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 Shotgun – A True Story of Gun Control

The Shotgun – A True Story of Gun Control

by TheLasersShadow

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.  One holds something that looks like a crowbar.  When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.  The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.  In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.  Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.  They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.  “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.  Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”  The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.  The national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.  Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.  The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.  The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.  The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened!!!

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.  How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.  This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.  Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.  When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.  Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.  Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?


“…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,

tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”

–Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

Gun Laws that are being proposed in America will eventually cause the same effect here!

Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control

Rock River Patriots Member – A Letter To Sen. Mary Lazich

Below is a letter from one of our members to State Senator Mary Lazich regarding Constitutional Carry:

Senator Lazich,

Wisconsin presents a principled united front expecting a smaller government/freedom minded approach to the right to carry firearms as our founding fathers derived our freedoms as inalienable rights not given to us by man or government, but by God. You can open-carry right now in Wisconsin for free, with no permit & no government registration. You shouldn’t have to register with the government and pay a permit tax if you want to have your coat/shirt over your sidearm. The criminals don’t abide by open carry laws now as they prey on unsuspecting victims.

Both my wife and I have a combined 29-years experience in the military and thousands of hours of firearms training. We are both veterans of several military conflicts and truly attest to the value of firearms without government restrictions. Statistically speaking, cars kill more people than guns annually. Why subject us or honest law abiding citizens to overbearing rules when our 2nd amendment to the constitution already grants us these rights.

Because of Jim Doyle’s distrust of the people, he twice vetoed Right to Carry legislation during his terms in office. Each time, the bills were passed with two-thirds majorities in both houses. This should have been enough to overcome Doyle’s veto pen, but three Assembly members chose partisan politics over personal protection and shamelessly changed their votes from “yes” to “no” during the two override votes in 2004 and 2006.

Past legislative efforts to secure the Right to Carry always assumed that a veto override would be necessary. Attempting to secure two-thirds majorities required the NRA and other proponents to accept amendments during the legislative process that sought to place additional restrictions on the good citizens of Wisconsin and would have impeded their ability to protect themselves. With the makeup of the incoming legislature, these unnecessary concessions should no longer be necessary.

SHALL ISSUE PERMIT SYSTEMS are obsolete. That is the old-school 1990’s appeasement method of procuring your right to carry. Haven’t we in Wisconsin been behind the times long enough.

The facts of what constitutional carry means:

Constitutional Carry means that law-abiding citizens not legally prohibited from owning a firearm do not have to obtain a government permit to legally conceal carry. No expensive permit taxes, no expensive renewal taxes, no government registration, no expensive mandatory training classes, no fingerprinting. 3 states currently respect Constitutional Carry (Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont) with TX and UT soon to follow. With shall-issue being the ‘minimum’ Wisconsin will pass in the next legislative session, Wisconsin Carry, on behalf of our thousands of members statewide is advocating the Wisconsin legislature pass Constitutional Carry for the following reasons:

-A law abiding citizen shouldn’t have to pay hundreds of dollars for permit taxes, and mandatory government training to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. The prohibitive expense will suppress the right to carry of many. -There is no legitimate reason to require mandatory training. Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia combined have well over 1 million permit holders. None had to get mandatory training. There are NO problems as a result. Florida and Virginia which have only the most basic of training requirements (Hunter Safety certificate from middle school/online video and short test) have almost 1 million permit holders between them. NO problems result from no mandatory training. Most gun owners already have extensive training and experience. Others will surely seek voluntary training. Mandatory training being a necessity for public safety is yet ANOTHER GUN MYTH perpetuated by those who seek to infringe on the right to carry OR those who stand to gain financially by a mandatory government training requirement.In order to bring Constitutional Carry to Wisconsin, there are 3 MAJOR laws that would need to be repealed/revised. Simply repealing or revising these laws would allow all LAW ABIDING citizens who are non-felons and not otherwise prohibited from owning/possessing a gun to conceal carry without a permit, without government registration, and without expensive permit taxes, expensive government mandated training classes, and renewal taxes.

The roadmap ahead in your key constitutional carry vote:

Law #1: Repeal Wisconsin Statute 941.23: This is Wisconsin’s 130+ year old “conceal carry ban”. The legislature need simply repeal this law to allow law abiding citizens to conceal carry without permits and taxes JUST as they can currently open carry without permits and taxes. Thousands of Wisconsinites open carry every day with no permit, no permit taxes, and no government registration required. Why should you have to pay permit taxes, and register with the government just to put a jacket over your sidearm?

Law #2: Repeal or alter Wisconsin Statute 167.31: This is Wisconsin’s “vehicle transport” statute. This law states that in a vehicle, you must transport a gun “unloaded and in a case”. Watching the nightly news, it is CLEAR with car-jackings and other assaults upon people in OR near their vehicle, that one should not have to give up their right to self-defense when they are in their car. Having to load and unload and case your gun EVERY time you exit/enter your vehicle requires you to unnecessarily handle/load/unload your weapon dozens of times a day in parking lots and other public places. The SAFEST place for your loaded gun will ALWAYS be IN A HOLSTER, not being unnecessarily handled. In addition, having to unload and encase when you get in your car makes you an easy target for a criminal and places you in grave danger if, in a life or death situation, you had to take time to get your gun out of its case and load it. This law was originally intended to prevent hunting from a vehicle. At a minimum the law should be altered to exempt “any handgun carried for self-defense” or better yet, just repealed all together.

Law #3: Repeal or alter Wisconsin’s “Gun Free School Zone” statute: This well intentioned, but useless law prohibits possession of a gun within 1000ft of a school premises. This means that when you are within nearly 1⁄4 mile of a school, you may not possess a firearm. Clearly, this law has not prevented criminals from committing crimes within these zones. With hundreds of thousands, perhaps MILLIONS of Wisconsin residents living within 1⁄4 mile of a school, it is unconscionable that they should not be allowed to carry for self-defense when they walk off of their own property and around their neighborhood. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. currently has a FEDERAL lawsuit filed to challenge the constitutionality of this law, but we should not wait for that case to work itself through the court system. AT A MINIMUM the legislature should adjust the “school zone” to SCHOOL PROPERTY only or even better, just repeal the law all together.

Make the informed constitutional carry choice, vote for the constitutional carry and repeal Laws #1 to #3.

Brian Bell

New Berlin, WI

Ps. I voted for you in your last election, going forward will decide my future vote!