Judge Napolitano

From the Freedom Files

Guns and the president

Published on Jan 24, 2013

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published January 24, 2013
FoxNews.com

Here is an uncomfortable pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Adam Lanza or Barack Obama? We’ll hold off on the answer for a few paragraphs while we look at the state of governmental excess — including killing — in America. But you can probably guess the correct answer from the manner in which I have posed the question.
We all know that the sheet anchor of our liberties is the Declaration of Independence. The president himself quoted Thomas Jefferson’s most famous line in his inaugural address earlier this week. He recognized that all men and women are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The president would no doubt like to modify the word “created” to read “shall be maintained,” since his presidency seems dedicated to keeping us equal, not in terms of equality of rights and opportunity but of outcome. He has dedicated himself to using the coercive power of the federal government to take from those who have and give to those who don’t. Under the Constitution, charity is a decision for individuals to make, not the government.

This forced egalitarianism was never the purpose of government in America. When the people in the original 13 states gave up some of their personal liberties to create their state governments so they could perform the services that governments in the West do, and when the states themselves gave up some of their liberties to create the federal government of limited powers to address the issues of nationhood, they never authorized government to impose taxes to transfer wealth to those who lack it or need it.

This may sound harsh, but there is simply no authority in the Constitution for the feds to tax Americans or to borrow money in their names to rebuild private homes in New Orleans or at the Jersey Shore. And there is no moral authority for that, either. If folks want to give money to those whose properties were damaged by natural disasters and lacked adequate insurance coverage, they are free to do so, but nowhere does government have the authority to compel us to do so.

This shows how far we have come from the Constitution the Founders gave us. They “constituted” a government of limited powers, and they did so because they wanted the government to protect our freedoms, since they understood that personal responsibility and freedom — not government handouts — are the soundest routes to prosperity. Hence, they limited the government because they knew the lessons of history. And those lessons informed them that often it is the government itself that is the greatest threat to personal freedom.

One hundred years ago, during the Progressive Era, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson turned the concept of limited government on its head. They argued that the Constitution could be disregarded because the federal government possesses unlimited powers to address the people’s needs. Barack Obama is their ideological heir. As their heir, he is not only the head of the executive branch of the federal government, but he is also the head of one of the two dominant political parties.

That political party has dedicated itself to making certain killing legal. The Democrats have continually celebrated the abominable decision of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, issued 40 years ago this week. They have championed abortion for the past 40 years. They have assaulted the greatest and most fundamental of human rights: the right to live. In doing so, they have succeeded in causing the government to permit the killing of more than 50 million American babies in their mothers’ wombs in the past 40 years — for the sake of convenience and sexual activity without consequence, in a manner that is antiseptic and lawful. And no one hears the babies’ cries of pain or anguish.

The president himself has more directly killed about 176 children in Pakistan by the use of CIA drones. These drones have been dispatched by him alone — not pursuant to any congressional declaration of war. At least two of these murdered children were Americans. But since the cameras were kept away, since all of this takes place 10,000 miles from America, and since the survivors are legally and politically helpless, no one here hears the Pakistani children’s cries of pain and anguish.

One of the reasons we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is to enable us to resist a drone sent to the path of our children by shooting it down, no matter who sent it. But you can’t stop a drone with a BB gun. Hence the need for serious firepower in the hands of ordinary Americans — to give tyrants pause and to stop tyrants when they don’t pause. The president wants to use Lanza’s horrific slaughter of 20 babies in a public school in Connecticut with a stolen gun as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of all law-abiding gun-owning Americans, any one of whom would have stopped Lanza in a heartbeat with a lawful gun, before the police could, had they been in that school.

Now back to our pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Lanza or Obama? Does a president with blood on his hands have any moral standing to infringe upon the natural right to self-defense of those whose hands are clean? Would you sacrifice your liberty to defend yourself and your children so that the government can kill whom it pleases?

The answers are obvious.

Six 2nd Amendment Facts Everyone Should Know

 

Choose Your Crime Stats

The Second Amendment Explained

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.

In the days when this amendment was written, the militia meant every adult able to bear arms. The militia was not the regular army. The term “regulated” was not a legal term at that time, but a mechanical one. A regulator was any mechanical device used to make something work better. A spin-ball governor was used to “regulate” the speed of a steam engine, as one example. A “Well Regulated” militia meant a militia with all the proper equipment needed to do their job better. That meant good weapons with good sights. After all, what use is a militia if they cannot hit what they are aiming at?

The Second Amendment is not about target shooting or hunting. At the time, hunting was indispensable for survival in the new nation, especially when food crops were unavailable. To deprive the people of their hunting weapons was to condemn them to death by starvation in the winter months. Military commanders of the time viewed hunting weapons as off limits. When Lieutenant Colonel George Monro surrendered Fort William Henry to Major General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm during the French and Indian Wars, the civilian militia serving the British were allowed to take their weapons with them when they left. When the British marched on Concord, triggering the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the start of the American Revolution, it was to seize military arms, not hunting weapons.

By the very inclusion of the terms “militia”, “security”, and “free state” it is clear that the Second Amendment is referring to military arms. The Founding Fathers understood that it was only because the people had been in possession of military arms that they were able to resist the economic enslavement of King George’s Currency Act, created under pressure from the then-private central Bank of England. Absent those arms in the hands of the people, the banker-imposed poverty would have continued indefinitely.

“The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” – Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

The Founding Fathers, while acknowledging the need for some form of government, knew all too well from thousands of years of human history that government is not automatically the friend of the governed, and had to be kept under tight control.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” — George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790

Following the Revolution, the Founding Fathers created a nation with power and authority reserved to the people. In order to avoid despotic rule, the government was broken into three separate parts, so that the natural tendency for government to seek more power would be turned against itself and not the people. Strict limits were imposed on the government itself, to keep the government the servant of the people.

The Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment because they understood that any system of government is only as good as the people who are in that government. They understood that political power attracts the very sort of people who should never be allowed to have it. And they understood that no matter how limited government was at its creation, over time all governments tend towards oligarchy, cease to be the servant of the people, and seek to become the masters.

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” – Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

In short, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is and was ever intended to be about protecting We The People from the government of the United States.

The “Greater Good” Part 3 by Nutnfancy

Milwaukee gun range voluntarily reports law-abiding customers to local police

From Wisconsin Carry Inc…

Subject: Milwaukee gun range voluntarily reports law-abiding customers to local police

Greetings in Freedom,

Wisconsin Carry has learned of some concerning information that we would like to pass along to our membership and right-to-carry interested folks in southeast Wisconsin.

In a recently published Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article which you can read here:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/west-allis-gun-shop-resumes-selling-weapons-under-membership-model-k9696q4-164054036.html

It was reported that the former Badger Guns (now Brew City Shooters Supply) http://www.brewcityshooterssupply.com/ has, since 2009, been reporting the names of every customer that comes in to use their firing range to the West Milwaukee Police Department. In this time over 25,000 customer names were reported to West Milwaukee Police Chief Dennis Nasci who ran a background check on each through “his system”.

So far in 2012 it was reported more than 8,800 customer name records have been supplied to West Milwaukee Police by Brew City Shooters Supply to have a criminal background check run on them. We do not know yet, how else West Milwaukee Police have been using these records they have been given by Brew City Shooters Supply, nor if they are storing those customer names for future reference. We also do not know what other purposes West Milwaukee Police might choose to use these customer name lists for in the future.

Having spoken with members of WCI who frequent Brew City Shooters Supply, though they were aware they signed a liability release to use the range, they were NOT aware in any way that their use of the range was being reported to West Milwaukee Police Department.

Wisconsin Carry does not believe it is the governments business if, when, or how often law-abiding citizens use a firing range. We also believe that if a business is going to report law-abiding activities of customers to local police departments so a background check can be run with no reason or justification, they should be explicitly informing customers of this tactic. Wisconsin Carry rejects the selective intrusion on customers privacy by any business with no reason or cause other than those customers patronage to participate in a legal activity.

Wisconsin Carry rejects the use of public resource to run background checks on law abiding citizens with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion whether those citizens were using a firing range, attending church, going to the grocery store, or stopping in a corner tavern for a cocktail.

We do not know if Brew City Shooters Supply also provided the names of customers who came in to purchase ammunition to West Milwaukee Police.

Wisconsin Carry has made an open records request of the Village of West Milwaukee for any and all information and documents pertaining to this scheme of Brew City Shooters/Badger Guns providing lists of law-abiding customer names to Village of West Milwaukee Police. We will send out updates as more information becomes available as to the extent of the use of that information, whether the rights of law-abiding customers were violated by Brew City Shooters Supply or Village of West Milwaukee Police, and any other details which we believe would be of interest to the law-abiding gun owners of Southeast Wisconsin.

