Monday Brief

A Big Win for 2A

Feb. 25, 2013

The Foundation

“[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” –Zacharia Johnson


“The Second Amendment Foundation [Friday] won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home. The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to ‘craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment … on the carrying of guns in public.’ That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. ‘Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,’ Gottlieb said. ‘They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.’ ‘We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December … and [Friday’s] decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.’ … The ruling also affects a similar case filed by the National Rifle Association known as Shepard v. Madigan.” –The Second Amendment Foundation


“Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers.” –English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704)

Opinion in Brief

“More Americans need to become familiar with the concept of baseline budgeting. In simple terms, if an agency’s budget is $100, and they are expecting an increase of $10.00 next year, but they only get $8.00, politicians characterize that as a $2.00 cut in spending. Concerning the entire $1.2 trillion in ‘cuts’ engendered by the sequester, it must be understood that they are not really cuts at all. They are really a lowering of the projected increase in federal spending going forward. The CBO cuts through the fog. ‘For the 2014-2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP – far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades,’ it reports. Thus, over the next decade, we are ‘cutting’ our way to adding another $7 trillion of debt to the $16-plus trillion we have already amassed. As far as the administration, Democrats and their media enablers are concerned, any attempt to mitigate that ‘paying-for problem’ will turn America into a Third World nation of vegetable eaters. Yet the simple truth remains inarguable: absent the genuine entitlement reform critically necessary to get our spending under control, we are headed for national bankruptcy. At that point, even vegetables may be a luxury item.” –columnist Arnold Ahlert


“Obama called for universal preschool funded by the federal government in cooperation with the states. He cited ‘study after study’ showing that investment in pre-K pays for itself several times over by creating better outcomes for children. He said this about two months after the release of a devastating report on the ineffectiveness of the federal government’s already existing $8 billion-a-year pre-K program, Head Start. The study wasn’t published by The Heritage Foundation. The Kochs didn’t fund it. It was conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, which presumably doesn’t have a right-wing agenda or bristle with hostility toward children. … The HHS study concluded: ‘There were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts … in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.’ … But [Obama] has an ideological commitment to an expansive government and an unshakable faith in its ability, given enough funding and the right rules and regulations, to overcome any obstacle. So impervious is his point of view to the evidence that even his own Department of Health and Human Services can’t penetrate it.” –columnist Rich Lowry

The Gipper

“Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuing revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire among the people. It is the right to dream – to follow your dream or stick to your conscience, even if you’re the only one in a sea of doubters.” –Ronald Reagan

For the Record

“On the eve of the Second World War, the United States had the 16th largest army in the world, right behind Portugal. … American soldiers went on maneuvers using trucks with ‘tank’ painted on their sides, since there were not enough real tanks to go around. American warplanes were not updated to match the latest warplanes of Nazi Germany or imperial Japan. After World War II broke out, American soldiers stationed in the Philippines were fighting for their lives using rifles left over from the Spanish-American war, decades earlier. The hand grenades they threw at the Japanese invaders were so old that they often failed to explode. At the battle of Midway, of 82 Americans who flew into combat in obsolete torpedo planes, only 12 returned alive. In Europe, our best tanks were never as good as the Germans' best tanks, which destroyed several times as many American tanks as the Germans lost in tank battles. Fortunately, the quality of American warplanes eventually caught up with and surpassed the best that the Germans and Japanese had. But a lot of American pilots lost their lives needlessly in outdated planes before that happened. These were among the many prices paid for skimping on military spending in the years leading up to World War II. But, politically, the path of least resistance is to cut military spending in the short run and let the long run take care of itself. In a nuclear age, we may not have time to recover from our short-sighted policies, as we did in World War II.” –economist Thomas Sowell

Re: The Left

“The latest from ‘moderate’ Libya: Four foreign Christians, including an American with dual Swedish citizenship, have been arrested on suspicion of being missionaries who have been distributing Christian literature. They were apprehended in Benghazi, the jihadist hotbed where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in September. The missionaries could face the death penalty under Islam’s sharia law, which forbids the proselytizing of creeds other than Islam, imposes capital punishment on Muslims who convert to Christianity, and similarly discourages any speech that might sow discord among Muslims. … Of course, it bears observing that it was not just President Obama who backed Libya’s Islamists in the cashiering of Qaddafi, who was then an American ally supplying what our government had described as vital intelligence about Libya’s legions of anti-American terrorists. The Republican Beltway establishment also enthusiastically supported Obama’s war, led by Senator John McCain, who called Benghazi’s jihadists ‘my heroes.’ Oh well, like the president said at the U.N., ‘The future must not belong to these who suppress the Gospel’ – oh, no, wait … looks like I may have that wrong.” –Andrew C. McCarthy

Political Futures

“Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government denied the U.S. access to a Benghazi terror suspect in Egyptian custody. This, of course, is the same government that, among other things, is led by a man who called Jews the ‘descendants of apes and pigs’ and declared that Egyptian kids should be ‘nursed on hatred’ for Jews. This is the same government that stood aside as an angry mob stormed our embassy, tore down the American flag, and hoisted the black flag of jihad in its place. This is the same government that is violently persecuting Christians, enacted a repressive shariah-based constitution, and has moved tanks into the Sinai in violation of the Camp David Accords. The list could go on – support for Hamas, terror attacks launched against Israel from Egyptian soil, a senior presidential aide denying the Holocaust – and the list will continue to go on while the Muslim Brotherhood rules. So what is our response to these many provocations and violations of human rights? We give the Muslim Brotherhood advanced weapons, and only 19 senators vote to stop the transfer. We are, quite simply, foolish.” –David French


“The Left is confused about how to resurrect America’s old racial paradigms. Absurdity follows, as that Trayvon Martin must have been shot down ‘like a dog’ by a ‘white Hispanic’ vigilante. Christopher Dorner must be a modern-day Toussaint Louverture driven to understandable murder of the white oppressor, who turns out to be Asian. Instead of To Kill a Mockingbird, our generation is left with the flat psychodrama of Skip Gates donating the plastic handcuffs he wore for a few minutes to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. Amid all this chaos, we look for guidance to the president who promised that his own mixed heritage and long toil on the front lines of racial tension would temper passions. Instead, from Skip Gates to Trayvon Martin to ‘punish our enemies,’ Barack Obama so far has proven a reactionary of the first order.” –historian Victor Davis Hanson

Reader Comments

“Mark: Your commentary, The Next Sunrise – The Light of Liberty, is absolutely the ray of light so many of us need. George Washington especially is an amazing person in our history. Educators everywhere should post this and read about him to their students. Keep up the good work.” –Sunflowermom in Kansas

“Thank you for all these reminders to look for that which is honorable and true, for those attributes that have united us in the past and continue to speak to our hearts and minds and wills today! The storm may be raging, but with each challenge that we face, we move closer to a New Dawn of His giving!” –Julia in Dallas, Texas

“Mr. Alexander I have not enough words to thank you for this article. I’m glad that we have people like you in darkest days like the present ones. Liberty is a priceless jewel and once lost would take an unparalleled martyrdom of patriots to seek its return. Your article is an outstanding beacon of liberty.” –Manny in Keizer, Oregon

“Regarding the Friday Digest’s first photograph: Vice President Biden should be arrested or expelled from the Capitol for his possession of and display of a ‘simulated firearm.’ After all, a child in a public school who points his finger like a gun is promptly expelled by law without recourse. Why is Jolly Joe more privileged than the average citizen?” –Honest Abe in North Carolina

“There is an omission in Friday’s ‘There Oughta Be a Law’. You listed 10 states with pending legislation that would preempt federal gun laws, but Texas was left off the list – and we were actually one of the first to submit such legislation.” –Michael in Texas

Editor’s Reply: We regret the error, and it has been fixed. Thank you!

