TAKE YOUR UN TREATY AND SHOVE
IT!
HJS COMMENTS: We
have just had to endure more knee-jerk reactions from the jerks who are still
playing at life. Unfortunately, they are voted into office by other political
jerks and many folks whose political education begin and ends in the barber
shop, the union hall, or the local tap room. We have been horrified by a
terrible massacre of children; many of us are still stunned.
There are no words
that one can say to ease the hurt of the murder of very young, innocent
children. However, when there is nothing to say, some leftists still follow the
rules and seize the tragedy to say something anyway—usually stupid—that renders
people even more upset. It was quite expected, but irritating nonetheless, that
the Chief Leftist and his minions, still hiding out from answering embarrassing
questions on Benghazi, could not resist the urge to exploit another tragedy to
push for their unholy agenda of disarming the people in order to more easily fundamentally change this great nation
of confident builders into another European-like socialist nation of beggars and
victims. This time tell them to shove it!
HJS
Does Government Even Have
the Power to Ban Guns?
Any prohibition on our right to keep and bear arms has no
basis in law, and should be met with nullification.
Richard Walbaum
Imagine if all the politicians were bought or bribed by
the bankster globalists, and they wanted to impose a police state and
totalitarian form of government on us. Since you can’t have totalitarian
government and an armed populace, it would be necessary to take our guns, so
naturally the captured government would claim the right to interpret the
constitution, interpret government’s powers, and interpret our rights. The
Second Amendment, which states that “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” would end up being construed to mean the opposite. Let’s
become clear about this.
The right to keep and bear arms was not for hunters. It
was the intention of the Founding Fathers that the last bastion of our rights
would be an armed populace against an abusive government. As Joseph Story said
in 1833:
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has
justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since
it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of
rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance,
enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” [1]
The courts have ruled that the government only has powers
enumerated in the Constitution, or necessary by implication:
“The constant declaration of this court from the
beginning is that this Government is one of enumerated powers. ‘The Government,
then, of the United States, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by
the Constitution, and the powers actually granted, must be such as are expressly
given, or given by necessary implication. The Government of the United States is
one of delegated, limited, and enumerated powers.’ ” Kansas v. Colorado, 206
U.S. 46, 87 (1907).
And William Rawle stated in 1829:
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the
Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress
a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under
some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of
inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as
a restraint on both.” [2]
What is the government’s pretense to restrict or prohibit
guns? How can assault rifles be forbidden to militia when the purpose of militia
is to assault the enemy? The power is claimed under the power to regulate
interstate commerce[3] (commerce within a state is controlled by the
state), which I explained in my article How the Supreme Court Bastardized the
Commerce Clause, is a catch-all allowing the federal
government to do pretty much whatever it wants.
This new power was given birth in 1942 in the case of
Wickard
v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, wherein the Supreme Court held that the excess wheat
production of a farmer that was consumed for personal use, affected the prices
of wheat interstate. By not buying wheat on the open market for his own
use, he affected the price of wheat in interstate commerce and came under
federal regulation.
As I explained in my article, Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas, in a rebuke of the assertion of this power, stated that if the
Founders intended the power to include anything that affected interstate
commerce, they would have included the word affected. And, there is no
reason that “affecting” should be added to the commerce clause and not all the
other clauses. Since the use of “affecting” made many or most of the other
enumerations of power superfluous, that interpretation cannot be
right.
This is the same bogus power that can regulate ammunition
or arms.[4] If you have guns, you can’t engage in interstate commerce as
effectively because of the fear guns would cause, buyers might stay home, so
guns can be regulated. The government doesn’t care about the plain terms of the
Second Amendment, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. The right was secured in spite of their fearful
nature.
It remains for the states and the people to nullify
any such law under the 10th Amendment which reserves ungranted powers
to the states and the people, and also under the 9th Amendment which
secures rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the right to
protect ourselves, a natural right that cannot be prohibited.
It has also been shown that where guns are outlawed,
crime rates increase,
so any presumed prohibition on guns cannot be based on protecting society when
the opposite is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment