even if they take it by law.

I have given you 3 amendment's in one post , its alot to digest , and think about , and we are now half way through the bill of rights, and mind you , this is simply what they mean to me if anyone has more to add , they are welcome to in the comments section of these posts, i am not a constitutional scholar, but a student of the past , and as you can see , i look at why these were written , what caused them to be written , and how they were written, the greatest gift the founders gave us , was the fact , that these simple proclamations were written in the plain English of the day , so that everyone could understand their meanings, with that , what do you think?

Pt 2 of musings on the Bill of Rights

Amendment II

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.

This amendment , is the one , that i feel guarentees that everything else can be defended.It is simple , to the point ,and again a restrictive amendment against the government.alot has been said about this amendment , and its been argued exactly whom this right extends to. what its meaning is to me , is that the people shall not be denied the right to keep and bear arms.
Some feel that it applies to the militia only as they define it, but in United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

There use to be a subsection under unorganized militias that was comprised of everyone else that did not fall under either of the above mentioned sections , but is now strangely absent, but non the less the local militias made up of everyday folks has been legal. Why in just the last few yrs that section was removed is a subject for a different discussion.
So basically at its root , the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people , that shall not be infringed , meaning no law to restrict can be placed, and the militia clause means not just what is presently in US Code , but for all the people to form as they see fit. what do you think?

musings on the Bill of Rights and their meanings Pt 1

Greetings from Wyoming,
An interesting article at the St louis Gun Rights Examiner today,http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d17-The-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-need-not-be-for-sporing-purposes .It actually made me pause for a moment , and start to think about exactly what the purpose of the bill of rights were actually meant to do. So what i think I will do is take each of the 10 amendments called the bill of rights and see what they mean to me, and i invite you to do the same. I think if we are to defend a thing , first we must have a basic understanding of it andn if we do niot understand it properly , we can not defend it properly, and i also understand , that there will be as many understanding as there are people, now that being said lets see what is understood.
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This amendment has six parts as one can obviously see, and they are protections of the people in religion , speech the press and in redressing the government for abuses by the government.
As to religion , it specifically says that the government can make no laws for or against religion , it doesnt mention what religion it applies to so common sense says that it applies to ALL religions, and that there can be no laws regarding , or restricting the practice of religion, but i think the caveat of this is ,the people have theright to practice any religion they choose , as long as it does not circumvent , the rights of any other person, an example of this , would be , say a religion that wants to practice human sacrifice or or religious mutilation, just as a person have a right to practice a religion , they do not have the right to take rights from others in its practice. And the government can not make any laws restricting the practice of religion.

I will tackle the right to speech and to freely assemble as one, what this means to me , is that the people have the right to say as they see fit with their understanding of the subject and they have the right to freely assemble and discuss, and say if they support or desent on any subject, some of the so called "hate speech"laws are counter to this section from the outset.so no laws can be made to stop the people from gathering and voicing their opinions and no laws can be made to restrict what the people think is right.
Freedom of the press, the press has an obligation to print the truth, and no laws can be made to hamper the press from reporting the truth , or all the facts, and the press here has the responsability to make sure their reporting is accurate and factual, and here is where the credibility of the press remains in their own hands , since they cannot be regulated by law, what i see though is the press , in some instances have become mouth pieces and soap boxes for their respective views on subjects , both overtly and covertly, and this is where they either gain credibility , or loose it. So basically the press is left to its own moral character and beliefs in the regards to self policing.
the right to petition for grievences against the government , basically if the government does something , that a person thinks is not right , they have the right to sue the government , and try to correct the wrong through the system. i think that today it still works , but the wheels of the justice system move slowly , through beliefs , or design, but it does still work.
To me , this amendment , is a limiting amendment on the government , it tells the government what they can NOT do, and it gives the rights to the people and it in no means all the government cannot do, it is just some of the things the founders decided , after going through what they did back then that forced them to concieve a new nation and seperate to form what they thought was right.
As usual i now ask what do you think?

What is meant by "No Ft Sumters"?

Well, I feel there is a need to explain this. I have been hearing around where i live , a growing displeasure with things going on in the country. and i listen to the grievances , and what all the speaker seems to think should be done.Surprisingly , i use to think myself a bit of a radical in my stances on issues, but some of the things i have heard from some folks really made me pause. I wont go into detail , or quote specifics on what others have said they think on what should be done. What i will say is what i pointed out to them, that IF a Revolution or a separation of the Union is going to happen, then they need to think along the lines of No ft Sumter's, when im asked what that means , i point them to the Sipsey street irregulars blogsite, and the 3%er philosophy , that they wont start it , and in essence that's what no ft sumpters means.
Now Ft Sumpter was the beginning of this country's last HOT civil war , and what i mean by hot is open warfare. and historically , i think its where the south lost the war , and that in itself is very debatable , but if you follow for amoment ill explain
The south felt aggrieved and that they had to do something against whom they thought were a tyrannical federal government , but by firing the first salvos , they became the aggressor. Now think about every war this country has ever fought and won, they did so from the moral high ground , that they didnt start it,and they were defending themselves and for the most part , they always won, again , there are debatable instances throughout all the wars , but for the most part , the reason the feds always won , is THEY got to play on the public , that THEY had been aggrieved and attacked.Same with FT Sumpter, they were attacked , and were given a media goose that laid the golden egg,and they used it to Marshall an army around, Think back to all the war slogans for recruitment , remember the Alamo. the Maine remember pearl harbor. What citizen wouldn't rise up and do their part if this country were attacked? remember 9/11? and the general feeling in this country , all sides were active and wanting to do something, What Patriot wouldn't?
So as i said , i point this stuff out , and point to both whats happened historically , and what if there is going to be a revolution what would need to happen if the worst ever did happen, those participating in the action will need to have the public sympathy and support , and what better way than to appear the victim of TYRANNICAL government .Remember those on Lexington Green were defending themselves , those at the Alamo were defending themselves both went on due to public op pinion to start nations and they did so from the moral high ground of defending themselves.
Now , here is my thought , i don't know if it will come to pass in my lifetime, but when it does , because i see some very dangerous over reaching and belligerence on the part of the powers that be , so my advice is , be the defender , not the agressor , No FT Sumters for them this time.What do you think?

What is a Constitutionalist to you?

Greetings from Wyoming, i decided to take the weekend off from blogging , and take some down time to think, I figure , since i call myself a Constitutionalist , i better give a brief description of what 1 is , and the best i have found so far is this:
Starting with the proposition that "'Constitutionalism' refers to the position or practice that government be limited by a constitution, usually written," analysts take a variety of positions on what the constitution means. For instance, they describe the document as a document that may specify its relation to statutes, treaties, executive and judicial actions, and the constitutions or laws of regional jurisdictions. This prescriptive use of Constitutionalism is also concerned with the principles of constitutional design, which includes the principle that the field of public action be partitioned between delegated powers to the government and the rights of individuals, each of which is a restriction of the other, and that no powers be delegated that are beyond the competence of government.
My understanding of that , is that there are certain things laid out in the Constitution, and basically it tells the federal government what it can do and exactly what it cannot do, it is alimitation , on federal powers , and to my thinking , a lot if not most of the federal "laws " go directly against the bill of rights contained there in, matter of fact , a few of the amendments themselves , are not needed and i say this because do we really need amendments that pertain to race for example? or do we need an amendment for taxation ? or even federal legislature pay raises?but i divirge, a constitutionalist is one that thinks that the rules for the federal government are plainly there ,in 1 document , and that they are resolute.
now if some have a differnt view , im all ears, so what do you think?

OnlyOnes?

I think I will borrow a topic from the war on guns blogsite. I will admit , i had never heard the term only ones before , but after some concerted thought , i can see a correlation here. If you adhere to the fallacy that the only ones that NEED to be armed is those that are considered to be those charged with enforcement of the law my take is the person that thinks that is living in a land of sugarplum fairies, and frankly my sincere hope is that nothing bad ever happens to them, but the lord does look after fools and idiots it seems , but would you want to trust in that
Now i live , in one of the last vestiges , od what this country once was , in definitely what one would call a rural citizen , basically mind my own business , and expect others to respect my right to be left alone, but that doesn't seem to be the norm anymore. A lot of the lefts ideas that only the law enforcement officer or military should be the only ones with guns is , something to me an alien concept. As a former military member , and military policeman , i cannot really understand the logic of wanting to disarm people that have not done anything to warrant the revocation of the god given right to defend oneself, even the argument that civilized folks don't act violently doesn't carry water with me , as proof look at the GOP convention last yr, real civilized folks there, or maybe any of the lefts protests or "peace" marches , hell , just look at how so called "civilized " folks act when their favorite sports team wins or looses a championship, definite candidates for "thinning of the herd" there
Noe as for those only ones, well during Bill Clintons presidency ,. the rights of military members to be armed was severely curtailed , in 1 fell swoop he mandated that , the ruling authority on a military base could no longer decide who could and who could not bear arms while on the base, so the very person responsible enough to run the day to day goings on , could no longer decide if their personnel were trustworthy enough to trust with arms, you see i was in during the 80's and usually on a Strategic base , and more than once it was commented to me that everyone knew , that the military police , though carrying guns , didn't have any ammunition, imagine their surprise when they found out different, different time and different place in history i guess, because not only could i carry in the performance of my duties a loaded weapon , i could , with the proper authorization , carry while off duty.and we have seen what happens when that is taken away , all 1 has to do is look to Ft Hood, imagine if just one officer of the day , had been armed, what may the outcome have been then? We wont know, because that was taken away when the very people we train to defend the Constitution , and us , the citizens, were deemed not trustworthy, all i can say , is its very sad, i for 1 trust those that have pledged to defend more than i do those that have been elected and have continually shown the trust given them is misplaced.
As for the other "only ones" the Law enforcement establishment, here where I live , most of the local law enforcement understand , that something can happen and basically if seconds count , they are usually minutes if not hours away, so they cant be everywhere at once. Another benefit to where i live , is that the local leo, gets to know the people , kind of like the old days when neighborhoods had beat cops , i remember having just such a beat cop growing up in Mass. the guy retired and everyone in the neighborhood was at his retirement party , don't see that much now adays anymore, back then they, the beat cops knew the folks they worked around , and cared, and frankly , around where i live now , its still somewhat like that , because the leo, gets to know his people. and don't get me wrong , but i understand this is the exception now , not the norm, but this is normal to me , the local and state LEO's all get to know those they can here , and partially out of necessity, , you see , here , they ride alone , and are far from backup, but they know they have it if its needed if they have folks that appreciate the work they do for us , so to them disarmament , is a detriment , because with all the regulations , banning and demonizing , its a greater threat to them to have someone unarmed and willing to help than having to face a real criminal on their own. so maybe this only one thing needs to be rethought , maybe the facts of life and the probability that the human animal isn't all that civilized needs to be looked at , and sometimes the ideal solution doesn't fit with what natures laws will undoubtedly prove out. For those that wonder what I'm talking about , look at the high crime areas anywhere, those areas also usually have the worst registration and bans against self defense and the defense of others, your regulations , laws and bans have simply , made more victims by making it poss able for those intent on it to know they have "easy" victims .
So cry me a river , there is not only 1 that has the god given right to defense , i wont deny you your right to not have to be armed , but i wont stand for you telling me , i have no right to be armed. with that said , what do you think?

musings on the gungrabbers , and the upcoming SCOTUS case dealing with Chicago

Greetings from Wyoming.
Now normally,I don't read Newsweek , or even some of the other left leaning so called news mags out there, i cant see , throwing money into their coffers to use against me , or to let them be able to spread their messages that firearms are evil .But , this caught my eye about the upcoming SCOTUS case.http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/01/Fineman-New-Supreme-Court-Term-Gun-Regulations.aspx. i will let you read it yourself and let you make your own decisions on where the writers stand.
read it? good. now here is the text of the 2ND Amendment: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 ,that's how its written,that's it in its entirety.
What the dear writers have failed to mention is that not a mere 41 yrs ago , most people didn't have the regulations or rules that are in place today as far as firearms, and if anything has changed , its the amount of regulation that has been crammed down the peoples throats, in the name of a civilized society, at the cost to the amendment in question. I do not , begrudge , people that wish to think like those that think , the police will always be able to come to their aide , i don't begrudge, those that do not wish to exercise a right one bit, what i do begrudge , is that even in this day and age , people cannot understand simple , plain English
i DO begrudge , that someone thinks that judges can arbitrarily assign new meanings to words , just because for the last 40 yrs , its gone their way, if anything , the present court , has not rewritten the rule book , they have with the Heller decision , followed the rule book , as it was plainly written two hundred and some yrs ago.the right to defend ones self is a god given right , not something the government can say you can and cannot do.
The gun grabbers and banners are rightly worried that their precious unconstitutional laws are under attack , and upon closer look , may very well turn out to be diametrically opposed to the words and meaning in the 2ND, and that they really have no basis to deny anyone the means of defense or property they can own, and i might add lawfully. The upcoming case going before the court , will not only decide if the people of Chicago are being denied their rights , but a more important issue is can the prohibition stated in the amendmentagainst the government, can be used to apply to the states as well, and THAT is what really scares the bejesus out of them , because if so , every state has to go and look at their own laws and bring them into constitutionality. Don't get me wrong , there will be gun laws , there will still be banned guns , but this is but one more little chink in the way the anti gun crowd can get draconian laws and regulations passed. as Bill Clinton was fond of saying in his terms of office , its the economy stupid, something the present holder of office should heed, its the constitutionality stupid , if it cant pass that test , you cant enforce it . Frankly , i say the courts are on the right track and arent rewritting the constitution , they have righted a wrong perpertrated on this countrys citizens.

musings of the government and the 2nd amendment

"...This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."
-- US President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

Interesting words from a very controversial President, and i can see both sides of the argument on the guns rights group as i read them. On one side , we have the pragmatists ,whom think we must use the legislature , courts and win over public opinion to the side that we hold close , on the other , those of us , that have looked at all the legislation of the past 70 odd yrs and seen a slow whittling away of the 2ND amendment, and have declared not one more inch.
The battle over the 2ND Amendment has been going on for longer than i have been alive , with a good deal of what i feel are unconstitutional restrictions happening within my lifetime. Granted , those that want to keep their firearms have had to give up some in order to keep them , and some progress has been made in correcting SOME of what i feel is unconstitutional restrictions on citizens , through judicial and legislative venues, we still have a long way to go before we get back to exactly what the founders meant when they penned the 2ND.

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.
The above text , the 2ND amendment is simple and plain English, there is no hiding , that the right is given to the people to keep and bear arms when necessary , the militia clause as those that would like to do away with this right , or make it so that only certain people have this particular right, be attached to the military. If that was so then they will have to expand it to all LEO duties as well as those that would come to ones aide, because the militia , was the people , ordinary citizens.
Now to the two groups , the pragmatists and those , that wont be pushed anymore,Threepercenters, i think both have their places , and neither side is going to change anything without the other, and i do believe we , as gun owners have to try and win with legislation and the judicial process, that's what Lincoln meant by trying to change things within the system, that is our right.I am then brought to thinking , where do i draw my line , when is enough enough?
I think that, is entirely a personal decision , that only you as an individual can make , some it may be when all else fails and the system has failed to hear you , some it will be when door to door searches are made to confiscate guns that have been made illegal , some it may be when they are targeted for voicing, their displeasure , or their beliefs, and that is what i think Lincoln meant by their right to overthrow it.
This country , has a long history of using the democratic process,and as with all processes it can become corrupt , i state that the 2ND Amendment is there just for that reason , so that it cannot become corrupt , that the people have the means , if they have the will to stand and defeat that corruption, the government derives its power to govern from the consent of the people , all the people , not just the majority, and the government is the servant , not the master, maybe its time we remind the government , and all the parties of that.
And with that said , i ask you , where do you draw your line?

Thought on this Veterans Day, and musings on Ft Hood

As i sit back , and remember the many veterans today, both past , and present , i honor their sacrifices , and their achievments, i remember being told when i joined the service , that only 2 have willingly laid down their lives for others , 1 being Jesus, and the other , the Americanfightingman, i have to expand that to include the American Citizen , and as of the 1970s , they have done so volentarily, so to all veterans , past and present , my heartfelt thanks to you, and to those families that have had a veteran give the ultimate sacrifice , , i can only offer a sincer thank you .
This Veterans day is somewhat subdued , due to the events at Ft Hood texas, and im still both in a state of shock and outrage , both that something like this can happen , and that the so called unbiased media cannot see the simple fact , that this WAS a terrorist act, i cannot see their logic , that it was anything other, and all the reporting to the contrary and the suposition that there were other causes , just dont seem to hold water for me, the act was perpertrated , premeditated , and carried out , by an individual, that had a different point of view, he had a political end in mind and he chose to use violence to gain his end, now call me provincial , but if it walks like and quacks like , it is.And ist that exactly what a terrorist is defined as? someone that uses violence to achieve a political end.
We are being told not to jump to conclusions , on this , its kind of hard when all one has to do is just connect the dots with what is out there.
Now maybe the government , and the media dont want to start a frezy, maybe they wish to avoid , actually admitting , that there is a war going on that has been going on for the better part of a millenia, maybe, they are burying their heads in the sand.
there is going to be a lot of blame shifted around , alot of fingers pointed , but the cruel hard fact is , 1 person did this , for their own reasons , and affected not only the lives immediately invoplved , but their families , and the whole of the american peoples , i dont see how it cannot , and whitewashing and avoiding or omitting facts , isnt going to help anyone, least of all those directly involved, i for one will now be keeping an eye on people that i know have differing views , (paranoia, profiling, yep) is that bigotry? maybe , but its also called a survival instinct, and as of yet , is still perfectly legal .
So to the men women and families from Ft Hood , my thoughts are with you during this trying time.