“I am a retired law enforcement officer with 31+ years of service. I am also a Marine Corps veteran. Your opinion that ‘if a seven-round mag is good enough for a civilian, it’s good enough for a police officer’ is extremely misguided. A police officer is putting his life on the line, doing his job, protecting the public, and their weapons are tools used in their trade. Absolutely no one has any right to limit their tools. I wholeheartedly disagree with any attempt to diminish the Second Amendment but your statement that police officers should not be treated any different than a citizen is illogical and wrong.” –Sgt. Rich in Chicago, Illinois

Editor’s Reply: Our point wasn’t at all that seven rounds is good enough for anyone, but that politicos at any level of government shouldn’t be limiting magazine capacity with carved out exemptions. Police are citizens just like the rest of us.

The Last Word

“I believe I have noticed a problem with President Obama’s declaring that he can blow up Americans with drone strikes without due process. … Now, like most people, I celebrate every time Obama obtains more power. … But I had a terrible thought: What if one day we get a bad president? For instance, take this power to kill Americans with drones. No one worries that Obama will abuse such a power – I mean, we’re talking about a man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just for existing. … But just imagine if that power wound up in the hands of a president like George W. Bush. … Or worse yet, think of handing Dick Cheney that power. … [W]e are setting a lot of precedents during Obama’s presidency that will give us something to fear if we elect a bad president someday. … So the only option left is to consider curtailing a bit of the power we’re allowing Obama, because someday we might have a president who is completely detached from average Americans, doesn’t care about our problems, and ruins everything he touches – someone completely unlike Obama. I mean, just imagine all that power Obama has in the hands of someone who completely sucks at being president. The economy would be ruined, we’d have disastrous situations abroad, and our liberties would be threatened. It would be a lot like now, but instead of it being Bush’s fault, it would be the fault of the current president. So to keep that from happening, we’ll have to do the hard thing and put more limitations on Obama’s power. I’m sure he’ll understand and not drone-strike us.” –humorist Frank J. Fleming

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

View all comments


Howard Last in Wyoming said:

Tuesday is the twentieth anniversary of the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Seven of our fellow citizens died that day. What have we done about it, basically nothing. How come no mention of this sad anniversary by the Communist News Network, Communist Broadcasting Corporation, New York Slimes (oops Times), etc? It was an act of war, but kommandant klinton and company treated it as a criminal event. We should have done what we did in 1945. Medina and Mecca should be glowing in the dark. This is the only thing what the fanatic rag heads understands. The fanatic Japs understood it. Notice I am not PC.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

"Tuesday is the twentieth anniversary of the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Seven of our fellow citizens died that day. What have we done about it, basically nothing."

Do you mean, what have we done about false flag operations within the United States? Well, let's reflect upon that for a bit. We managed to assassinate (I mean expired by "heart attack") Andrew Breitbart. And there is not enough space here to dedicate to the Klinton's "escapades".

As far as Muslim shrines glowing in the dark, I think you need to be patient. Let me ask you this? What on Earth would make all Muslims agree to a peace treaty which would allow the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? Could it be a really really significant event which makes Damascus (the longest inhabited city on the face of the Earth) uninhabitable forever? I don't know ;-) Just guessing ;-) Read it somewhere ;-)

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM

JtC in TX said:

The end is near . . .

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

Look up for your redemption draws near . . .

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:46 AM

JtC in TX replied:

I'm ready, brother.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Doug in NY said:

In reply to Sgt. Rich in Chicago, Illinois, who stated that a police officer should not be limited in magazine capacity, like us mere mortal citizens:
The purpose of a gun in the hands of a police officer is to protect himself / herself, not to protect us mere mortal citizens.
If I'm wrong, please give me some examples of where a police weapon protected mere mortal citizens any better than if the citizens had their own guns.
Police rarely prevent crimes, they go in after the fact and take reports.

