The fake ‘common sense’ of federal gun control laws

By AlaskaWatchman.com

“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.”

Having organized large gun-rights rallies in the past, completely unaffiliated with the NRA, I have sometimes enjoyed playing a little game with the faithfully assembled pro-gun crowd.

“OK, everyone, where do we get our right to keep and bear arms?”

With few exceptions, the joyous reply came back, “The Second Amendment!”

My reply was “No, no, no, and furthermore … no. The Second Amendment is better than that!”

All of the first ten amendments (the so-called and misnamed “Bill of Rights”) merely state that federal interference with these singularly identified rights would never be permitted. But since they have been permitted, we have a big, fat problem on our hands. But why should we be surprised? The federal government has violated these amendments since George Washington, influenced by Alexander Hamilton, signed into law the Bank of the United States, violating the 10th Amendment.

The federal Constitution does not grant to the states the right to organize and regulate a militia, because they are sovereign and do not need such permission.

The Second Amendment does not give us any rights … thank God. If it did, then we would be accepting the very dangerous premise, to wit: “The government giveth, and the government taketh away.” Instead, it recognizes a pre-existing right, given to us by the Natural Law of God – the law of self-defense.

Liberals always try to equate the 2nd Amendment somehow with a collective right, since it mentions militia, but they overlook a few details. Imagine that.

First of all, the term “militia” also encompasses the two variances, “organized” and “unorganized.” The unorganized militia is the entire citizenry, ages 17-45. Note that the amendment begins with, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

Regulated, in this case, means “well trained,” not “controlled by the federal government.”

The federal Constitution does not grant to the states the right to organize and regulate a militia, because they are sovereign and do not need such permission. It does, however, state that under times of invasion, they may be incorporated into a national defense. So far, no sweat.

Liberal states are trying to use their overt power in the federal government to force-feed down the throat of Alaska and other pro-gun states their own leftist gun policies.

But what about this comment of “… being necessary to the security of a free state …”? Liberals, if they understood history and words the proper way, would stop wielding this portion of the amendment as a bludgeon for gun control. Ladies and gentlemen, the militia exists as a warning and threat to the federal government, to prevent the temptation of aggrandizing increased power through force by a national and dictatorial army.

It was not intended to reference a foreign invader, which is abundantly covered in other portions of the Constitution. This means, then, that state resistance to federal tyranny was a recognized right. This is very, very hard to swallow for mainstream historians. They believe that the misnamed “Civil War,” was fought to save the union and eventually to free slaves. Instead, it was an utterly unconstitutional violation of the entire premise that these united States created a voluntary federal union (the lack of capitalization is used properly here).

The slavery crisis was actually fed by the pro-union sentiments that created the Constitution. In order to bring to birth a continental empire with unlimited potential for wealth and power, slave interests in the South had to be guaranteed their property in human bondage, or else they would have opted for complete independence. Thus, business and empire held sway over human conscience. In this sense, the U.S. Constitution violated Natural Law right from the start by protecting slavery. It could only fester into something worse every time compromises contributed to the the injustice, largely for the sake of fulfilling the temptation of a coast-to-coast empire.

To cut to the chase, there is no such thing as “common sense” and “reasonable” federal gun control laws. Every one is completely unconstitutional.

Secession was not a southern invention, but originated in New England in the late 1790s and early 1800s. Why? Because new states, west of the Appalachians, threatened their congressional power. This was confirmed soon afterwards by the ill-fated War of 1812, which destroyed New England’s economic livelihood. Many was the time when northern abolitionists agitated for secession from the slave power, including former president J. Quincy Adams, who as late as 1845 thought that the entry of Texas into the union would justify New England’s departure.

And aside from the fact that the 10th Amendment implies the legality of secession, and aside from the fact that Virginia, New York and Rhode Island approved the federal Constitution on the condition of withdrawal should their liberties ever be threatened, and aside from the fact that not a single state objected to those conditions because they themselves accepted the same idea, it can be said that the Second Amendment also implies this right.

This makes not only Abe Lincoln but Andrew Jackson dictators and tyrants. Either that or Thomas Jefferson was a traitor. It’s one or the other. In his First Inaugural in 1801, Jefferson promised not to interfere with New England’s threat to secede. And toss in J. Quincy Adams, too.


Imagine: both Lincoln and Jefferson thought that their Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” required completely opposite conclusions!

To cut to the chase, there is no such thing as “common sense” and “reasonable” federal gun control laws. Every one is completely unconstitutional.

Now, that does not mean that a state cannot decide to exercise gun restrictions. We would not dictate to New York, California or other liberal states what they want to do. And Alaskans already have done quite the opposite with recent state constitutional amendments and concealed-carry statutes.

Liberal states are trying to use their overt power in the federal government to force-feed down the throat of Alaska and other pro-gun states their own leftist gun policies. The time to resist is now. Gov. Dunleavy needs to be reminded of the Firearms Freedom Act of 2013, and legislators need to put new teeth into the law, as it was originally drafted: arrest federal agents that try to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Bob Bird
Bob Bird ran for U.S. Senate in 1990 and 2008. He is a past president of Alaska Right to Life, a 45-year Alaska resident and a retired public school teacher. He has a passion for studying and teaching Alaska and U.S. constitutional history. He lives on the Kenai Peninsula and is currently a daily radio talk-show host for The Talk of the Kenai, on KSRM 920 AM from 3-5 pm and heard online radiokenai.com.

