From Obama and his ballyhooed pen to the abject hypocrisy from the ilk of Feinstein and Schumer, every time a high profile crime takes place involving a gun, more and more gun control laws are called for by liberals and socialists.
A shooting at a school?
More restrictive gun laws. That’s the answer.
A shooting at a mall or movie theater?
More restrictive gun control laws will fix it.
Mass shootings on a military post?
Yep. You guessed it. More and more and MORE restrictive gun laws and you can just about bet your bottom dollar that, after last weekend’s Bundy Ranch standoff where armed federal agents were intimidated into retreat by equally armed citizens, we’re going to be hearing about the need to restrict We the People from our right to keep and bear arms…again.
It is abjectly absurd what liberals and socialists want you to believe regarding our right to keep and bear arms.
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation—THAT HUNTING AND SHOOTING are part of a cherished national heritage.”
That, from one Barack Hussein Obama who claims to have been a Constitutional professor and wants you to believe that the 2nd Amendment was, of all things, about hunting.
HUNTING???
It is an oft parroted lie by liberals desperately trying to restrict the 2nd Amendment.
“Nobody needs an AR-15 to go hunting.”
Here’s one from that crackpot Diane Feinstein:
“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large
capacity ammunition feeding devices — those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”
First of all, one would hope that an elected official…ANY elected official would realize there are no legal means by which humans can be hunted as Feinstein believes there is and, the limits placed on shotgun shells regarding hunting is not for the safety of the ducks rather, it is in place to add sport to the hunt.
Liberals and socialists want you to believe that they are trying to make you safer by regulating the number of bullets you can have in your gun but, that really isn’t what they are after.
What liberals and socialists have in their collective cross hairs is nothing less than the 2nd Amendment itself and they would just as soon not have you know what the 2nd Amendment actually says.
Therefore, let’s have a look and break it down.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Liberals and socialists have, for years, attempted to pigeonhole the meaning of ‘militia” in regard to the 2nd Amendment in that they insist you believe that ONLY a ‘militia’ in the strictest definition of the founders be armed.
Samuel Johnson’s “Dictionary of the English Language,” a book of definitions employed by such as Jefferson and Madison cites, “The militia was so settled by law, that a sudden army could be drawn together,” and they want you to believe that the founders ONLY intended the right to k
eep and bear arms be confined to ‘temporary soldiers’ “organized for the purpose of defending the state and its people from aggressors, not for defending the people from the state,” as defined by Daniel Robinson in his May 1st, 2013 article.
Instead of taking Robinson’s word for it, or my counter point…why not let the founders themselves argue the point?
Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
Still think a ‘militia’ was only meant NOT to defend the people from the state as Robinson claims?
Obviously, the founders would have been at great odds with Robinson as well as the liberals and socialists of today but, let’s take this one step further as liberals and socialists also claim the 2nd Amendment was not about the people having the right to protect their lives, their families or their own personal property.
Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws 
discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…”
Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Are those not the exact same arguments we, as Conservatives raise when confronted by gun control loons from the ilk of liberals and socialists? In that the only people who will abide by such restrictions they insist upon are the law abiding while criminal elements will simply ignore them and eventually, only the criminals will have guns?
Of course they are.
Now then, there is one other portion of the 2nd Amendment liberals are desperate to pervert and for that, let’s take another look at the absurd statement from Feinstein this time, with specific emphasis added.
“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices — those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have FEDERAL REGULATIONS and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”
It was by no means an accident that this 
socialist loon slipped into her statement the word, ‘regulations’ as we also find a derivative of it in the 2nd Amendment.
“A well REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Liberals and socialists must have you believe that ‘well regulated” means…’controlled by the federal government’ or…’restricted by the federal government’ rather than what was meant by the founders for their absurd gun control arguments to take hold but, what DID the founders understand ‘well regulated’ to mean?
Take a look at some old and dated quotes.
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
Now, remove ‘well regulated’ from each of those quotes and replace it with ‘controlled by the government’ and you will have a more firm understanding of the liberal/socialist agenda regarding We the People.
What was understood by the founders was that ‘well regulated,’ “referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd am
endment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it,” as explained by Constitutional scholar Brian T. Halonen.
Last weekend, in the Nevada desert, the “Constitutional law professor” and his regime were delivered a lesson in Constitutional law by ‘well regulated militias’ who have a genuine knowledge of not only the 2nd Amendment but also a deep understanding of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution which ONLY authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under such SPECIFIC and LIMITED conditions, “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and NOT AT ALL for the purposes of protecting tortoises or the building of solar power plants by Chinese firms.
At the Battle of Bunkerville…when Tea Party Patriots refused to have their free speech corralled…a ‘Well regulated militia’ used their 2nd Amendment rights to protect their 1st Amendment rights.
For the time being, last weekend’s “Battle of Bunkerville” was won by Constitutional Patriots without firing a shot but, next time, and I fully believe there WILL be a next time…to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson…The tree of liberty may require a little irrigation.
The liberals want magazines that hold 10 rounds or less. But the last shooter at Ft. Hood had a .45 caliber handgun. These typically hold around 7 rounds. There were 20 people injured and so, if he NEVER missed, that means he had to reload at least 2 times. If there were some shots that missed the mark he would have had to reload 3 times or more. So much for smaller magazines preventing mass shootings.