Carry On,

Nik Clark

Chairman/President – Wisconsin Carry, Inc.


 

Why Are Republicans Calling To Disarm The American People?

Why Are Republicans Calling To Disarm The American People?

The above linked article does a good job to demonstrate why “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.  We have spoken out repeatedly against the NEOCONs because they truly do not represent the Constitution as they claim.

One of the people listed in the linked story is Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, a neocon magazine.  John McManus of the John Birch Society has done a great job in a presentation explaining the NEOCONSERVATIVE AGENDA.  Bill Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, wrote a book about the Neoconservative Agenda and was a former Trotskyite.  Followers of Leon Trotsky, called Trotskyites, were followers of a form of Marxist theory.  Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and a Bolshevik-Leninist.  Watch the video, and see for yourself.  We can conclude from Kristol’s comments that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Also contained in the above link is the PINHEAD Bill O’Reilly, proving once again he is no friend of liberty.  We have the video below for you to view.  O’Reilly’s analysis is full of factual inaccuracies and will not even allow the congressman time to explain anything.  O’reilly is deliberately misleading his viewers calling for regulation of “heavy weapons” and “machine guns”.  They are ALREADY regulated by the BATF, requiring a background check, 6 month wait, and tax-stamp.  AK-47′s and AR-15′s sold at gun shows are NOT machine guns.  A machine gun is defined as a rifle that has the ability to fire fully automatic, meaning one trigger pull results in the gun firing multiple rounds.  The guns sold are semi-automatic rifles meaning one round is fired with each trigger pull.  These guns have the same size bullets that are used in hunting rifles.  They are NOT “heavy weaponry” as O’reilly would have you believe.

“>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl9fsbg1rsQ]

Guns are not the problem, but rather the lack of guns.  No amount of government oversight can prevent a tragedy that is perpetrated by someone who is on a “homicidal mission”.  The theater in Aurora Colorado was posted as a “No Carry” location.  This just proves that gun control and gun-free zones are successful…if you are a nut, bent on going on a massive killing spree.

Maybe the Aurora Colorado shooter could have been stopped by an armed citizen.  Maybe not.  The fact remains that we will never know.  What does remain, however, is that by taking away a person’s ability to defend themselves, you are emboldening the potential assailant.  What might have been the deciding factor in deterring a “would-be shooter” for fear of armed resistance, is longer a threat to them when entering a “gun free zone” or a “no carry” location.  It should give any “would-be shooter” pause, knowing there is the potential that someone may be shooting back.  Yes…There are those “shooters” who have no fear of armed resistance.    For those who are determined to carry out their homicidal intentions, it is why we advocate armed citizens to obtain quality firearms training and carry whenever possible.

In closing, here are a few quotes from our founding fathers about the importance of armed citizens:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. (Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.)

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.  (George Washington)

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

Rock River Patriots Open Carry Picnic Saturday September 10

The Rock River Patriots invite you to an open carry picnic on Saturday September 10th at noon at Ralph Park in Fort Atkinson.  Enjoy fun and fellowship with fellow patriots while exercising your rights.

Here is the flyer: Rock River Patriots Open Carry Picnic September 10th

Concealed Carry Legislation A Victory For Tea Party, Patriot Groups

From Media Trackers:

Concealed Carry Legislation A Victory For Tea Party, Patriot Groups

By Collin Roth

Of all the legislation passed in the last session of the Wisconsin legislature, perhaps no bill showed more the Tea Party impact on Republican legislators than the concealed carry legislation passed Tuesday in the Assembly. For a number of years, Second Amendment conservatives chafed at being one of only two states in the country that do not have some form of concealed carry. And despite two vetoes by Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, a tumultuous legislative session primarily focused on the budget, and the threat of recall elections for six state senators, Tea Party conservatives kept the pressure on to bring concealed carry legislation to a vote in this session.

Annette Olson of the pro-2nd Amendment organization Un-infringed Liberty called the passage of concealed carry legislation yesterday a “huge step.” Olson said her organization allied with Tea Party groups from around the state to work with legislators in order to bring concealed carry legislation to a vote before the end of this legislative session. And while Olson and many Tea Party activists were disappointed when the Constitutional Carry Bill proposed by Senator Pam Galloway was amended to include permits and mandatory training, she reiterated that Tuesday was a “really fantastic day” and she looks forward to “respectfully working with legislators” in the future to pass Constitutional Carry.

