I must say, I hope the American Public in general, has finally awakened, and realizes we cannot just sit idly by and believe our 'duly elected officials' are doing what's best for us. I think we have all seen that the current trend is for radical politicians to merely be promoting their own beliefs, and pay no heed whatsoever to the wishes of those that put them into office. For far too long, they have put themselves above the average citizen, and once this happens, we have a monster on the loose.

An excellent summation of the issues!

Would that the "movers and shakers* out there had half so good an understanding of what the Constitution says, means, and why it does so.

As you said, "We can only hope."

Well done as usual, Mark.

Your comment (oft repeated in essentially the same form and words), "This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.", although correct, is the result and fault of the entrenched establishment. GWB was elected, significantly, not because he was a good candidate, but because the Demos nominated such terrible ones. BHO was elected, not so much because he is a top-notch orator, or because of his "hopey-changey" thing, but because the Repub party nominated such a lousy candidate. McCain is not an never has been conservative, and had nothing to offer significantly different from GWB or BHO, except to say he wasn't them, and that he was a war hero. We have filled the White House with narcisists who do not care for the country nor the people for way too long, and we need to stop being on the side of the Repub party, and firmly on the side of the Consitution, and until that becomes obvious and consistent, we will continue the death spiral.

Excellent post! Thank you for putting the historical perspective online.

We need a window sticker for homes, something to the effect;

THIS HOME PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT, GET THE "HINT"?

How about it?

If governments know the exact location and owners of arms, they will come to claim them, one by one. Once disarmed, ordinatry citizens will be at the mercy of their governments and criminals who will still be able to arm themselves.

Thank you for this clarification on the Second Amendment. I note the one section of the amendment that the courts have refused to address, "shall not be infringed". This was never brought up in Heller and I doubt we will hear a peep in this case.

Great article. The comment on the Times article is correct. It does not expand the right, it validates it. The comment on the fall of the murder rate in DC is also very good. The fact that the murder rate has dropped has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. However, is sure shows that armed citizens have a direct effect on the murder rate.

Thank you so very much for posting the rarely seen preamble to the Bill of Rights which is actually a Bill of Protections. Please post it everywhere and often and define the terms "declaratory" and "restrictive" which means NOTHING in the body of the Constitution can be valid or enforceable if it conflicts with these amendments.

What could be clearer? And yet we see the same mentality in endeavoring to dilute the Word of God by makeing it say something it does not mean. Keep up your tireless efforts to be a voice for liberty and our Constitution. Our neighboring county of Forsyth here in NC is battling the issue of prayer before the Commissioners meeting. Pray for us that truth and liberty will prevail. kind regards, Rev Timothy Wolf

The statement:- "Likewise, citing the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause suggests the Second Amendment was and remains amendable. That, of course, is an egregious affront to Essential Liberty -- but that's the way the game is played today"-: is a sad but true statement. Our founding fathers were careful as to how they crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so that it could not be interpreted in any manner other than that whhich it was written. Unfortunately there are many who attempt "incorrectly" to see beyond the words and try to inject meaning and intent.

Keep up the good work.

Good article, but you miss the point about the importance of the 14th Amendment in this argument. The Bill of Rights was included specifically to delineate restrictions on the FEDERAL government. Over time, the courts have applied many of these restrictions to governments at other levels, but the Bill of Rights was not written with the intent to limit the powers of city governments. That is where the 14th Amendment comes in. One of the key components of the 14th Amendment was that it prevented the states from depriving certain people of their fundamental rights as citizens. The current case is arguing that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of a citizen, and therefore cannot be infringed by even local governments, not just the feds.

If we were to loose the second ammendment rights, our road to the 30's in germany will soon be started. Our founding fathers knew the importance of a public which could defend against enemies both home and abroad. A government who has total control of its subjects, will soon whether planned or not turn into a reign of tyranny.

While the NRA keeps making headway concerning gun rights, the left has a new tactic, going after the ammunition. Look at the loony left coast, where starting next year in California, they are outlawing mail order ammunition purchases, allowing only 50 rounds at any one sale, and requiring a finger print at point of sale. This is outrageous, but as goes California, so goes the Nation: anyone heard that one before? Add to that the attempts to microcode ammo and other noxious attempts by the left, the battle rages on. I can't begin to have enough ammo on hand, got to look into home reloading and stock up with plenty of supplys for that as well!

Mr. Alexander's commentary on the Second Amendment and the upcoming Supreme Court case reflects a clarity of thought and adherence to Constitutional precept that goes beyond anything I've ever read on the subject. Our right to keep and bear arms is a principal bellwether for our freedom. Abridgement of that right is like losing the canary in a mineshaft.

Although I have never had to use it, I have carried a gun off and on for 40 years without a permit. A free man does not ask permission to defend himself. {PERIOD}

After reading Alexanders' essay today, I suggest it be forwarded to the members of the Court for clarification of the Second Amendment.

When I read the Washington Times' reporting of the 25% decrease in the D.C. murder rate after the Supreme Court's Heller Decision, and their suggestion that the Supreme Court should take that into account when considering the Chicago case, I immediately had the same thought that you expressed in your essay, which is that the only thing the Supreme Court should take into account is the plain meaning of the Constitution. What effect their decision has on society is not their concern, nor do they have any authority to interpret the Constitution based on what the outcome of their decision may be. Such was the fear that Jefferson had of the potential power of the Judicial Branch, should it become despotic, which it plainly has over the past century.

In regard to the Second Ammendment, or for that matter any of the others in the Bill of Rights, any Justice who cannot, or will not, interpret the Constitution as it is plainly written and backed up by numerous historical documents of the time, should be impeached, based on either incompetence or arbitrary usurpation of power in order to further their own personal agenda.

I'm remembering the great Robert Bork v. Teddy The Swimmer Kennedy debate. Bork unwisely took Hamilton's position that a bill of rights is not needed when specific powers are not granted to the govt. He cleaned Teddy's clock intellectually, but lost the political debate.

Best summary and argument I have read on the subject. Keep up the good work.

You guys must not be hearing. President Obama has never said anything about taking our guns away. Guns only kill people. Ask any law enforcement officer and they will tell you guns should be banned. From reading this website all I hear is hate. How about doing something constructive for a change. Do you want to see our President assasinated? That's what guns are about.

Ideas for a couple of cartoons ...

In my day I've received a few returned checks stamped "Insufficient Funds". We need a cartoon of "Ego To Match His Ears" with a fistfull of returned checks so stamped.

A second idea: China calls in its loans and His Majesty rushes down to the Government Printing Office and gets them to print out a ton of $10,000 bills which he then presents to the Buddha, who justs sits there with his arms folded, smiling, and shaking his head.

Dear Mr. Timmerman:

"Ask any law enforcement officer and they will tell you guns should be banned."

Having worked in Law Enforcement I cannot disagree more with what you say. However, while I disagree, I am also required to defend your right to say it.

Interesting, no?

When you say "any" law enforcement officer you clearly err in your judgement. I wager you have not asked "any" law enforcement officer this question. I'm sure there are some who would agree with you, but the percentage in my experience is small.

Also, I can find no reference anywhere that the express purpose of the design, manufacture, and legal distribution of firearms is all about assassinating presidents, or anyone else for that matter.

Your neighbors should post a sign on their lawn pointing out that your home is a "gun free zone."

The results might be illuminating.

The right to self defense is pre-emminent. There should be no restriction on bearing arms peacefully anywhere (except perhaps such places as jails). My wife has driven alone from South Carolina to New York state to assist a sick friend. After a difficult decision, she left her handgun at home. The risk to her nursing license, and sure jail time for mere possesion in NY, tipped the scale. Why should she have to make that decision? There are 1,500,000 citizen defenses with firearms each year in the USA. It is immoral to require these people to be crime victims.

Once again Mr. Alexander’s insight is spot one. The Second Amendment is the foundation that protects all the others. Unfortunately a pillar that is constantly chipped away at. Let us hope that the Court finds the courage to take their Oath seriously and concludes with a decision that is Constitutionally correct. The original intent is not so hard to find when read without the filter of political correctness.

Excellent article, and good point about the Washington Times' suggestion. The Supreme Court should stick to the plain meaning of the Constitution. However, the comment by James Timmerman shows a lack of understanding of the article and the issue. This article was not about President Obama. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Is it hateful for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals? James Timmerman should take note of the 25% decline in the D.C. murder rate, and ask himself why he fears gun ownership by honest citizens.

Obama..Muslim..Kenyan born..having pulled the greatest fraud in world history into the presidency of the USA is using Health Care as a diversion

to destroy the USA through financially ruining our

country.

Thus he he can deliver what is left to the Muslim

faith.

And we are too stupid to see it and stop him

I greatly enjoy the Patriot, four times a week plus humor plus daily quotations. I find Mr. Alexander's writing and those of the staff and contributors to be enlightening, encouraging and entertaining. There is one very minor detail from today's essay, though, with which I do disagree. In regard to the Supremes only keeping in mind the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, I think they should still consider the documented results of law-abiding citizens being able to defend themselves. Should this factor into their decision? No, but they should still keep it in mind, along with a myriad of other matters. For instance, I wish they would keep in mind more often that neither they nor Congress nor the President's office have granted me my rights, but that a Higher Power has ordained that I should have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, the 2nd Amendment is sufficient justification for overturning Chicago's ordnance ordinance [sic], but that doesn't mean it should be they only thing anyone "keeps in mind."

I listen/watch the 'OTHER' most hated TV station on the airways. I have NEVER heard anyone, Host nor Guest, mention ANYTHING about asassinating the President. BUT on the other hand I have caught video clips of some of the REVERED personalities of ALL the OTHER SITES,,,,PROFESS THAT 'WHITEY' IS CALLING FOR such an act!

I recall an observation by an unknown (to me) that "poop doesn't stink, unless you stir it"! It seems to me that we have an abundance of "poop stirrers".

I very much enjoyed practicing my second amendment right as I carried concealed in the Rocky Mountain National Park. The gate attendant denied having an opinion on the matter so I politely shared mine with her. I failed to witness any of the massive gun battles predicted by the left.

Thanks for all you do!

Jim Adrian

Right on, Mark! If this right is taken away by our out of control federal judiciary, the other ones don't mean squat!! Keep shining the light of liberty on us, my-brother-from-another-mother!!!

Thank you so much, Mark.

What brings a tear to my eye is knowing that four members of the Supreme Court of the United States outright disdain the constraints of the Constitution as written and amended while a fifth member is as likely to rule blatantly unconstitutional actions constitutional as he is to uphold the Constitution.

As for Congress... what percentage of Senators and House Members would you guess both revere and understand the Constitution?

(Rhetorical question; please don't answer - reading a reasonable guess would only further my deep depression.)

God save this once great nation.

Bill Barker

Harriman, NY

www.usalyright.blogspot.com

Mr. Alexander:

Often you have stated that President Reagan is your model for a Constitutional presidency. I would remind you that President Reagan signed a bill into law that infringed the 2nnd Amendment. I believe the bill is titled the McClure-Volkmer Act. This Act terminated as of May 1076 any further new access to automatic weapons, which in your philosophy is unconstitutionally constrained by the 1934 National Firearms Act. President Bush 1 put on import restrictions to firearms and President Bush 2 was not favorable to the Heller Case. My point is that both political parties are essentially opposed to the fullest expanse afforded by the Bill of Rights. One cannot rely on Judges (or politicians of any stripe) at any level of jurisprudence, just as one cannot rely on referees, for just outcomes. Please be sure to point out these failings so that future vigilance is better informed. Thank you.

Mr Timmerman-

Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Take responsibility for yourself , and your family, and buy a gun and get expert training with it , both physically-(targets), and mentally- (what if scenarios),and I think you will be a less fearful individual. And ONE DAY,(actually many times), you will be so glad that you did.

Did you see "Oregon Buzz"'s comments? That's what I'm talking about.

Unlike the 1st Amendment, that says, "Congress shall make no law ...", the 2nd says the RKBA is "necessary" to the "people" of every "free State." There would seem to be no need to "incorporate" this right under the "due process" clause. It is obviously an imposition directly on the "State" to observe this right.

You are correct that as a "right" it has greater standing than a mere "privilege" or "immunity" which implies something that can be granted (or withdrawn) by government.

That's one scary and scattered-brained argument for guns. I'll agree that violence for the most part is a cultural problem, but when you combine this country's "sportsman-like" penchant toward violence with a gun, what else could the outcome be but more violence and a deadlier type at that. I hope that when this whole gun-packing fiasco is settled, I'm long gone and burried. The thought of walking around in a society where everyone is armed and waiting for the first guy to make a false move so he can gun him down(strictly in the name of patiotism) makes one want to move to some third world country where the worst thing you'll face is a stick or a stone. It's been said that this country's downfall will come from within. With all of the "gun nuts" getting their way, we don't eben need any enemies anymore. And if I were one,enemy that is, I'd just sit back and watch all the fun as the violent,dumb, and patiotic Americans kill each other in the name of their constitution. Defeating America could not have ever been any easier. Have you hugged your gun today?

Woo Hoo! You did it again Mark, you mined the nugget of truth that is the Second Amendment: the Constitutional, but primarily God-given right to bear arms. Thank you. I will add also that you never waivered in your evaluation of Obama's "character" in the election to the office of President as that of a "charlatan" which any true, Conservative Christian could see was a disaster! I've admired you without reservation and wish I could say the same for other RINOs, news media analysts, and pundits who were mesmerized by him and who betrayed America by their refusal to see the truth and who should've spoken up earlier on. The Obaminator may not be the anti-Christ, but he is surely a follower of him. God help us and keep us. Barb Miller

Obviously, the words of Madison in the Federalist Papers and of Justice Story suggest that we shall use the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to bear arms to defend against the "enterprises of ambition" and "usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers." Sounds good to me, considering the current "usurpation" and "enterprise of ambition" that are the current health care reform proposals of Pelosi, Reid, and BHO, among other tramplings of our freedoms and liberties. Viva la Revolucion!!!

I believe a straight forward reading of the second ammendment makes it clear that it is binding on state and local governments without 14th ammendment incorporation. Compare the wording of the 1st ammendment (Congress shall make no law...) to the wording of the second (...shall not be infringed). Applying simple rules of the English language, as written the second ammendment should be considered binding on all levels of government upon ratification.

To the Patriot Post, in a time when we the American people have been greatly misled, mistreated, and misrepresented; I propose that your paper discuss the possibility of a new party separate from standard Republican and Democratic parties. They have done the American people such great injustice and disservice. The only problem is I have had a hard time coming up with a name of a party. I have thought of ‘The People’s Party’, ‘The Patriot Party’ (seems too rebellious), ‘The Tea Party’ (sounds like a social gathering). Perhaps your publication could post some more ideas and let the people vote on which they like the most? Maybe your contacts could provide yet another possible party? Thanks and good luck.

Another excellent article, Mark! Your argument is succinct and correct: the right to keep and bear arms is bestowed upon us by our creator. Period.

It is irrelevant the number of guns used in crimes, guns to homicide/suicide ratios, duck hunting accidents or any other tenuous relationships to this fundamental right. Every day we see the destructive impact on essential liberties of weighing public safety against freedom. Freedom is a dangerous, messy business exceeded only by the tyranny that results when it is no longer present.

Another offensive tactic of the gun-hating left, it should be noted, is the actual re-writing of our plainly worded constitution in our nation's textbooks. Below is the 2nd amendment as stated in my daughter's AP history book:

Amendment II. Right To Bear Arms

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed.

A footnote adds that "The courts have consistently held that the "right" to bear arms is a limited one."

Her teacher, God bless her, had the good sense to have the students scratch out the offending phrase with an ink pen, but the fact remains that our youth are being taught, mostly, by leftist socialists who see no problem with bending our constitution and our history in order to better indoctrinate our students in leftist ideology. I doubt if James Madison is very impressed with their editing.

Americans do have a right to bear arms.

Now just tell me and my comrads where your BARE ARMS are stored so that we can see them.

R Richwalski,

I would suggest you move to Kenya - I understand we owe them a citizen anyway...

Mr. Timmerman: From reading this website all I hear is hate. ... Do you want to see our President assasinated? That's what guns are about.

Me: Hate? What's to hate (except bad behavior) and why use this invective? It makes as much sense as using the racist card when disagreeing with Obama on his bad behavior and terrible concepts.

Mr. Richwalski: The thought of walking around in a society where everyone is armed and waiting for the first guy to make a false move so he can gun him down(strictly in the name of patiotism) makes one want to move to some third world country where the worst thing you'll face is a stick or a stone.

Me: Have you paid attention to what happened in Rwanda, Zaire and other 3rd world (sticks and stones) countries where the unarmed population was killed and/or eaten? Have you paid attention to Switzerland where all homes are required to have a weapon (of self-defense)?

To both gentlemen and those of like opinion, your worst fears have not been and will not be realized. Your fears are just that, fear, an irrational interpretation of reality.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The State of Vermont and a very few others have it right. No permit required. A concealed weapons permit is just paying for the right to defend yourself. It also could be termed , "Back-door registration."

Mark,

While I couldn’t agree with you more on the subject of the 2nd Amendment, I fear that things in this country a quickly coming to a head. As I peruse the various political websites and blogs, I have seen in recent weeks more and more calls, both subtle and direct, for armed conflict out of anger over what many rightly view as violations of their God given rights. In the heat of anger I too have made similar calls to action. Without a doubt there may indeed come a time when such action is required. But we Americans are a passionate people and never more so than when we are fighting for our rights or the rights of others. We should, therefore, take a deep breath and be very careful not too rush into a conflict in the heat of passion. But do so, if necessary, out of a reasoned and rational conviction that there is no other choice. As our founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence,

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

It can not be denied that just such a “train of abuses and usurpations” is indeed occuring and that all we seek is a return to the Constitutional form of government our founders intended, not it’s over throw. Even so, many accuse us of only wanting to pick up our guns and over throw the government because we don’t like the bunch currently in office or out of some warped racist desire for conflict. While I believe that the vast majority of us do not fall into that category and that most of the more disgusting rants are plants designed too discredit us, still there are always a sick and twisted few, for whom this accusation is not totally without merrit. In light of this we need to be very sure that if such action is undertaken, we are doing it for the right reasons and not out of some self agrandizing motivation that makes us no better than the despots we oppose. Many of our founders believed that war should be avoided at all cost. It was not until the Crown left them no choice that they finally consented to war. These were wise and honorable men. We should heed their advice and follow their example.

I apologize for such a long post but I am truly frightened by what I see coming and felt this needed to be said.

Thank you, Mark, for all your brilliant work,

Aaron G. from California.

When you look at the history of the world, thousands of genrations have longed for, fought and died for these certain inalienable Rights with which we have been endowed by our Creator. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights can be said to be written with the blood and tears of these thousands of genrations. The Second Amendment is certainly the one which guarantees all the amendments. We have seen what happens when tyrants disarm their own and other people and the history of the twentyth century was (and in some places still remains) a disaster which defies words.

In our Bill of rights, four of the original ten amendments (the second, the fourth, the nineth and the tenth refer specifically to the people, that is the whole people, that is, EVERY individual.

The second amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Anyone who does not understand what shall not be infringed means needs to get a dog and name it "Clue" so they will have one.

Pray for the United States of America and for the Truthtellers. We the People shall prevail.

President Reagan signed the McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act because it prohibited abuses by BATFE that had become prevalent under the 1968 Firearms Control Act, and once again recognized in law some of the firearms owners' rights that had been improperly restricted.

The infringement on the right to own automatic weapons was slipped in by a dead-of-the-night amendment by Rep. Wm. Hughes (D-NY). Whether it was overlooked by the White House or accepted as a lesser-of-two-evils compromise is a matter for historians to debate, but President Reagan clearly intended to protect our rights by signing the bill.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Damn straight,Mark!

The March 4th essay on th validiy and backround on our 2nd Ammendment and our Bill of Rights was timely and excellent. Living in a state that allows right to carry permits to cleared and responsible citizens, I fully understand its importance. With the leanings of our Federal Gov't today its every citizens best interest to remember we fought an American Revolution for our freedoms and we dont want to but will again to preserve them. Let the Supreme Court start toppling the dominoes

Our founding fathers understood that authority is established by God. They were to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars." (Mark 12:17) God put the king on the throne of Great Britain. God gave him authority to rule. Therefore rebellion against legitimate authority could be construed as rebellion against God.

They also understood, however, that rulers are not supposed to be a terror to good works, but to evil (Romans 13:3). When a worldly authority infringes upon the freedoms God ordains and gives man (specifically, the right to worship Him as He commands), God gives approval to respectfully question that authority. If that authority still refuses to see reason, it is only then, with firm reliance upon He who protects the righteous, that we are to fight for our liberty against an unjust authority.

We must fight not for revenge or out of malice, but for justice and mercy for the oppressed. We must constantly pray and seek heavenly guidance so that we are in the right with God and man. Our founding fathers understood this. That is why God gave them His blessing for independence.

Asimov, as usual, had it right. "An armed society is a polite society."

Semper Fi!

One of our Founders stated, "With a gun, your are a citizen. Without it, you are a subject." That's what these buffoons have in mind, RULE as opposed to Governing!

Your closing statement about the " OATH OF OFFICE " they all are rquired to take must be repeated over and over . We appear to have forgotten this oath in NOT a mere formality . It is a requirement to hold office. This betrayal has been going on for decades. This is Tryanny and our Constitutional Government is BEING overthrown by those whose primary job is to protect the CONSTITUTION. WE should be constantly reminding our military that any order given that is unconstitutional is illegal and they are not only exempt from obeying it but the Miliary Officers oath states " TO PROTECT AND DEFEND AGAINST EVERY FOE BOTH FORIEGN AND DOMESTIC " . The time may be sooner than we expect that the federal government turns the military against it's own people._OUR military foremost reason for being is to protect " WE THE PEOPLE " and our CONSTITUITIONAL RIGHTS. THE OATH our military takes is supposed to be unlike the military of nations . They take an oath to defend their countries . WE TAKE AN OATH TO DEFEND A WAY OF LIFE AS EXPRESSED and guaranteed IN THE US CONSTITUTION ._______

The second amendment is an important part of the constitution yet there needs to be a balance between rights and public safety. I live in Washington state where a convicted felon got a gun and ambushed four police officers as they were drinking coffee. The gunman was later killed in a shootout with police.

Where and how do we strike the delicate between rights and protecting society?

Wow, another one!

Mr?Ms? Richwealski-

You let the cat out of the bag with the comment about "sportsman-like" penchant toward violence with a gun.

You're anti hunting and don't see the difference between killing "Bambi" and taking a human life, right?

I wondered why the rest of your arguments after that were so tortured/convoluted.

What WILL you do when they break down your door?

Could be burglars, kidnappers, drug revenge stuff with the wrong address,your daughters crazy boyfriend, or maybe even sometime in the future your own govt.-?

Will you call the police? HA

The concealed handgun license in Tx. has worked very well-even though many would argue that licensing should not be required, (and I agree).

Think about it-The people who go through the course to get the license, and are registered with the state, are not the kind of people who commit crimes!

They have abided by the law,paid for the course, and spent 10 hours mostly discussing gun laws and why you never pull your gun unless it's life or death,( and then you fire until your gun is empty!) Once you've been through the course and have pretty much talked through the most likely scenarios you'd run into where you might pull your gun, (and have probably come to the conclusion that you'll almost never end up pulling your gun), Then you'll be allowed to carry a gun.

Almost zero gun crimes have been committed by licensed gun owners in Tx since the program began.

If you're lucky, one of these days one of these people will save you or your family when it hits the fan, (but it's really your job to do that).

I can't imagine where you live that it is so safe that you never ever have to think about defending your family ,(or yourself).

A gated community, maybe? -You've got to go out into the real world sometime-

Oregon Buzz had the right idea with the signs on your neighbors' lawns. Funny, but if you really consider what he's saying, he's just trying to get you to think about what you're doing, (or not doing).

Come on, think it all the way thru and you'll see it's just fear that's got you looking at this backwards.

See Mr Birren above.

WELL SAID!

ONE CAN ONLY PRAY THAT THE SUPREMES WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

Well said as usual Mr. Alexander. For so long I've been saying that the right of "We the People" to keep and bear arms has nothing whatever to do with any crime rate statistic. When someone commits a crime with a gun, then use the rule of law to prosecute that person. All state gun permits should be abolished. God and The United States Constitution give us our right to keep and bear arms. No gang of politicians or judges at any level has any authority to give or deny us that right! A side note to James Timmerman's comment above about all police officers thinking guns should be banned. That is a crock! You have been talking to Russian cops. I am a retired Los Angeles Police officer and personally know hundreds of police officers...not one of them thinks guns should be banned in America. Not ONE! How many do you know Mr. Timmerman?

Mr. Alexander's essay "Second Amendment - Still 'The Palladium of Liberties'" made an excellent point -- one that is often overlooked by citizens and courts alike -- in observing the fallacy of appealing to safety when discussing gun control. The Constitution clearly states that the people have a right to bear arms. Mr. Alexander is absolutely right in insisting that the court should disregard the plummeting murder rate in D.C. After reading this excellent essay, I was reminded that THIS is why I read the Patriot Post. Thank you, Mr. Alexander, for your insightful arguments, and for not missing the point.

James Timmerman said: You guys must not be hearing. President Obama has never said anything about taking our guns away. Do you want to see our President assasinated (Spelled incorrectly - It's a-s-s-a-s-s-i-n-a-t-e-d)?

Impeached and deported, would be GREAT, for starters. Keep in mind that the non-resident president - dictator wannabee, Marxist Adolph Osama said on Chicago Public radio, on 9/13/2004 that he is "consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry".

Ezra Howington said: Obama..Muslim..Kenyan born..having pulled the greatest fraud in world history into the presidency of the USA is using Health Care as a diversion.

To destroy the USA through financially ruining our country. Thus he he can deliver what is left to the Muslim faith.

And we are too stupid to see it and stop him?

Every day, when I wake up, I turn on FOX news and hope and prey that I see that Joe Biden has had to assume the office of the stupidest president in history.

R Richwalski said: It's been said that this country's downfall will come from within. With all of the "gun nuts" getting their way, we don't eben (spelled wrong. It's "e-v-e-n".) need any enemies anymore. And if I were one,enemy that is, I'd just sit back and watch all the fun as the violent,dumb, and patiotic (spelled wrong. It's "p-a-t-r-i-o-t-i-c".) Americans kill each other in the name of their constitution. Defeating America could not have ever been any easier. Have you hugged your gun today?

It's mental midgets like this who, being democratic means being afraid of the truth (never heard from the Kenyan presidential imposter); and spewing forth proof that one doesn't need a brain to post a blog in the patriot post. If the majority of Americans were as intellectually inept as R. Richwalski seems to want to prove to us that he is, then even Jessica Simpson, Pam Anderson and Parisite Hilton would not have an easier time in defeating America. Thank GOD, that Richwalski is in the minority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxDwBYjL3Fc&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rv7aW3NF7w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08

Wonderfully written. Thank you for continuing the excellent work.

I have to take exception to "Oregonbuzz" and his stated belief that all law enforcement believe guns should be banned. I spent 30 years in both State and Federal Law Enforcement and cannot disagree more with his assertion. Having been shot in the line of duty I can tell you that my assailant was a criminal who used a handgun he had stolen in a robbery. However, I have never been in fear of my life from a law abiding citizen who was armed.The only law enforcement officials I have met who want guns banned are the Chief Executives of some departments who are more politician than cop.

Long live the 2ND Ammendant and the Constitution of The United States of America.

I am a retired Law Enforcement Officer and Proud to be an American!

"Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat."

Thank you Craig, I can't stop laughing at that. It's priceless and so true.

Perhaps the readers should go to "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" website, JPFO.org. They list the several genocides and the anti-gun laws that made them possible. Remember an armed person is a citizen and unarmed person is a subject.

As a gun owner, hunter, shooter, reenactor, etc., etc., I heartily support the second amendment. While I agree in spirit with the Washington Post's statement, I must concur with the Patriot Post. To do otherwise, would be saying our bill of rights is amendable. By God, it is not. We must, all, remember, that to be, and remain, a free and prosperous nation, we must be a nation of laws. Too many in our government these days seem to want to ignore this fact. That is a serious mistake, as our constitution was put into place to prevent that sort of meddling.