Name withheld to protect dissenter's privacy.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

Well, Doug in NY (name withheld to protect dissenter's privacy), the fact is that weapons that police officers carry are OFFENSIVE weapons and therefore shall not be limited in any way shape or form to limitations placed upon civilians. What part of this do you not understand you future boot-licking toady? ;-)

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Hamilton in IL replied:

I suggest sgt. Rich and all of you read up a bit on the Federalist papers and/or do some research on what the Founders meant by arms. Look up their quotations pertaining to firearm ownership. I think it's patently obvious that they meant for the citizenry to be armed exactly the same as a regulation foot soldier.

With people like this sgt. Rich, we're dealing with people who innately think of themselves as better than the next guy. And police are notorious for this because bossing others around is very often imprinted in police officers' DNA. They think that as enforcers of law and order, they are more righteous and deserve more or better arms. What they don't care about is the fact that the inequality they seek is an immorality in a free society, and is therefore not an example of law and order. It's just the opposite.

The need and right to protect oneself began at the dawn of civilized man. There have always been those who would take advantage of others. Weaponry was created, probably rocks to begin with, in order to address this problem - and the efficacy of the weaponry has escalated ever since. Man's affliction with tyrants has not diminished over the expanse of time, and neither has the need for arms.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Steve in GA said:

to 'craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment...'
The ruling is to me a joke - what happened to "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Git R Dunn in Alabama said:

A Big Win For the Second Amendment

I have always said that "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it is completely unnecessary until the government tries to take it away." OK, well, that's paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson ;-)

It makes no difference whether some court "rules" in favor of "gun rights" or not. What is significant though, is that the judges ruling on this were Jewish (not there's anything wrong with that). You see, Jews were disarmed in Germany in the 1930s and then systematically exterminated (I say this only because many of you posting here are completely unaware that a Holocaust ever happened - reference Ahmadinejad).

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Rifleman in Nawth Jawja replied:

Those are not -- and never were -- Mr. Jefferson's words.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM

JWH in "The Republic of Texas" said:

The "authorities" wonder why so many citizens fear additional "common sense gun laws" when the right to defend ourselves comes from our Creator and not the state.
The Second Ammendment is a statement of a right that comes from God, not a right granted by the government. The following quote should be a warning to all thinking citizens:
"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." --George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

Thank you, sir, for that. History does, indeed, repeat itself, does it not? Watch it happen! Godspeed!

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Craig in Emeryville said:

With all due respect, Sgt. Rich may have had his views warped by being in Chicago too long. There is absolutely NO difference between what a police officer and a civilian may do with a firearm, and they are carried for EXACTLY the same reasons. The only privilege afforded to sworn officers is that of carrying with no further permit required. But self defense is the only reason they carry arms, and the only thing they're allowed to do with them.

Police should never be allowed to carry weapons which are prohibited to the citizens they serve.

As for the court victory in Illinois: It's good news, of course, but won't really help. I live in California, which technically has a licensing scheme for CCW. But it's a "may issue" State, meaning that it's really up to the corrupt sheriffs and chiefs of police. For those of us in the urban areas it's exactly the same as not having a licensing scheme at all.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Clueless in Wisconsin replied:


Emeryville, huh. I feel sorry for you. Your Sheriff needs to be institutionalized, but I am guessing that it will probably happen to you first ;-)

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Our Sheriff is merely corrupt. The Chief of Police is a drooling moron.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Rifleman in Nawth Jawja said:

First, those "cuts" are merely a slowing in government spending.

Secondly, where, in the Constitution, does the government have the authority to be involved -- even a little -- in "first responders," education in general and teachers'  salaries and school lunches in particular, "green" energy, university-level "research," food stamps, unemployment "insurance," the exercising habits of brine shrimp.…? (Yes, there is more than $250,000 in "federal funding" to study the effects of treadmill-walking on shrimp!)

Over the past three years, the Department of Education has spent $205,000,000,000. Returned to the 50 States, that would have been $6.8 Billion for each State to use for LOCAL schools -- without the attendant federal bureaucracy and its burgeoning rules and procedures. There would have been more than enough money to fund LOCAL education in all 50 States.

(By the way, why is the DoE buying "assault shotguns" and crates full of ammunition?)

Thirdly, the amount being “sequestered” is figured in the $40 Billion range. We’re in debt to the tune of more than $16,000,000,000,000. The interest on that debt is accumulating at the rate of $4,000,000 EVERY MINUTE.

That’s four million dollars’ interest accruing EVERY MINUTE. At that rate, in 10 days, the interest on our debt exceeds the so-called sequester "cuts."

Do the math.

This President has elevated political lying to the stratosphere.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Rifleman, it is not just Barry and the Democraps but the RINO"s as well. Look at the crap Dubya did, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, TARP, etc. Look at the republican leadership (still an oxymoron) of McConnell and Boehner, along with McRINO and Karl Rove, etc.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

Howard is right, Rifleman! Both the Republitard and Demoncrat parties are so infected with NWO cancer that there is absolutely no hope of remission. This last "election", if you can legally call it that, is proof that we will forever be under their control (and make no mistake - CONTROL is the end goal).

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Hamilton in IL replied:

Git R Dunn,

I'd prefer not to hold onto such pessimism - "that we will forever be under their control".

Obviously, you know the score. You know what they're up to. You know their end game. There is power in that knowledge. Keep spreading it around so that as the socialist devils slowly reveal their plans, more and more patriots will realize who the enemy is and what they're doing. I don't know what form our liberation will come it, but the more knowledge there is out there about their nefarious schemes, the quicker and more decisively they will be hammered down into oblivion.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 11:20 PM

Dave Mather in Troy, MI said:

One small victory to be led by another! Regardless, I will be keeping my weapons and amunition. I am even thinking about stocking up some amo for my personal use.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM

William Stinson in Edenton said:

I do not see any problem with the "Bill of Rights", they were written as the citizens protection from the government. They are immutable, this government does not have the right to change them.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Terry in Lake Elsinore,CA said:

This is a great victory. However, those of you that live in IL, better not hold your breath for a concealed carry permit. They will do like CA and make it impossible to get a permit. You can apply all that you want and they just shoot you down, so it doesnt matter if they create a law to offer the permits, you'll never see one and that's the real crime.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM

jonhartz in 93420 replied:

True dat...

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

" . . . impossible to get a permit."

Then, sir, you would be applying to the wrong "person" to get your permit ;-)

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 3:33 PM

James D. Batson in United States said:

Our Constitution should not be able to be challenged in Court because we are only one Socialist Liberal controlled House, Senate and Presidency away from having activist judges who will override prior judgements/rulings. Our Constitution did not need any admendments and thanks to the liberal Commerce clause amendment we have Obamacare. Clearly unconstitutional. Consider the back door ammo tax, insurance requirement, pressure on Banks owned by the Feds to stop doing business with gun manufacturere and we get the part of infringment where there should be none.
I go to bed everynight and wake up every morning concerned about another Socialist Anti-American leader and what laws they will try to pass today to destroy our liberties and the Constitution they swore to protect and defend.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Bill Hood in Sarasota, FL said:

It would appear that a great percentage of our "LAW MAKERS" are themselves lawless people. Those who swear an oathe to "Protect", and set about to destroy, are at best liars and at worst traitors to the United States of America. We have, that would be you and me, CREATED AN ELITE SOCIETY WITHIN OUR CULTURE. This is the society that makes laws, which do not seriously affect their societal way of life, and which control the lives of law-abiding civilian Citizens enforcing dramatic penalties. Some of these ELITE have trained defensive squads, heavily armed, protecting them at all times. Yet, they say we should defend ourselves with hand and club if need be. It would also appear that some of these ELITE believe that they need these squads of heavily armed people to defend them from us, that would be you and me. My question is, how did these ELITE arrive at that conclusion? Could it be that they know who and what they are, and that they really do understand the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Jiggs in Millen, GA said:

Unless you are living on another planet, it's pretty hard to refute the Constitution of the US.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Barack Obama in Alabama replied:

No, in fact, it is not. Abraham Lincoln did it masterfully. Not only did he use the full force and power of the United States government and military to prevent South Carolina from seceding, but he suspended Habeus Corpus and oversaw the deaths of 625,000 Americans. His failures as a statesman to be elected were legendary. His failure to convince Americans through statesmanship were LEGENDARY as well. I submit to you that Abraham Lincoln subverted the Constiution like no other until TODAY - and now we will see exactly why Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM

BuffaloScout1885 in Minkler replied:

Don't compare Obama to Lincoln. Obama is nothing but excuses, blaming his failures on everything and everyone except their true cause...........himself and his own failed vision. A true leader doesn't pass the buck for his failures. Lincoln did stretch the limits of the Constitution at times, but read his Gettysburg address, he believed in this nation and the people, not the "New World Order" you and Obama seem to think is the answer. There is no comparison between Lincoln and Obama, except maybe Lincoln being one of the best presidents in this nations history and Obama being the worst!

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Clueless in Wisconsin replied:

Sorry, Lincoln subverted the Constitution and started the Civil War in South Carolina to prevent secession. He suspended Habeus Corpus and was ultimately responsible for the death of 625,000 Americans as a direct result of his failure to convince the populous that what he wanted was the "right thing to do" via statesmanship. The ends justify the means, right?

Secondly, Obama isn't out of office yet and he doesn't have to run for re-election. There is plenty of time for him to do significantly more damage via means employed by his idol Abraham Lincoln.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Hamilton in IL replied:


Sorry but you're wrong. Obama doesn't have a failed vision. Obama hasn't failed to lead us (ostensibly out of our quagmire).

I don't know when people are going to realize that Obama isn't simply a bungling buffoon who is over his head. Obama has a Marxist or Socialist agenda, whatever you want to call it. He has no intention to lead us into prosperity as a true freedom-loving capitalist president would do. A rising tide lifts all boats, but in Obama's ocean, the waters are stagnant. Judging on how well he has so far fundamentally transformed America to his vision, he has been a success.

His success is our failure. He is the antithesis of every fundamental freedom there ever was in America.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 11:48 PM

ChuckL in NV said:

What we really need is a definition of "infringe which defines "infringe" as any obstruction placed upon any thing that enders the thing less capable or would restrict accessories or auxiliary components.

The penalty for violation must be not less than 5 years of confinement in a federal penitentiary, and it must apply to legislators at any level.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 12:10 PM

JWH in "The Republic of Texas" replied:

We don't need any definitions. Remember Slick Willie and his question of "the definition of is"?
Educated citizens know the definition of their freedoms and they know when some pol. is trying to take them away!

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

ChuckL in NV replied:

The definition is needed for the judges. We already know what it means, but without a clearly defined meaning judges invent their own meaning to support their own ideas.

In part they do this by reinventing the grammar of the language. The clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is a subordinate clause which exists to demonstrate the reason for the main clause, or idea which is contained in the statement,"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I am certain that the writers of the Constitution did not expect that judges would be unable to understand proper American English grammar.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 1:06 PM

JWH in "The Republic of Texas" replied:

"I am certain that the writers of the Constitution did not expect that judges would be unable to understand proper American English grammar."

I share your thought, however, just look at the product of public education over the last 50 years and you will see a very real reason to be concerned.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

JWH, the judges understand it, they are just looking for a way to change it. It does not matter to them if it follows American English Grammar or simple logic.

Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:11 PM

virtue in idaho replied:

Great statement about the clauses of the 2nd ammendment. Can you imagine a state trying to raise a militia from a population that was unarmed, that would be a pretty lame fighting force, therefore of primary concern is that the people be armed so that a milita can at least be raised.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 5:27 PM