Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Take Your UN Treaty and Shove it! By HJS

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!
Does Government Even Have the Power to Ban Guns?
by Richard Walbaum on August 6, 2012 This Post
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: