(Advisory Warning: Gruesome facts ahead)
In previous articles I have established firmly my belief in The Constitution and its articles. Especially The Bill of Rights. I write this today not to make excuses or lay grievance against those that may wish to alter those inalienable rights; but to offer clarity in them and common truths and common sense.
The Constitution is not perfect. Our Government is not perfect. We do not live in a perfect world nor a perfect society. As Americans we enjoy what our Government calls “inalienable rights”. Those rights were not gifted to the American people with a single exception attached to them. There stands in The Bill of Rights not a single clause which issues a condition for retraction of those rights. Yet some people deem reason that there should be.
“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.” Equality for every citizen of this nation was the intention of our Republic. The Defense of Marriage Act and even Affirmative Action laws circumvent this intention. I am against anything that segregates or holds apart any citizen of this nation from those inalienable rights granted to us by our nation. Regardless of belief, background, ideology, or sexual orientation. We are Americans first and everything else is second.
“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 State militia has become what we know to be the National Guard. There was never supposed to be a National Guard. The intention was that every man of able body was responsible for the local defense of the country against enemies both foreign and domestic.
In 1903, Congress attempted to restore the usefulness of the state militias with the Dick Act. This act marked the beginning of the federalization of the militia.The Dick Act also split the militia into two branches: the organized militia, which became known as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia.
The unorganized militia were the city and county militias that deteriorated over time due to a lack of a budget from State and local officials. It is not that the Second Amendment has been usurped by the militia part of the Amendment. In fact it has been expanded upon by designate of a State level militia to the Federal Army. Leaving the citizenry to create a local regulated militia within their city and county. Exercising your right is your option. It is not the right of anyone to stop you from the ownership of a firearm. If you have served time in prison for a violent crime it makes no difference. If you serve your time then you have paid your debt to society, your rights are restored the moment you are a free man or woman. While it makes good common sense to strip certain individuals of their rights, We must either hold everyone to equality under The Constitution or we must forsake it all together. The fact is that this law does not designate that I or anyone may only own a particular type of firearm or that there is a limit to the projectiles caliber of a firearm owned by a citizen may obtain. There is no limit that suggests that an individual may not own a weapon such as a PATRIOT missile. Its really not a good idea nor does it make good common sense to allow your average Joe to own a Tomahawk Missile or an Anti-Aircraft Battery either. However the limitation being in place should be reasonable as to not feel that it truly does oppress the rights of others. Fully Automatic weapons are just a waste. Period. They are fun! But purely in a wow factor. There is absolutely no reasoning that anyone can truly give that should usurp the ability for the people to keep and bear arms. It is an inalienable right. This is not because I choose to own firearms. It is my opinion that it is because I own firearms they are the only equalizer against those that may wish to do myself or my family harm. If given the choice between the firearms that I own and would use to protect my family in that instance I would not choose the assault rifle. I would not choose the shotgun, I would not choose the handgun. My choice would be the Remington model 700 .308. I only have a 3-round clip. I would not need more than one shot. Others have .50 muzzle loaders and Rifles like the Barrett .50 that is single shot bolt-action. They two have no need for large clips. Assault Rifles are feared because they simply look ominous and are used in wars and crimes that creates a mental picture of death. The .308 has the potential to go through the target and continue on to the next couple of miles. Its not ominous looking at all right?
Yet time and time again people squeal over the .223 used in the AR-15 or M-16 and the 7.62X39mm used in the AK-47, both note are smaller and less powerful than the .308. No one cares as the .308 is a “hunting rifle”. What you do not know (most likely) is that this model and caliber (.308) is the first “go to” rifle for U.S. Military. There are no variations in model. There are no toggle switches there is nothing in difference except the scope. Which I can acquire the same scope strength that is issued to a US Marine Sniper since the sunset of the Brady Bill. If such legislation comes back? As long as the Scope was manufactured before the ban then it can still be purchased. So your more afraid of the AK-47, SKS and AR-15, than this?
In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing? Many more than twenty-six people could die and worst yet you would not know who did it. The shots could be taken from up to 800 meters or about 1000 yards away. That is ten football fields of a bullet traveling almost at twice the speed of sound (168gr. @ 2694 fps) (speed of sound 1116.43701 fps) with enough force of impact to sever limbs, remove heads, generally make the target unrecognizable. It would require scientific testing and analysis to determine an identity.
Yet it is all to easy to claim and shout that Assault rifles are so evil and there is no reason anyone should own one. If a day ever came that your government or someone else for that matter aimed to take away your life or freedom. It would be a gun you wanted and needed. Do not disarm those who are willing to fight for you if that day ever came. Do not interfere with the ability for those people to do what they pray they must never have to do. Do not stand up and shout and call them enemy when they are willing to die for you. Hippies did that to American soldiers. Men who were forced to fight for their lives. Who were drafted and reluctantly went and fought against their will as they were given no choice. Called Killers for doing what it took to survive and come home to their own loved ones. Do not judge a man of war. His actions are offensive but his survival, the chance to again feel the warm breath and caress of the one he loves and his brothers in war are all that matters.