Un-infringed Liberty has worked actively in Wisconsin for around 2 1/2 years, promoting open carry through educational events while lobbying for Constitutional Carry legislation.

Having passed the Senate last week 25-8, the concealed carry bill passed the Assembly 68-27 with all 56 Republicans voting for the bill, 11 Democrats, and one independent. It now heads to Governor Scott Walker’s desk where it is likely to be signed into law.

Dr. Tim Nerenz – Moment Of Clarity – Constitutional Carry

This is a great column by Libertarian Dr. Tim Nerenz from his website MOMENT OF CLARITY talking about Constitutional Carry:

May 11, 2011

Constitutional Carry

We had such high hopes in Wisconsin for this new Governor and this legislature. The coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists that turned out the liberals had a few priorities that we did not think would be difficult to achieve in short order, chief among them being removal of the unconstitutional restrictions on carrying firearms.

We are not asking for much; only that law abiding citizens be afforded the same opportunities for self-defense that criminals have enjoyed in this state for decades.

Criminals do not have to secure permits, endure training, buy licenses, or track ammo. Criminals are not subject to restrictions on the caliber, magazine size, or firing mechanism of their weapons. When criminals find themselves in need of a firearm for self-defense, they do not have to dial 911 and then wait for a police officer to show up with one. Criminals have no waiting period; no forms to fill out.

We are only asking that non-criminals be afforded equal rights. The fact that oh-by-the-way concealed carry reduces violent crime is a bonus, but we should not have to prove to anyone that there is a benefit to them in order for our rights to be secured.

The bill to remove all restrictions on owning and carrying firearms in the state of Wisconsin should have been written on one page, debated for a minute, and passed on the first day of the legislative session. You either believe in freedom or you don’t; you either believe in the Constitution or you don’t; you either believe in unalienable rights or you don’t. Liberty does not accept amendments or earmarks.

Wisconsin’s Constitutional Carry Bill, LRB 11-2007-1 has finally been introduced and is co-sponsored by Dr. Pam Galloway, a citizen legislator with whom I was privileged to share a panel during the health care debates of 2009-10. It strikes down all of the provisions of Wisconsin law that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Bravo, Senator Galloway and all who support her.

But her more experienced colleagues have subsequently introduced competing bills which introduce new requirements for training, registration, licensing and other infringements. The author of one of them, Rep. Donald Pridemore, argues that his added red tape is “a reasonable compromise between an individual’s second amendment rights and a modern day application of these rights”.

Dear Rep. Pridemore: no compromise of a right is ever “reasonable”. But thank you for helping me point out the difference between a Republican and a Libertarian. We Libertarians are quite unreasonable when it comes to compromising on unalienable rights. It is a heck of a word to say, so we tend to mean it.

The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights to citizens; it limits the powers of government to infringe on the rights which have already endowed upon us by our Creator. One of those is the right to keep and bear arms, to defend our persons and property in any manner we see fit.

In fact, guns are the only product or service mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. While we also clearly have a right to keep and bear food, healthcare, clothing, shelter, and many other necessary things, the framers did not deem any of them important enough to warn the government against any form of infringement – only guns. Think about that.

Who do you imagine they had in mind that needed to be expressly warned by the 2nd amendment? I’m guessing the same folks who are being warned “hands off” in the other nine. Was the 4th amendment aimed at your neighbor, requiring a warrant before he comes in to borrow a cup of sugar? Was the 5th amendment needed to limit the power of your priest at confession? Was the 1st amendment meant to keep the auctioneer from ignoring your bid?

No. It is government that the founders feared enough to bind by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and their worst fears of government encroachment on our liberties have come true in our lifetimes. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from our government; we will not negotiate the dinner menu with cannibals.

Government officials who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, and who are expressly prohibited from any form of infringement on the citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms, have amassed so many unconstitutional prohibitions in violation of the oath that it takes Dr. Galloway’s bill 19 pages to list all of them which will be struck moot by adhering to the Constitution in Wisconsin. It is time for us to correct this wrong, and to do so in one fell swoop.

The thing about gun rights is not the guns part, it’s the rights part. We do not require citizens to buy a license and pay for training to vote, speak, worship, assemble, secure their homes, serve on a jury, or petition for redress. Constitutional carry is liberty’s demand, not mine; call your representatives and remind them what they were sent to do last November.

“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website http://www.timnerenz.com to find your moment and watch for the upcoming release of his new book, “Capitalista!”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 958 other followers