Mr. Richwalski must not know too much about third world countries, which are some of the most unsafe places in the world to live! Let's see: Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Dem. Rep. of Congo (that's just for starters)... Mr. Richwalski must have also forgotten there was a little more than stick & stone throwing going on in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and in Rwanda during the genocide.

Given the choice between living here and living where there are rebels, criminals, communist revolutionaries, committers of genocide, warlords' henchmen, drug cartels, and Islamic militants running around unchecked with all kinds of weapons from machetes to AK-47's, *I* will choose living here every time!!

Doesn't Article 4, Section 2 mean that as a citizen of Wyoming I can carry my gun anywhere in the united States? "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." This means I can tell Bloomberg, Daley and company to go pound sand.

To R. Richwalski, I must reply; Sir/Madam, when was the last time you really took a good long unbiased look at our culture? Hmmm? While it certainly true that violence is cultural, it is actually the criminal culture, not the culture as a whole. The criminal, by nature, doesn't give a rat's behind about either the law, or your well-being. The criminal will use any method available, to commit his or her crime. That, of course, includes the use of a GUN, knife, ball-bat, or what ever. If you are on the ground being raped and in the process of being murdered, would you prefer a by-stander call 911, or put a gun in the thug's ear to get him to stop? That question can easily be answered by anyone who has been in that position, provided they survived. Yes, I do carry a gun for aggresion prevention, but if I ever find you in that position, I will ask you if you'd prefer I called 911, or shoot the thug. You be sure to tell me, won't you?

to R. Richwalski; Oh, by the way, about going to some third world country where all you have to worry about is sticks and stones? Have you EVER been to one of the 'third world countries"? Guess what? THEY have more guns than most developed countries, and they have no qualms at all about robbing, and killing you for nothing more than the clothes on your back, or anything they can get from your corpse. Trust me, the only places on this Earth you can go, that you only have sticks and stones to worry about, is the countries that have banned guns from the law-abiding populace. That is all they have to defend themselves from criminals. And, oh yes, they do have a 911..

I am First Generation Greek, my father having emigrated alone from a tiny Mediterranean island in 1904 when he was eleven years old. In coming to America, he had one dream: To become wealthy. For years in Chicago, he lived catch-as-catch-can, supporting himself by washing dishes, showing silent movies in local theaters, taking odd jobs for a few cents. For a time, he was hungry enough to eat the leavings off customers' plates but he never complained, never expected to be done for. He learned English, graduated from the Gymnasium, graduated from the University of Louisville with a degree in Dentistry. Along the way, he learned about The Dollar and how it could be put to use to make other Dollars. He practiced for 55 years; married twice; bought land in Florida near a little town named Kissimmee; invested wisely here and there; put me and my two sisters through University. He regularly sent money back to his island of birth, was a president of the Lion's Club, a 32 Degree Mason and a Shriner. He imbued in us, his three children, a love of our Greek heritage and how the Greek Democracy undergirded the American Revolution. He could quote long passages from the Founding Documents, from Jefferson's letters, from the Federalist Papers. He loved his God and Savior, his family, his adopted country and would not tolerate dishonor of any of the three. Part and parcel of his love of America was his RIGHT to buy, own and use guns. "Free men own guns," he told me more than once, "but it is the gun which guarantees men's freedom -- not the reverse. Never try to take an American's guns from him. The British tried -- twice -- and failed," he'd say. "Without guns, no man can lay claim to controlling his own life. Look at History: There have been precious few episodes of Freedom and they were all interwoven with the people's willingness to dispute government with force, if necessary." I have pictures of me, very young and standing alone, struggling to hold Dad's shotgun. Of all the stories I learned sitting in his lap, the most important was about the stand of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. I can still hear Dad saying, "...and, when Xerxes sent a messenger to the Spartans and ordered them, 'Lay down your arms!,' Dienekes, one of Leonidas's sub-commanders, told the emissary, 'Go, tell your king this: MOLON LAVEH! COME AND TAKE THEM!' " It is a warning that echoes through the centuries and still has flesh today. What most History books don't tell school children is that had Xerxes defeated Greece, Christianity would have had no fertile ground from which to bloom and grow. By refusing to surrender their arms, those 300 Greeks saved and preserved Western Civilization. The American Revolution began at Concord Bridge -- America's Thermopylae -- over the issue of the right of those Rabble in Arms to decide the scope and direction of their own lives without asking permission from government. May it always be so. MOLON LAVEH!

WOW. Another deeply insightful and concise essay. How you gather so much information on so many subjects and formulate a beautiful essay each week is a talent to behold. Thank you for providing plenty of intellectual stimulation to replace the intellect that gets vacuumed out by most other media.

Our first Amendment rights are being corrupted by the left leaning mass media outlets. Think of our amendments as dominos. The first is leaning on the second; this keeps the others from being toppled. But should the day come that leftists defeat and cause the second to fall so shall all the others one after the other in quick succession.

The right to keep and bear arms applies to firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, knives, swords and any other weapon that you may need to protect yourself, family, community and country. No taxes or restrictions should ever be levied against honest citizens.

Keep your powder dry and have a plan to secure your firearms from confiscation.

To Rifleman:

Amen! May it always be so, MOLON LAVEH!!!

"Well said, well done!" Highest Navy (US) compliment; in re the dissertation apropos the incorrect considerations of the 2d Amendment current discoures. Your analysis is accurate, and should be(well)considered. I know; it will not! So, I keep my personal firearm clean, and loaded. All law respecting citizens should also do that. I do not require a permit to carry it. 2d Amendment.

James Timmerman, posting above, must not read the news much. Roughly 30,000 people are killed each year by fire arms, many of those as a result of violent crime. That's certainly not a pretty number. But then again, neither is the 40,000+ that we kill each year on our highways and byways. Yet no one is up in arms clamoring to take away your car, of worrying about some whacko running over the President with his "weapon". If I could magically make all the violent criminals evaporate tomorrow, I wonder what the death count from fire arms would be next year? Much lower I'm quite sure, but the vehicular death statistic would still be cruising along at a stead 40,000+. I'm pretty sure James doesn't own a gun. I wonder if he owns a car...and if it should be taken away from him...because he does sound a bit riled up. Who knows what he'll do with it?

I believe that it was the 'Sullivan' law that suppressed the ownership of guns in New York that started all of the anti gun 'crap'. That law was passed because Governor Sullivan was afraid that he would be assassinated. Just like in China one of the emperors was also afraid and decreed that all items with pointed ends should be blunted or destroyed, hence Chop Sticks and Chinese knives with square ends.

Are you afraid? How about just changing your ways.

The Second Amendment is a great check on our liberty, however, it is both the far Left and the far Right that pose the greatest threat. Those are the Progressives that want big Federal government at the expense of the States and individuals.

RE: Post from James Timmerman.

President Obama has never said anything about taking our guns away.

Response: Maybe not, but Chicago Rep. Bobby Rush (former Black Panther and Obama colleague) introduced HR45. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text - It calls for federal registration of all handguns and any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device.

Guns only kill people. Response: My guns have never killed any people. My guns are for varmints, targets, and protecting my family from intruders and the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Ask any law enforcement officer and they will tell you guns should be banned. RE: I did and you lie.

From reading this website all I hear is hate. RE: A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest - Simon & Garfunkel, "The Boxer".

A 14th Amendment defense is a slippery slope that may lead to the statists justifying Federal Law overriding other State Laws and invalidating 9th and 10th amendment rights reserved to we, the people, and to the States, respectively. Did we need the 14th Amendment to insure 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. Amendment rights prior to its ratification? Are the rights to free speech, free press, jury trial, freedom from unreasonable search & seizure, peaceably assemble, or free practice of religion subject to State limitations? This is what this argument boils down to. Remember, the Federal Government was established by consent of the sovereign States. No such consent would be forthcoming today if they could see where it has led. The plain language of the 2nd Amendment, the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed, should be sufficient, however, as Jefferson feared, even an enumerated right is subject to abuse by the despotic branch.

Just in case someone is still unclear on the militia clause, here is the antecedent in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, and ratified on June 12, 1776.

"XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power." Not a word about hunting, target shooting, plinking, or antique collecting. The militia is composed of the body of the people.

Prior to that, the English Bill of Rights 1689 states, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

I and millions of other veterans served to guarantee this 2nd Amendment right as well as the right of Mr. Timmerman to state his opinion. Who will protect his right to speak if he gets his wish?

As for restrictions on ammo, caliber, automatic weapons, etc., I present as exhibit A the Federal Government assault on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. When the Federal government can violate the Posse Comitatus 18 U.S.C. § 1385 and use US Army tanks from Ft. Hood to assault private property after laying siege for several weeks, what recourse should citizens have to defend themselves?

I have read the words of some Chiefs of Police who support gun control and registration. The problem with that, is that they are political appointees, and not the rank and file police officers. As political appointees, they are dominated by those who have appointed them to their posts, and no doubt feel the pressure to parrot the opinions of their political benefactors. The Chief officers whom I have known, both of Police and Fire Service, have been required to submit a resignation annually, so their political bosses may decide whether or not to accept them, or allow them to continue in their positions as chief officers. So, they BETTER NOT have anything to say that is too far out of harmony with the thinking of their elected bosses. Not so with the front line law enforcement officers who do the work on the streets, and interface with the public every day. As a former municipal employee, I have never in my 75 years met a police officer from the ranks who made such comments against any honorable citizen's right to bare firearms.

Rifleman:

Well said! Almost as good as M. Alexander.

To all gun grabber politicians and enemies of liberty:

MOLON LAVEH!!!

Guns don't kill people. People with guns can kill people in self defense.

People with guns have the ability to defend themselves against home invaders, property intruders, and criminals who threaten their lives. People with guns can kill people thus acting as a deterrent. Home alarms are great and laughable since, by the time police arrives, you may be dead.

Do liberals call the ACLU, SEIU, and the Southern Poverty Center when in danger or attacked? No! They call 911 and the police with GUNS.

Mark,

Thankyou for your clear and concise essay on the 2nd amendment and issues surrounding it. I agree with you that crime and violence is a cultural issue and separate from the 2nd amendment.

Our government has been allowed to trample our Constitution for far too long and hope the voters will wake up to that before we are forced to use the 2nd amendment the way it was intended and elequently stated :

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"....Thomas Jefferson.

I pray it will never come to that point.

Mr. Timmerman

I participate in many forums and as is typical of the liberal stinkin thinkin you make statements that are baseless and without factual support. You indeed have the right to do that but other than taking up space it is of little value and only detracts from your view. Try adding some fact to what you say, if you can find any that support your view.

By the way I received my pistol permit training from skillful, knowledgeable police officer that would disagree with you on all counts!

In any case great essay Mark! Keep up the good work!

Update, please ignore the quote by Thomas Jefferson. There is debate as to the authenticity of that quote. While Jefferson may not have said that i believe the words are true today.

To all:

The Greek is not MOLON LAVEH, it is "MOLON LABE".

In Greek it is spelled Mu-Omicron-Lambda-Omega-Nu Lambda-Alpha-Beta-Epsilon.

The phrase does not translate into English very well, the sentiment being imparted is more along the lines of "you can take them when we're done with them". The English phrase "from my cold, dead hands" is a closer approximation. The phrase MOLON LABE is the motto of the Greek special forces as a tribute to the Battle of Thermopylae.

Oh, and I agree completely with the sentiment - as long as I am armed, I cannot be enslaved against my will. Self-defense is not only a God-given right, it is the responsibility of a Free Citizen.

An excellent analysis. Any proposed law must overcome many hurdles, some more important than others: Is this law advisable? Can it be paid for? Is it politically palatable? Will it accomplish its goal with a minimum of unpleasant side effects?

But before ANY of these minor arguments are entertained, EVERY law should be made tested on the first and most fundamental hurdle: is it Constitutional? ONLY if that question can be answered in the affirmative should any other aspect be considered.

For too long, and in defiance of their oath, our legislators have treated the question of Constitutionality as an afterthought, if it has been entertained at all. We need to remind them of that oath, and demand that they hold our Constitution as dear as we do, and if not remove them.

"I pledge allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as originally written and ratified by our nation's founding fathers, and as legally amended by the citizens.

I solemnly swear that I will support and defend THE CONSTITUTION from all enemies, both foreign and especially domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I will endeavor to hold accountable those who would subvert or distort its meaning.

To this end I devote my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor, that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will forever remain one nation under God, a free people."

I agree that the right to keep and bear arms is just that: a right. It needs no other justification to be valid. My state (NC) has no more constitutional authority to restrict my right to carry a handgun than to restrict speech or permit slavery.

It is no stretch of truth to say that the current administration is guilty of treason against our Constitution. Internationally doing all he can to userp our sovernty as a nation. Further he is commiting fiscal warfare against us. Will some calamity erupt this fall to put off our voting, we assume all will be as it has been. Could he just say to Congress, "go home you are no longer needed, my czars will take the gov't from here.Surprising our populace hasn't done more to remove this Muslim foreigner.

Wow, Rifleman, that was amazing.

Since the Constitution limits only the Federal governement, and since all things not prohibited to them reside with the States and the people, it seems logical that States and/or localities could limit gun rights.

Invoking the 14th appears to be the proper way to get the Federal courts to regin in State abuses.

Just a thought on a comment in this post along with Mr Bullogh's comments above: you say "This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch." At times you identify elitist trends and statements from the Leftmedia (and I think it's very accurate). Be careful not to fall into the same trap. While it's true that Pres Obama lied during his campaign and Americans were foolish to trust him, we still bear the responsibility for electing him. Maybe he gave us the wool, but we pulled it over our own eyes.

I absolutely agree with these comments. I am from SC where we hold our Second Amendment rights in high esteem. I like to say that if you get to SC and you don't have a gun, we'll give you one.

But as much as we like to hunt, and as strongly as we feel that law-abiding citizens have the absolute right to defend themselves and their families, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with either. It is all about protecting the State from the oppressive intrusion of the federal government.

All of the Bill of Rights is the same: it was enacted to limit the authority of the federal government and protect the autonomy and freedoms of the States.

There was a recent poll conducted on the MSNBC website that asked the question: Does the Second Amendment give citizens the right to keep and bear arms? I received several e-mails from conservative friends of mine urging me to answer the poll with a "yes" vote to show everyone that we support gun rights. However, when I carefully read the wording of the question, I could not in good conscience vote "yes."

The Second Amendment doesn't GIVE us any rights. Nor does any other of the first 10 amendments. They merely articulate unalienable rights that are granted by our Creator and forbid the federal government from encroaching on them. It is dangerous indeed to assume that governments are the source of our rights. They exist only "to secure these rights..."

Sheriff Ray

www.PoliceDynamicsMedia.com

Amen!

I found your point regarding adherence to the 2nd Amendment not because of the truth of more guns = less crime, but because the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. PERIOD. This approach needs to applied across the entire spectrum of Amerixan society. We too often allow ourselves to be drug into argumentative scenarios based on the opinions or feelings and emotions of outcome rather than standing on foundational truths and precepts. Abortion isn't about a freedom of choice...it's wrong because God says so. Political correctness will kill this country and to make a defense of a right based in anything other than the pure truth of it is applied political correctness.

Charles

Rifleman: That was inspiring and outstanding.

If the ant-gunners think that guns kill people, then I guess pencils are responsible for words spelled wrong.

I would like all the people who want guns banned to put a sigh on their lawn sating "This is a gun free home "

The 2nd Amendment is key to all of the other amendments and the constitution. The founding fathers clearly understood the need to protect the country and provide safeguards to tyranny,

Fredo: Agreed; except that was Robert Anson Heinlein, not Isaac Asimov. I'll throw in A.E.Van Vogt: "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free".

Dear Mr. Gaylean:

I said, "Having worked in Law Enforcement I cannot disagree more with what you say." In that comment, I was expressing the belief that Mr. Timmerman was wrong in stating that "any" LEO would support banning guns.

I have carried concealed for the last 35 years. On the job I never met a cop who thought that guns/ownership should be banned.

Please re-read my comment. I did not say that I thought all guns should be banned.

Fredo said: "Asimov, as usual, had it right. 'An armed society is a polite society.'

Semper Fi!"

Can't argue with the last sentiment (although I was Army, not a Marine), but it was't Asimov, it was the late and lamented Robert Anson Heinlein who wrote that gem.

Tony

Sheriff Ray Nash wrote: "I absolutely agree with these comments. I am from SC where we hold our Second Amendment rights in high esteem. I like to say that if you get to SC and you don't have a gun, we'll give you one."

This is a bit disingenous as SC does not honor CCW from AL and some other neighboring states.

http://apps.carryconcealed.net/legal/reciprocity.php

So, when I travel to visit relatives in NC, I am not supposed to be carrying. Next time I'm on I-85, I'll stop and take you up on that free gun.

Re: James Timmerman's comments about guns

Not one to resort to verbal slights, but in this case I must make exception.

Cognitively myopic deficiency syndrome, or superficially unconscious dolt!?

all that needs to be said IMPEACH OBAMA AND clean out any and all politicians who dont understand and follow their oath to defend the country against enemys foriegn and domestic...the constitution needs to be the law of the land and if they dont understand it they should not be allowed to hold office...they are our representitives they work for us..2010-2012 time to start over and never get in this trouble again...

Good stuff people. Forget about the Right to Life Liberty and Happiness? What about Freedom and Liberity?

Make all the Laws you want, but what if no one abides by them? Think they can come and take you Guns? Ain't gonna happen people, not enough Enforcement people to do it. Been in Law Enforcement and the Military and can tell you when I had to Stand By and be ready to help Quell the riots in "Watts in the 60's" it wasen't fun. I had to decide my morals very quickly. Thankfully we did not have to go.

You do not need the Military in the streets of America, and wonder how many will show up? Got the guts to throw down on you own?

Forget all the crimes statistics and crap. The point is Freedom, are you willing to give that up for a Gun Law? Ask a Jew what happens, or an Indian. Tyrnanny is the Question.

People kill people not weapons! Granted some need it, and some are out of rage and anger, but the Free who only want to live free use them appropiatly. An armed citizen is a better deterent than Law Enforcement, They're there when it happens not after the fact. Thanks Sheriff Ray.

Mr. Timmerman:

In January 1994, I sat in the ballroom of a hotel in Arlington VA, during the banquet of the annual training seminar of the now-defunct American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers. Recall that this was in the middle of the Clinton era. The keynote speaker was Ron Noble, at that time Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement. Mr. Noble used the bulk of his time lauding his boss's campaign to weed out "kitchen-table FFL's" - part-time, licensed firearms dealers, so named because they operate from their homes. Prior to that year's seminar, virtually every banquet keynote speaker was afforded a standing ovation. As I sat at the table, with my arms crossed over my chest, at the conclusion of Noble's speech, I gazed around the room and noticed that virtually every cop in the audience was in the same pose. The only applause came from the tables at the front of the room, where the organization's officers were seated and, with the exception of the MC, who was standing, all of them were seated and their applause could best be described as "polite."

Many police chiefs and sheriffs in the nation's large cities and counties will lend their names to the firearm-prohibition improvement but few working cops will do so.

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.

Mr. Timmerman: Having grown up with police officers in my family, having worked both for and with them, over the past quarter-century, I can unequivocally tell you this: Not ONE police officer I've EVER spoken with has been pro-gun control. Not one.

The attitude amongst my co-workers and family members has always been that if a criminal wishes to commit a crime, he/she will find a way to legally OR illegally secure a weapon in order to do so.

Controlling guns owned by private citizenry is not the way to reduce violent crime. The way to reduce crime is to (a) return to teaching our young the difference between right and wrong, ensuring that they can identify and will choose, the right (living the example would be good)...and, (b) to bring about fair but swift retribution and justice for those who violate law.

Mr. Timmerman, I have seen a few instances where well-meaning people have caused problems with the guns they owned. But almost always, it has been a situation where a stupid and very tragic choice was made in the panic or heat of a moment. I have never in my long lifetime, met up with a private law-abiding, mentally and emotionally stable citizen who owned a gun and suddenly decided to use it for some violent illicit or antagonistic pursuits.

My own father owned many MANY guns and we were taught from the cradle the proper handling and use of same, and the possible dangers of improperly handling a gun, including the "when and where".

The guns were always in a locked cabinet, and there was a very STEEP penalty that carried with it the promise of a good spanking AND a loss of freedom, for anyone breaking the rules. I do not remember ever seeing that punishment put to work, for there was never a need. We grew up knowing to make RIGHT choices based on God-breathed truths and principles that have withstood the test of time sinced time began.

We were also taught how to properly, and safely, USE a gun. From early years, we all knew what a gun was capable of...but because of the upbringing we had, NONE of us ever had one iota of desire to go out and use those guns on anything but targets at the skeet and trap ranges. In the event of a break-in or attack on us, which did happen once, no gun was taken out of that locked cabinet. Police were summoned. Only as a last-ditch effort to survive would anyone of us have thought to use a gun. That, Mr. Timmerman, was a direct result of correct upbringing, not of mandated limitations upon my freedoms as a private citizen.

Granted, the "times have changed" since my childhood. Violence is all around us, almost unabated on the streets of our cities and towns and villages. NOT because the criminals had the right to keep and bear arms, but because our wonderful law enforcement personell have been all but bound and gagged and denied the right to keep the law! They are so restricted nowadays and so undermanned, that it is nigh unto impossible for them to keep crime down. And they will tell you, this crime wave is CULTURAL and FAMILY-related, not gun-owner-related.

I put this to you, Mr. Timmerman: Might it not be not only possible, but PROBABLE, that the reason behind the rise in violent crime is due more to the disintegration of the Godly values the families in this country once held? Is it not from the fracturing and moral decay of the American family unit and a lack of decent upbringing and the teaching of proper ways of thinking and behaving?

Is it not likely that we have street gangs, drug traffickers, murders and rapists abounding here, because they have not had the privilege of growing up in a home where a morally-correct and strong family unit taught, lived and espoused, respect for life and for other people and their properties and rights?

If one wishes to kill a president, one can acquire a weapon illegally. most of the violent criminals WE arrested and prosecuted got their guns the old-fashioned way. Stole them or bought 'em on the black market.

I encourage you to actually go out into the city in which you live, and conduct a formal poll of every single police officer you encounter. Ask them, "Do you believe that the right of private citizens to own guns directly endangers the lives of other citizens and/or our elected officials?" I believe you'll be quite surprised.

Yes, Mr. Timmerman, SOME people will always be around to abuse our Constitutionally-protected rights by misusing their right to keep and bear arms. However, would you deny ALL of America a car to drive, because SOME decide to get drunk, drive, and cause a death? Isn't the final burden on US as individuals, to know, respect, and obey the laws in America, to be held accountable and responsible for OUR decisions? Do we really NEED "big government" to be TELLING us what we are or are not morally responsible enough, mentally healthy enough, to do in the privacy of our own homes?

I, for one, am insulted that my own government could believe that after living this long, I have not the brains nor the emotional stability to know how to live safely amongst objects that could (if used wrongly) be very dangerous to me or others.

WATCH OUT, Mr. Timmerman! There is a barbecue skewer in my hand! Why, please do pass a law against owning these, for one day I MIGHT turn around when startled and in a moment of reckless violent retribution, put a hole in someone. I mean, REALLY...

Your energies would be far better spent praying that God return some common sense and intestinal fortitude to the masses who right now are being led to slaughter like sheep. The people of this country are going to have EXACTLY the kind of government that they are willing to put up with. Our silence speaks permission for this to continue. We need to take a verbal, forceful STAND to return government to being BY, FOR, and OF the PEOPLE, not a self-seeking, self-aggrandizing, herd of fat-cat big-wig charlatans shoving sugar-coated poison down our willing throats.

I'll leave it to the man on the Century Note to chime in with his words of wisdom on this discussion.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on

what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed

lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Luke 22:36 (King James Version)

36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Also John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime"

Reader Timmerman reflects the attitude of too many people in this country who refuse to take responsibility for themselves or their families protection. I am a retired NYPD veteran of 25 years on the streets of the worst NYC has/had to offer. I will tell you without reservation that the vast majority of officers of all civil service ranks below political appointees (i.e. above Captain) that I knew were universally supportive of the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry by citizens not disqualified by virtue of criminal records. I myself have been assisted on 2 occasions by armed civilians when making arrests and outnumbered.

Sure - their are some cops who dislike the notion of civilians being armed - mostly younger officers who grew up in the big city environment and never served in the military - but they are thankfully few in number, comparatively.

I am glad to read the majority of Patriot Post readers acknowledge that the VAST majority of police officers are on YOUR side. Cops can't be everywhere, and expecting them to save your bacon when threatened is a sure way to get yourself a toe tag. YOU are responsible for your own self-protection and that of your family and loved ones. If you choose not to ... you are a sheep ripe for kiling. Grow a pair, Timmerman.

Excellent article. Thanks Mark.

To Mr. Charles Calahan, while the oath taken by me and all service men and women and other offices in government does say, "against all enemies foreign and domestic", it also states, "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me".

Even though we have the "posse comitatus" law, we see in the oath itself the system and orders have been put it place to take action against American citizens.

The issue will be whether the generals believe the citizenry is intent on restoring the US Constitution or an outright revolt seen as a violent overthrow of the federal government.

May God save the Republic and help us all in either case.

RE: Charles Calahan's comments. I agree with you almost completely but you seem to fear the federal government will use the military against "We the People" should we rise up and "let's just say" fire all members of the currently elected & appointed government.

This WON'T happen and I bet "Marine" would agree! While a few high commanding offers might side with Obama(he won't be OUR President at that point), you forget that almost all of our military consists of sons and daughters of the very people they would be ordered to "kill". Elite Progressives don't allow their offspring to do a job as "lowly" as being in the rank and file military!

Let's pray our military will keep "FOREIGN" aggressors from attacking us, Israel, and any other TRUE ally while we simply rebuild our system back to what the founding fathers envisioned. And pray we use the Dec of Ind, the Constitution,Federali Papers etc accurately to re-establish our great nation.

linguist>>>>>>>>>>>>Regarding your correction: I was making allowance for the non-Greeks who read these posts. Phonetically, LAVEH is said as it appears. What would most people say when asked to pronounce LABE? My native language is Greek; I read, speak, write it. I also read Classical Greek, the original language of the New Testament. It is difficult for me to take lessons in phonetic pronunciation in my native language from a non-Greek. It must be the Greek in me to resist what isn't true or accurate. There's more to the Greek language than the Cyrillic Alphabet. There's more to us Greeks than can be divined by non-Greeks.

Alexander, beautiful essay as always.

Fredo: the quote "An armed society is a polite society" was penned by Robert A. Heinlein, not Isaac Asimov.

Richwalski and Timmerman: I'm sure that, between all of us, we could scrape up enough money to buy you guys a ticket to some third-world country where you, being defenseless little well-wishers living in your own manufactured realities, would be killed and/or eaten by the lawless criminals who lie in wait for tender little sheeple like you.

I've been in law enforcement for 29 years, and the only rank-and-file officers I saw supporting the banning of private gun ownership (never mind the political appointees polishing the seat of the chief's chair) were the young punk fascists we seem to get a lot of nowadays.

That's the problem with sheeple like Timmerman and Richwalski: they think their "feelings" are as good as facts when it comes to stating their case.

I am sorry for the couple of misspelled words. When using a touchpad phone and not being able to even see the letters I type once to the end of the comment block line, even spellcheck can't catch everything. I know they are the Federalist Papers. So please everyone, no need to jump my case! Apparently, federali is in this spell check english dictionary. Also I beg readers to see the ideas not the poor language art skills. I won't slam the phone by naming the type but let's just say "No more wild fruit phones for me!"

R.M. Zobenica, Gabiel, your responses are correct. It will not happen in my life time. War and Armed conflicts are only an extension of diplomacy and negotations. When you fear your Govt. it is Tryanny, when the Govt. fears us it is Liberty. I support the Law Enforcement community and our Military, but the Govt.? This country was free when it was started. It was the take over by the British and the French that began the use of weapons, to throw them out. Im armed and do not know fear. I live by the rule of self determination, I do not harm anyone and do not expect any one will harm me, how ever if that should happen beware, Im highly skilled in self defense and the use of a gun. Im willing to negotate but do not threaten me with the use of force. If we live with respect for one another there will be no need for force. The Corps taught me to help those that cannot help themselves, and defend those that cannot defend themselves. We live by a code of Honor, unknown by many as to what it means, we live by it, until the day we die. As a child is born into this world, so are "Marines". When you earn that title it will never leave you. Im now 63, 2 1/2 years combat in Viet Nam, a hand full of medals and only one of any meaning, the "Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal" all the rest we got for doing our job. Semper Fi!

After serving in the USAF for 20 years, I became a Police Officer. One of the many things I learned as a Police Officer was that the majority of other officers I quired, over 95% of them were in favor of citizens being armed. The view of the Officers on-the-beat was that the "more "Friendly Firearms" we have on the street, the safer the community is. I spoke to hundreds of Police Officers from all over the country and some from Canada, England, and Germany.

The fact that the murder rate has dropped 25% in Washington D.C. since the Heller Decision, is not a coincidence!

Ask any Australian or British citizen how the gun bans worked out for them. Criminals will *always* find ways to get guns. The only thing gun laws do is take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, which is the only group *responsible* enough to be allowed to have them in the first place. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Oh, and the Constitution specifically states that no state can pass laws that contradict the constitution, therefore the 14th amendment is superfluous.

Oh, and hey, Rifleman? MOLON LAVEH!

To James Timmerman and all the rest who seem to read "hate" into every negative thing they hear: What you are hearing is not hate, but anger. There is a huge difference between the two. When I was a child, my mother would get intensely angry with me, usually with great justification since I was doing something that would likely endanger myself, my family or my home. Her anger did not lead her to abuse me physically, verbally or emotionally. It DID lead her to make me stop what I was doing and get back on the right track. Anger can be justified, useful and non-damaging. Hate is none of those things. Don't confuse the two.

Mr. Timmerman and Mr. Richwalski,

As a veteran both of the U.S. Navy and the Law Enforcment profession, I could not disagree with the both of you more.

Mr. Timmerman, I would echo OregonBuzz in that, were to ask "any" of the LE officers I worked with over my years in the profession most would strongly disagree with your position and side with the plain wording of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to which they've sworn oaths to support and defend.

And I see very little in the way of "hate" on this website or within these forums. Oh sure, there is often anger. But not hateful anger. And anger is certainly understandable when there is a significant percentage of our population who see our liberties under direct assault by an ever growing Statist government. A government which is increasingly at direct odds with the founding principles of the nation and once which thinks nothing of violating the Constitution, seemingly at every turn. I do find it curious however, that the hateful idea of "assassination" (so often attributed to the right) always seems to actually emanate from the left... as is the case here.

Mr. Richwalski, in addition to my prior military and LE experience, I am also a sportsman. Myself and the vast majority of sportsmen I've come to know and associate with over the course of my lifetime (generally those who have grown up in a gun and hunting culture) have a deep and abiding respect for firearms and the woodlands where we hunt. We take our "sport" seriously and teach our children to be responsible and safe in their conduct, respectful of the outdoors, and to never kill for killings sake. Now I admit, there are those who engage in the sport of hunting irresponsibly and behave badly. This clear minority however, manages garner much attention through their idiocy and cast an inaccurate perception of hunters in the eyes of the uneducated public. These gun-idiots largely tend to be those new to both guns and true outdoorsmanship. They were neither raised in it, nor properly disciplined in the honest American traditions of the gun.

No Mr. Richwalski, the vast majority of gunowners and hunters in America are not a culture with "a penchant toward violence with a gun." Quite the opposite. They are in truth a culture of manners. And the increasing absence of manners in our society is where your cultural problem of violence is rooted. The steady erosion of principles and manners we've seen in our youth and society over recent decades, has done much, much more, to fuel the violence in our cities than the gun ever has.

The gun is merely a tool, and a tool is an inanimate object. It is only as good or bad as the hands (or heart?) which wields it. As Roman orator and writer Seneca the Elder aptly pointed out in his day - "A sword never kills; it is merely a tool in the killer's hand."

No, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun sportsmanship or hunting. What it does have to do with is Liberty. And as founder Samuel Adams points out, principles and manners have great bearing on the preservation (or loss) of Liberty.

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." ~ Samuel Adams 1779

"An armed society is a polite society." ~ Robert A. Heinlein, 'Beyond This Horizon'

Dave Mather; How about the Constitution Party? Which already exists, is growing stronger, and need suppot. Yes! That is what I fought for; The Constitution!

Excellent article Mark.

In regards to the post by Paul Kopper asking for a window sticker for the homes. The sticker on my window states the following;

THIS HOME IS PROTECTED BY MY GOOD FRIENDS COLT, BROWNING, AND WINCHESTER 3 DAYS A WEEK. CAN YOU GUESS WHAT DAYS IT'S NOT!

This warning has kept my home B & E free of bad guys for many years.

Vietnam Vet U.S. Army

Re: Richwalski (above) saying America's taste for gun ownership makes him "want to move to some third world country where the worst thing you'll face is a stick or a stone". Does he mean he wants to move to those wonderful third-world nations where they train children to slaughter entire families with the stick called a machete?

James,

There are highly skilled healthcare professionals who can help you.

Rob:

What follows "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" in the oath are these words: "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice"

They commit you to obeying lawful orders, which precludes the following:

Even though we have the "posse comitatus" law, we see in the oath itself the system and orders have been put it place to take action against American citizens."

Additionally, the Oath of Office for the "Officers appointed over" you includes: "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" meaning they are committed by oath to issue lawful orders.

Excellent give and take here!

The Sheriff had it correct. The 2nd amendment does not "give" us the right to keep and bear arms. The Amendments themselves were actually, originally argued against as being unecessary! Cooler heads prevailed however. They surely were clairvoyant? The amendments were an addendum to simply make crystal clear with no ambivilence whatsoever, the limitations and restrictions put upon our government in reference to our God given rights. Molon Labe!

Rifleman,

I enjoyed reading your comments; thank you for your perspective.

One small correction, however, regarding your response to Linguist, ("I also read Classical Greek, the original language of the New Testament."):

The New Testament was originally written in Koine (common) Greek, not Classical Greek.

Writing the New Testament in Common Greek put it where it belonged: within reach of everyone.

I'm not sure which third world countries he has been in, but none of then I have obviously and I have been in quite a few. ALL of them have rampant crime when the local population can not defend itself and I invite you to visit those with dictators. HOW can you feel that we do not have the right to run our lives, make our choices and defend our family... and our constitution. It is that, not anybody in office, that we are sworn to protect. We have criminals in office (And no, not saying the president), who are above the law and are supposedly so much wiser than we are? That are bought and sold for votes and money in thier coffers, but we have to look up at them as though they were all knowing and all seeing? I carried a gun (or 2) during 3 trips to Afghanistan, but I can't have one in my home? Why do you wish total dependency on everyone else? No one has to take responsibility for their lives so we have a growing population of those who feel no responsibility. So you depend on overworked police to defend you? You make no responsibility for yourself, your loved ones or your country? And then what happen when the police become "gods"? May I remind you of Waco? Yes it was is constitutional and yes that is paramount, but as has been said on the impact of guns on the crime rate, I invite you to look at guns as taking responsibility as well. Taking responsibility for our lives is what all of this is when it is all said and done. That was the greatest gift ever given a people and we wish to throw away to be a drone? WHY?

I will give up my guns, but only after you post a sign on your door: THIS IS A GUN-FREE ZONE.

So you go first. I will follow your lead.

Bravo Major Caudill USMC! Beautifully reasoned. I am persuaded.

I'll give up all my guns the day they lay off the entire Secret Service.

James Timmerman: Your comments prove that 67.54% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I find your train of thought evidence that you, as most left thinkers, form opinions based on emotion and your desperate want of a world the way YOU wish it to be, not how it is. Reality is funny thing. It tends to always trump fantasy.

I am a 28 year cop in a large metropolitan area and I can assure you that the vast majority of cops prefer an armed society. Good citizens armed make our job so much easier. Check what percentage of the NRA membership is cops, you will be stunned. Also, research (I know that's asking a lot) states/couties and cities and you will find that those with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates. Vermont has hardly no laws restricting firearms and their carry and they have as close to a zero murder rate as can be found. Try to be informed instead of inflamed.

Mr. R Richwalski:

I have stood in line with you at the store. I have sat next to you in traffic. I have held the door open for you at the restaurant. I am the "gun hugger". You never knew it, you survived it and so did everyone around you.

Your ignorance of the matter is astonishing. Gun ownership is at an all time high and felonious murder is at a 20 year low. Hmmmm...Can you do simple math? Your tire old arguement was used 25 years ago when Florida passed the first "shall issue" CCW permit law. Those of like mind of yours predicted blood in the streets, wild west shootouts over parking places, yada yada. Never came to be and crime wend DOWN.

And your third world utopia? Do you mean like Somalia? Mexico? Kenya? Places with strict gun bans. Also places with rampant crime, often genocide and mass refugees fleeing the hell in their nation. Stop feeling and start thinking. And take heart for your odds of being long gone are much greater than mine since I am not willing to be the victim you are willing to be.

I suggest the two party system that has held sway in the USA in various forms is fatally flawed. I suggest the simplistic left - right model of political thought never was correct and is counter-productive. And there is not space here to address all the other generalities that distract from the essence of the conflict in our nation.

Further, any discussion that incorporates current events, large or small in importance, is of little value.

I suggest the national conversation must be about how we will agree to live together; what rights we will assert and our commensurate responsibilities.

The starting point must be our shared understanding of and trust in God. The second, the Constitution, because it is as it is, created from moral and religious principles. And third, because all else is subordinate to these two.

Unless and until we are willing to have this national discussion, openly, loudly, thoughtfully, lovingly, we shall not progress and shall decline into more of the open 'warfare' we see in families, communities, businesses, legislatures, city councils, churches, . . . every aspect of our nation where people come together for any purpose.

It seems to me we need a Constitution Party. A political party that has as its perpetual platform the Constitution and knows us as 'one nation, under God.' Such a party would be a home for anyone who held the Constitution as the first test of any existing or new law, rather than the last place the law is tested. Such a party would embrace change in our governing principles as the Constitution provides, rather than change for its own sake, irrespective of the Constitution.

Such a party would be equally generous in protecting the rewards earned by those who are productive as it is in caring for those struck by misfortune beyond their control. Such a party would elevate defense of individual liberty above the prerogatives of government, and defend economic freedom [to succeed or fail] on an equal basis for all.

Just consider what we now have to work with:

We have:

Republic-an A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote, where that power is exercised through creation and enforcement of a body of law, which laws vary in difficulty to change according to their importance to the whole. -a person who puts primary emphasis on the rule of law above the rule of the majority swayed by the passions of the moment; Rule of law is more important than individuals or the collective; the nature of the foundations of law are considered timeless and largely immutable. The need of the majority may be subordinated to the need of a minority, according to the law; tyranny of the minority may result.

Democra-t, -cy A state in which the citizens entitled to vote choose their government, where supreme power is vested in government chosen by the people, especially by rule of the majority. -a person who puts primary emphasis on the rule of the majority over that of law, readily adapting the law to current events and passions of the moment; the collective is more important than the individual; the nature of the foundations of law are considered time-relative and mutable, malleable to the need of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is often the result.

Conserve-ative a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change, -a person who puts primary emphasis on keeping things as they were/are in the belief that what has been should not be changed easily; the individual and the collective are subordinate to stability; the nature of the foundations of law should be changed slowly if at all and is often certain what was - was better than what is or might be, if changed too fast.

Liberal a political philosophy not bound by orthodoxy, established institutions or traditional forms, marked by generosity and lack of moral restraint. -a person who puts primary emphasis on changing whatever must be changed to satisfy a current want, to be seen as generous to the less-well-off by taking from those whose contributions were rewarded, making them more-well- off; the individual is subordinate to the collective; the nature of the foundations of law are considered a hindrance to having things as the liberal is certain they should be right now.

Constitution -al relating to the fundamental makeup of something; a state in which the essential values governing its citizens are embodied in and represented by an agreed set of principles and laws that specify the rights of the people, the powers, restrictions on and duties of its leaders and the methods by which they are chosen. a philosophy that attributes supreme power to the people, defended and exercised through formal, written law that constitutes the voluntary, free agreement of how they will relate to each other and their government [the government is theirs, they 'own' it]. - a person who protects and defends the Constitution; especially its primacy and difficulty to change according to passions of the moment. The nature of the foundations of law are considered timeless and immutable. Tyranny by the majority or the minority is precluded by regular and frequent review of issues of the moment against the precepts of the Constitution. No claim to certainty about anything is made. All freely strive to help all individuals, while holding each responsible for their choices; the collective assures the freedom of the individual and his inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and does not guarantee them.

To James Gover and those who think similarly:

"We take our "sport" seriously . . . "

Hunting is not and never has been a 'sport'.

To think and contend it is 'sport' is delusional and self-justifying.

It has been necessary for survival. It has challenged people. It has driven species near to or beyond extinction. For people, it has been fun or dangerous or both. For the prey, it has never been fun and always dangerous.

In the same sense as we should not confuse the inherent principle of the 2nd Amendment with the role of the 14th, we should not confuse an argument about the principle of hunting as sport with the tools used. Still, I might have more respect for the intellectual honesty of your argument for hunting as a sport if hunters were not using rifles that keep the so-called 'hunter' a half mile or more from his target, or bows that multiply a man's strength, or all the high tech devices that remove the need for high levels of skill, daring or bravery to find prey and get home again. If you went up against your quarry with a weapon made by your hands from stone and natural wood, I could respect you. But killing without need for food will never be a 'sport', no matter how often or vehemently it is repeated.

I pray for an end to the belief that hunting is sport and the society that tolerates that belief.

I completely disagree with James Timmerman. I work law enforcement and not only do we have non lethal guns we also have lethal ones. Any law abiding citizen and officer is going to attempt to use less than lethal force before lethal force because we realize the finality of using lethal force. The fact that my fellow officers and I carry guns is a deterrant for inmates to attempt to escape. It also protects potential victims from the harm that one of these convicted felons might inflict on surrounding families. Since James is against guns, I hope no inmates escape near his home to harm him or his family because he has no deterrant in his home to protect himself.

I have just one disagreement with this essay. Specifically where Mr. Alexander says:

"No, they should not." [keep in mind that the murder rate went down]

The supporters of the law as-is will no doubt argue that reducing crime is a legitimate interest of government (which is of course, true), whereupon the legal question then becomes "Does it trump 'shall not be infringed', and if so, is it the least restrictive method of accomplishing the government's interest?" By keeping in mind that the crime rate went down when DC's restriction was lifted, one can immediately dispose of the "least restrictive" issue merely by pointing out that it doesn't even ACCOMPLISH the government's goal, let alone in the least restrictive manner.

To "Bullough & Alexander:" "The charlatan Barack H. Obama?" Such hubris! The real "charlatan" is and always will be G.W. Bush, whose offenses are to numerous to mention. By the way, for all of you with short memories, Bush trampled on the Constitution. Guess what? You were duped, along with all your other right wing constipated neo cons.

Also, the exaggeration of the "2nd Amendment" rights for all its citizens to bear arms is ludicrous. We were the "Militia" when that was written. I have no problem with people owning handguns to protect themselves as long as we have more strict laws regarding background checks. Illegal handguns and other types of "over the top" lethal (AK-47 and whatever other killing machinery of the day is) are all too easy to obtain. We have gun shows that have already proven that sellers are not always created equal, many of whom would sell a gun to just about anyone without a thorough background check.

Furthermore, I find it oxymoronic when it comes to D.C. V. HELLER case, that two of the most crime ridden areas mentioned in "Alexander's" windy explanation of the '2nd Amendment' are D.C. & Chicago!

NO THOROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO LICENSE TO BEAR ARMS, AND THOSE FOUND PACKING ILLEGAL FIREARMS THEY DESERVE NO MERCY WHEN FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED.

Bev of Boston, MA

This is a very stupid law. To deny somebody the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. That's discrimination. And when people think of their families being denied their own protection, like everybody else has in our Country. It makes criminals more vicious. Cause a criminal ain't tripping off the ban of handguns. They can get guns any day of the week. Where they made the 70's 80's and 90's DC's worst nightmare. And that rise in violence happened right after the ban took place in the 70's. And they did it on purpose. I know how a criminal thinks. I use to work in a Correctional Facility.

It ain't like it is today. You couldn't even look at a thug back in the 80's. They were very unfriendly, non-conversational and everything.

But the government likes to stir up violence. And that Eleanor Norton Holmes, Adrian Fenty, and the recent Marion Barry is, instigators.

They don't like to see people become obedient for the fact that they are entitled to the same rights that everybody else in the Country has. But when they feel discriminated against. They go off, and start acting out of the ordinary.

When people are denied the rights that everybody else is entitled to in the Country. They tend to retaliate. That is why the 70's 80's and 90's were always so vicious in DC. You couldn't even look at nobody back in them days. People were always bucking. They were very unfriendly, wasn't looking for no rapp, and would kill a person in a second. But the governmemt likes to stir up violence. That is why the government discriminates like that.

They don't like when everybody gets along. When they feel like they are entitled to the same rights as others.

Everybody needs gun rights and protection. How about that 12 year old girl in Maryland who blew an armed home intruder's brains out, when he broke into her families home. And she was there alone.

I wrote an essay called Swords, Guns and Fighter Jets in Relation to liberty. I think most people here will appreciate it.

http://libertythinkers.com/political/swords-guns-and-fighter-jets-in-relation-to-liberty/

Those of you who claim that we are 'approaching pre-war Germany" .... you'd better open your eyes. We are long past "pre-war Germany". We no longer have any 2nd Amendment protections. "Arms" were, up to, and including a 'field piece' (cannon) manned by three men or less. The Second Amendment states, "shall not be infringed" .... what is the definition of "infringe"? Anything that you do not wish is an infringement. How much ammo, what kind of gun, how it must be stored, payment of fees .... all of these are "infringements" on the RIGHT granted you by God Almighty. The only ones that may alter, restrict, or remove that God-Given Right is one of Higher Authority that God Almighty. Frankly, I know of none.

One person stated that, since there is a record of all gun purchases, "they" will simply come collect them when the time is ripe - don't let them have them.

Someone else mentioned the ammunition restrictions in California ...... vacation in Arizona and pick-up a couple hundred pounds of ballast so the wind does not blow the car off the road coming back across the desert. The don't have border check points, yet, for other than fruits and vegetables .... of which California seems to have no lack.

The fact that one of the second amendment cases in the Supreme Court only survived 5-4 speaks terror to the future.