Somebody Picked the Wrong Taxi

via Instapundit:

2nd Amendment Explained

'nough said...

George Washington on the 2nd Amendment

Of all the founding fathers, this man had the most to lose.  So, I believe his opinions on  the 2nd Amendment are pertinent to today's arguments on this most important of ALL the Bill of Rights.

American Schools Teach 2nd Amend Is For Militia Only

Via Instapundit, a photograph of a American high school text book that states the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution give the right to bear arms "in a state militia."

 

What the 2nd Amendment REALLY SAYS is:

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. 

..which is a horse of an entirely different colour.  I repeat the call:  If anyone know from which text book this is, I would like to have the name and publisher. Because this is a blatant recast of the founding document of this country. 
____________________________________________________

UPDATE:  Bryan Preston of PJMedia has the pertinent information:

Author John J. Newman has some explaining to do. His textbook, United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination, literally rewrites the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On page 102 of Newman’s book (page 134 of the PDF version), the author cuts the Second Amendment in half and leaves out several key words.

Preston goes on to say, far more eloquently than I can;

But the Second Amendment clearly guarantees the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Newman has relegated that right only to those who are members of a government militia. That is not how the courts see the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia vs Heller (2008) the United States Supreme Court held that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

 Please contact his publisher and protest this blatant falsification of our Constitution.

The Black NRA?

Democrats are still trying to race bait!  Alonzo Rachel on the NRA:

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms Party 2013 - Cam Edwards

Via Instapundit

A great gif showing how progress in Concealed Carry Permits have come to most of the states...and better yet, how Open Carry states have multiplied.

 

We've come a long way, but still have a bit further to go... 

Via Soylent Siberia

NRA: Taya Kyle's Speech

Judge Jeanine Piro's NRA Speech

via LegalInsurection

FEDERALIST No. 29 Concerning the Militia

From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
Alexander Hamilton
 
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. 

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."


Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

PUBLIUS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This particular essay is of interest...considering the Democratic Party's aattempts to curb the rights of the citizentry to own the same TYPE weapons that the police and military use...and would use upon the citizens of this nation should the government decide to SEIZE those weapons...since several states now have either bills pending or have passed such legislation.  New York is now offering a $500.00 reward to those who will inform upon their neighbors for NOT turning in weapons now deemed "illegal."

If the government decides it has the right to seize guns...then we are no better than slaves...think about it people.  Our ancestors (my direct "Revolutionary" ancestor was capture @ Ft Washington, Manhattan, NY in 1776, and died on HMS Jersey prison ship) literally fought thier lawful government because that government decided they ddidn't have the right to possess military arms...  

GOP To Cave On Gun Control

It appears that the Party Of Stupid's Elite leadership is prepared to cave on gun control.  From a couple of reports, they will allow a national data base that will record all gun sales and ownership to be created.  This give the government quite literally a list of everyone who buys and sells guns across the country.

[The] Republican Majority Leader is leading the charge to cut a deal with President Obama.
The following are just some of the threats to innocent school children and our God-given 2nd Amendment liberties that Republicans are about to shove down our throats:
1.The NRA is cutting backroom deals to centralize gun owner data collection into the Obama/Holder massive government data base.
A centralized system is less costly to fight and far more lucrative for the NRA to appear to be “fixing“.
Like all establishment political lobbies the key to their job security is assisting in making problems they end up being called upon to “fix“.
2. Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor is leading the charge to give Obama and Holder what they want in exchange for appearing to be “fixing” the problem of innocent children being butchered in our public and private schools.
3. Newly appointed Republican Judiciary Chairman, Bob Goodlatte R-VA 6th District, is providing political cover for the sneaky back room gun control deals and gun grabbing sell outs that his political masters - – John Boehner and Eric Cantor – - are cutting with Obama and his corrupt Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Political insiders have confirmed to me, that Goodlatte earned his brand new chairmanship by ignoring the constitutional demands and grievances of every Republican Unit Chairman in his own 6th district.

Eric Cantor and  Paul Ryan are the ones leading the charge on this one.  What makes this so onerous is that for the 1st time, the government will know WHO is buying and selling.  That's the first step towards confiscation.  For the 1st time, an American government will have the ability, if it so decides to take away firearms from lawful citizens.  That's the slippery slope.

This also calls into play the rumours that the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was planning to pass laws without a majority of his GOP caucus.  The GOP ain't called the Party of Stupid for nothing.  Then there's this;

You might think that with Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives there would be no way ANY gun control legislation could reach the floor.

But sadly we are already beginning to see so-called “conservative champions” folding to pressure from the anti-gun media to sell-out gun owners.

Former Vice Presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, has stated that he would support legislation that bans private sales at gun shows.

In the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, along with the help of Rep. Scott Rigell (VA), Patrick Meehan (PA) and others, have stated openly that they will work together with anti-gun Democrats from Maryland and New York to tighten restrictions on private firearms sales and expand background checks.

Possibly even more upsetting has been Senator Tom Coburn’s willingness to work alongside anti-gunner Chuck Schumer (NY) to propose “bi-partisan” anti-gun legislation in the Senate.
Make no mistake, so-called “expansion” of background checks is little more than a blatant attempt by anti-gunners to register all firearms and gun owners in America.

That is why Representatives Steve Stockman (TX-36) and Paul Broun (GA-10) have drafted a letter to Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership urging them to require the support of the majority of Republican members in the House before bringing any anti-gun bills to the floor.

This so-called “Hastert Rule” would mean that 117 Republicans would have to support a particular bill before it had any chance of getting a floor vote, not just the support of the anti-gun elitist in leadership.

If the Republican elite leadership really wanted to to destroy the party and go the way of the Whigs...this is surely it.  They were winning the hearts and minds of America, which has been hardening its position on defense of the 2nd Amendment.  By caving into Liberals & Democrats demands to do something "for the cheeldren"...will be the rock upon which the party crashes.

There can be no compromise upon America's right to defend ourselves against the tyranny of government.  The 2nd Amendment is the rock upon which that right stands.  To force any crack into is to lead to the loss of that right and therefore, NO COMPROMISE may be allowed.  None, nein, nyet, ni...NO COMPROMISE.

This issue could lead to taking back the US Senate...by forcing the Senators in red states, who are up for reelection to take stands that are against their consituents desires...it cost Dem's Congress in 1994...and will in 2014, but only if the Party of Stupid isn't struck by Stupid!  Don't listen to just me.  There are people all over the country that this will enrage.

Such political ploys would be unnecessary if the GOP weren’t filled with such weasels. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports, but I have followed Cantor and Ryan for a while now on firearms freedoms and gun rights, and it doesn’t surprise me in the least.

It’s fascinating that the GOP leadership would be willing to sacrifice their careers on the altar of political correctness. And it will cost them their careers. I don’t know how else to say it other than to keep repeating myself. The gun owners who recently waited in lines for three or more hours to pay exorbitant prices for guns were not repeat buyers (long time gun owners like me already had most of the firearms we wanted and so we are purchasing ammunition now). They were first time buyers.

I’ve watched them at the ranges. I have overheard their conversations, I have watched them at the gun stores and gun shows. I have heard their relatively ignorant questions (not ignorant because they’re stupid, but because they’re in the process of learning). They are not us. We already have guns. These are new gun owners. The polls they are trotting out to show the number of gun owners decreasing are all lies.

I don’t know whether the questions aren’t being honestly answered or what other source there could be for the error. But the polls are in error. Don’t believe them. And as for older gun owners like me, and even the newer gun owners like I have monitored for the past half year, we have made it clear with our voices and wallets. No new gun laws. None. Period. Not one more inch. Not one.

I've been saying for a while that it's time to either get rid of the leadership of the GOP in Congress.  They've gone along to get along for so long, they don't know how to do anything else.  They've sold their principles for invitations to be on the "A" list for party invitations inside the beltway...forgetting that the Republican Party used to have ideas...ideas like small government...staunch support of America's right to defend itself from government tyranny...balancing the budget...

Principles are important...until you throw them out the window.  When you do that, you can forget why you were sent to Congress.  The GOP leadership has forgotten what they stand for.  It's time to either get rid of them, or get rid of the party they putatively represent and find new leaders who WILL stand for their principles.

Democrats New Jim Crow Laws

Following the Civil War, Jim Crow laws were the Democrats successful attempt to  keep southern blacks in thrall.  By keeping them unarmed, they were helpless to White Supremacists in the KKK.  The Klan managed for almost a century to keep black in the South from voting their consciences. 

The newest attempt at rolling back the 2nd Amendment are only the Democratic Party's attempt to put ALL Americans into chains forged by the government.  Here's a video by Starr Jones conflating exactly that...





It's a brilliant video that needs to be disseminated far and wide..


Hat tip to The Right Scoop via  Ed Driscoll

2nd Amendment: Why We Have Guns

Here is a compilation of news reports showing just why the 2nd amendment is important.

Obama's Egyptian Gun Control

Penn & Teller: In Defense of the 2nd Amendment

via Instapundit,




Who would have thought that Penn & Teller would be the most effective supporters of the 2nd Amendment's Right to Bare Arms?

Yard Sign...

Taurus Judge

This is probably the best personal defense, conceal carry pistol available today.  You can either load it with .45 Long Colt shells, or 3" Magnum .410 shot gun shells.



I WANT ONE!  no, TWO!  One for me and one for Cheri.

"The Gun Is Civilization"

This makes more sense, and is the best argument for the 2nd Amendment than any other I've seen recently.  Sent by JP Pendergast,

"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.  If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload
of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if
all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal
force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier
works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If
both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well
as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but
because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those
who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who
would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Well said.

Switzerland is Free Because of Guns

Via Instapundit:



This is something we should do as well.  Every adult who hasn't been convicted of either a violent or sex crime, is psychologically unfit, should be issued an M16 as well as a M1911A1 pistol.  I suspect that if we were to do this, and teach firearms safety and training in our elementary through high schools, we'd have far, far less crime than is the current case.  After all, a burgalar would be far more hesitant to break into a home if he KNEW that occupants were both armed and capable of using those weapons.

This would also have the additional benefit of rendering moot all arguments on the 2nd Amendment as well.  Requiring all adults, above the age of 18 (with the above exceptions) to keep and bare arm would have a positive effect on accountability of government.  That's the main reason why the founders had the 2nd Amendment in the first place. 

Also, rioting, such as the recent riots in the United Kingdom wouldn't happen...after all, every shop keeper, and worker, for that matter, would have access to firearms, as well as the training  to use them to defend their businesses, as well as their homes.

Comments?

World's Largest Army Assembles Every Year

“I would never invate the United States. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass.” Isoroku Yamamoto, Admiral, Imperial Japanese Navy

Apollo, over at Federalist Paupers makes a very good point.  Every single year, the world's largest army assembles for a few weeks each fall...and peacefully disbands with littler or no casualties. 

The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That’s great. There were over 600,000 hunters.


Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world – more men under arms than Iran; more than France and Germany combined – deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay.

But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan’s 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

What many in the comments fail to undestand the point the author is making is that if someone was stupid enough to invade the USA the resistence that would spring up from millions of men and women would make that of Afghanistan a pale echo in comparison. Furthermore, I believe his point is that every single year, literally millions of Americans with weapons far more accurate than what the military uses assemble and disperse with very few injuries.

Now, while infantry without apporpriate AT weapons doesn’t stand much of a chance against mechanized forces…snipers, in the numbers that are hinted at would make life nearly impossible for an occupying force. That I think is the point that both the author, and Yamamoto were trying to make.

Related:  The United States buys enough guns in three months to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian armies.

H/T InstaPundit