Load your muskets!

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution adopted December 15, 1791: "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".

Let's break this down a bit. First of all, the Founding Fathers knew, after just defeating England's professional army, the only way to sustain our new republic would be to have armed citizens. "A well regulated militia", contrary to some interpretations, does not mean a standing federal army. It means exactly what it says: a militia made up of the people. In their time there was a federal army and there were militias made up of the citizens. They were two distinct entities.The army and the militias were separate of each other except that they fought side-by-side on many occasions. The militias often fought on their own terms, times, and places of their choosing.  They could come and go as they pleased. They were not bound by an enlistment oath. The federal soldiers were subject to military disciplines and to the terms of their service. That doesn't mean the militias weren't effective. I have little doubt that without the militias our forefathers would not have prevailed over England's professional soldiers. The English could not deal with the unconventional guerrilla tactics the militias used. The militias had no intentions of standing in opposing lines and shooting at each other, which was the accepted method of warfare at the time. I believe the Founding Fathers intended "militia" to mean armed citizens. They clearly understood the difference between the two.

Now on to the next part about "being necessary to the security of a free state". The Founding Fathers knew the freedoms of the people are most vulnerable to abuse by their own government. Establishing the right of the people to keep arms was the best way to prevent the lose of freedoms. They knew 230 years ago that the people needed that right to protect themselves from their own government. Look at the rest of the world and see where we would be now without that right.

Last but not least: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". There is no ambiguity in that statement. There is only one way to interpret that statement. It means exactly what it says. It does not say "shall not be infringed unless a bureaucrat or a bureaucratic entity decides otherwise". It sates emphatically "shall not be infringed". Period. Every gun control law on the books is therefore unconstitutional! All are violations of the Second Amendment and should not be tolerated. The handful of times that anti-gun nuts have asked the US Supreme Court to infringe on that right has resulted in the USSC upholding the "right to keep and bear arms". I fear that with the ongoing assault on those rights there will soon be seriously detrimental blows to that right in the very near future.

I will concede that there are times when that right should be curtailed. If a person uses a gun in the commission of a crime they should lose the right to ever possess another gun. Cut and dried, no exceptions. All mass shootings are committed by insane and/or evil people. I have no problem keeping guns away from those people either. But the problem comes in how to determine who the insane and evil people are. Who gets to make that determination? What are the criteria or guidelines for making the call? How do you collect information in order to make decisions about sanity without infringing on their medical privacy? A lot of this could be handled at the family level but the family no longer has any say because of the medical privacy rights forced on us by the ACLU. It is a very complicated process and I have no answers but the liberal/socialists do: take guns away from everyone except their personal bodyguards. You could cut their hypocrisy with a knife.

Now on to the real and most current danger to the Second Amendment: Barack Obama. There is little doubt that Obama will make more attempts to do very real damage to private gun ownership before he leaves office in January of 2017. I don't know what he will pick as a catalyst for that damage but he will make a strong effort. He may simply do his infamous executive orders or he may sign agreements at the United Nations level, but he will do something that the next president will have to fix. He may get lucky and be succeeded by Hillary and there won't be any reversing of what he does by her. Whatever he does, rest assured, it will be unconstitutional and the Republicans in Congress will not make an effort to stop him. His ultimate goal is a complete ban on private ownership of all guns with the top prize being confiscation. Hillary will take up where he leaves off. Liberal /socialists will continue where she leaves off. Slow, steady destruction of our gun rights is the tactic. Don't give up the fight gun owners. The only good result of their assault on gun rights is the fact that those two have done more for gun sales than all the advertising put together. Outstanding!

I have guns, Molon Labe!

God Bless America!!!