“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 describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Illegal searches and seizures are quite common these days. This happens to be one of the several Amendments that get little to no attention and the public at large have no true idea how this actually works beyond Warrant = Arrest or Seizure of property. When a Search Warrant is issued the requesting party must specify what and where they are searching for specifically. They must have probably cause or they must have a valid warrant. The criteria does not allow for inspection or the impound of property or persons into custody for the purpose of collecting probable cause outside of the warranted location.
Note: If you are not read your Miranda rights, Officials are not forbidden from questioning you. The methods used are lets say “more casual” However without those rights being read to you and without you being formally arrested you may stand up and leave at any moment during questioning. Without a Warrant or Subpoena the phrase “In my opinion you can go fuck yourself” comes to mind. Beware: Officials will not like this very much and they will be a bit belligerent and begrudged about you leaving). You will be told things like: “Just need you to answer a few more questions” or anything else to keep you there and talking.
Best thing to do though is shut up. Your interview is being taped: Do not answer questions until yours are answered:
First question you ask is: “Do I need an Attorney”?
Second question you ask is: “Am I under Arrest”?
Third question you ask is:”What are your intentions in this interview”?
If your being questioned it’s because there is suspicion and no evidence. Your testimony is needed to help close your or someones noose. I would suggest you leave and seek an Attorney and quickly.
Unless there is probable cause which can be proven. This stops officials from entering your home (even with a warrant) and just taking everything and anything simply for the sake of taking. Your computer for example cannot be taken unless there is evidence already in custody of officials that suggests it was used to commit a crime. They can however search your computers hard disks while it is within your house as long as (A) The warrant was issued in search of digital contents) or (B) It was one of the items listed to be seized. Otherwise. Off limits.
“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. This little bit of imperfection means that it does not matter what laws Congress ratifies. The people each on their own have the right to prohibit any law from their State but only if it is the will of the people. This is a double-edged sword. This is how California has the strictest gun laws. This is how Washington and Oregon have outright legalized Marijuana. This is how Florida and many other States will possibly not participate in the Affordable Health Care Act. It is also used for what is called Nullification something the South invented…
The theory of nullification was first invented in the 1800s’ by advocates for the nullification of trade tariffs that deeply hurt global and domestic trade in the South in the 1820s. Of course, this would lead to the principle being used in maintaining the institution of slavery against any possible attempt by the federal government to abolish it. Then America fought the Civil War in order to end slavery, but the ideas of states’ rights and nullification were later revived in the 1950s’ in an attempt to block the racial integration of schools. The Civil Rights Movement started and the feds had to step in and force the southern states to treat everyone equally. The Idea of nullification and the 10th amendment are truly fantastic. When used properly they are a check and a balance to the Federal Government. However above are examples of States and People using it to promote hate and inequality. We have a reasonable expectation to that which is our elected leadership to make decisions based on what is right and lawful and good. The 10th Amendment is the way of the people at large to nullify those decisions made because they are not in line with what is good or lawful or what is right.
Take great pride in the fact that there were good men who were not indifferent, who did not sit on the side lines, who did not allow ignorance and hatred and poor judgement to overcome what is right and what is wrong in those times that this Amendment was used for wicked ways. Vigilance and Defiance are as a part of America as you and I. It is the American way of life. Certain Individuals see the 10th Amendment and the affirmation of Slavery as a States right to be one and the same issue. We must trust that if such were to be tried again that there would be enough good men to stop it. The 10th Amendment is our first weapon against a power-hungry and out of control government.
In 2009-2010 thirty-eight states have introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; Nine states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.
It cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it, declares that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States. So far from saying that it is established by the governments of the several States, it does not even say that it is established by the people of the several States; but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the United States, in the aggregate. . . . When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as States, were parties to it. We had no other general government. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basis; not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. They ordained such a government, they gave it the name of a Constitution, therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several State governments.
In one of the Supreme Court’s first significant decisions, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), Chief Justice John Jay stated that the Constitution was established directly by the people. Jay noted the language of the Preamble of the Constitution, which says that the Constitution was ordained and established by “We the people,” and stated: “Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound.
The rule according to a higher law means that no law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain universal principles (written or unwritten) of fairness, morality, and justice.Thus, the rule according to a higher law may serve as a practical legal criterion to qualify the instances of political or economical decision-making, when a government, even though acting in conformity with clearly defined and properly enacted legal rules, still produces results which many observers find unfair or unjust.