Compliance? We Got Yer Compliance Right Here

Their REAL Agenda

h/t Sandi-with-an-i, from the Book of Face

3,000th post: Alaska Senate to Hear Resolution Opposing Executive Actions on Gun Control

From www.adn.com comes this Associated Press story:

JUNEAU, Alaska — An Alaska Senate panel is slated to consider a resolution opposing the Obama administration's executive actions on gun control.

Sen. Fred Dyson is the primary sponsor of SJR6, which urges President Barack Obama to refrain from any further actions that would restrict the ownership of firearms. It also asks Congress to make sure that the Second Amendment is protected from any executive actions that might circumvent it. The resolution refers to the Second Amendment as "our most fundamental right."

The measure is set to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.

On a personal note, this is my 3,000th post, in just under five years. Regular readers will note I've tried to quit several times, with obvious lack of success.

Looks like you're stuck with me.

The Sixth Reason

The Sixth Reason

By Kirby Ferris

Copyright 2011, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

After having formally launched JPFO’s “High Capacity Freedom” campaign (aka “High Cap Freedom”), JPFO’s Rabbi Dovid Bendory listed five reasons why you would WANT (not “need”) a high capacity ammunition magazine.

We purposely held back at that time the crucial “Sixth Reason”. It has “stand alone” significance, and is probably the most important reason for an armed citizenry to “keep and bear” significant weaponry and ammunition capacity.

It has been called the “elephant in the room” of American gun rights. Few in the Second Amendment movement are comfortable contemplating this critical issue. The matter is simple: “We the People”, as a coast to coast and border to border conglomerate, must retain the armed might to, FAILING ALL OTHER RECOURSE, overthrow our own government. It is a gut wrenching and heartbreaking option, but an option that must be potently retained for the sake of our liberty and the liberty of our descendants.

The Declaration of Independence spells out this unalienable right to revolt, and lists some of the basic reasons for which it might be exercised. Despite what the liars of the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center might blather, this concept is not something new that has sprouted from the minds of “seditionists” and “insurrectionists” (their new code words for determined American gun owners).

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights for predominantly this purpose, to warn off tyrants. The States are to remain free. State Militias were to deter the intrusive potential of a national standing army. Defense against foreign invasion was a secondary, not the primary, motivation for penning 2A.

The Founders had an instinctive distrust of government, and especially a centralized Federal government that might someday drift towards the tyranny of a monarchy. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights this distrust had become deep and profound. America had just cast off the authoritarian rule of England and was in absolutely no mind to allow such tyranny and despotism to rise again … from whatever quarter.

To realistically achieve this “détente” or “balance of power” with the Federal government and the heavy handed bureaucracies under its control, the American citizenry must now have, as much as ever, some semblance of parity in regards to weaponry.

The Founders' distrust of government has proven true on an international scale. Governments gone bad have been far too frequent, most horrifically in the last hundred years of world history. The death toll of citizens disarmed and then murdered by their own governments, or factions supported by those governments, is simply appalling. See:"Innocents Betrayed"
The Second Amendment, unarguably meant to establish and maintain a widely armed citizenry, is the guardian against home grown tyranny. It is the only true guarantee that the power resides with the people, regardless of the moral fiber of the politicians in power. Elections are only effective if they remain honest. The somber truth is that freedom’s “bottom line” remains the "bullet box", not the ballot box. Were it not so, but it is.

This is why the Second Amendment made no limitation on the type of personal firearms it covered. It was obvious and understood that the citizens’ standard would at least be equal to the standard of a common soldier.

Our soldiers can pack 30 round ammunition magazines with their AR15s. Why shouldn’t we? Parity of weaponry was the standard in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was penned, and it remained the standard for more than 140 of our nation’s first years.

The irony of this modern debate over so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity ammunition magazines” is accentuated by the fact that, up until 1934, American citizens could lawfully own unregistered machine guns! Again, that’s more than 140 years of American history wherein the citizen could arm him or herself on equal to a foot soldier. How come, all of a sudden, this historical parity, this absolutely logical “balance of power”, is in question today?
The answer? Because the elitists and authoritarians who lust to rule over us want the citizenry, “We the Little People”, completely disarmed. They want a neutered flock of disarmed and obedient subjects, a state of affairs similar to that of Britain, France, Germany or Japan.
But what are the elites in America stuck with now? As citizens, en masse, our combined might comprises at least EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS.

This somber reality remains an armed deterrent, a deep and rumbling reminder to the police forces and military forces that, at present, still loyally serve us.

No, nuclear weapons and other "WMDs" would not be part of the parity equation. This is a flippant red herring bandied about by the shills of the victim disarmament crowd. A Second American Revolution would not take place on battle fields. It would take place door to door, block to block, rock to rock, and tree to tree.

No treasonous cop or treasonous soldier would feel safe anywhere. There are THREE HUNDRED MILLION privately owned firearms out here. And billions of rounds of ammunition. No other nation’s citizenry presents that quiet and steady warning to its government. No other nation’s citizenry (except perhaps Switzerland) has so many civilians capable of one-inch groups at one hundred yards.

To attempt to counteract this obvious state of affairs, there has arisen a faction of the liberal wing arrayed against gun ownership that embraces the psychological warfare tactic, the “roll over and die” mind set.

This is the “resistance is futile” crowd. These moral weaklings mock the idea that a free man or woman might step up to defend their freedom and the freedom of their loved ones. Many of these types are unreachable with either fact or logic.

However, here is the fundamental reality of the situation:

The combined armed forces of the United States amounts to about 1.4 million soldiers. All the police forces of this nation combined amounts to about 800,000 police officers. Call this combined figure 2.2 million armed individuals who could forcibly inflict a tyrannical government’s will upon the citizenry … if they “followed orders” without question.

In reality, many or most of these loyal men and women would not go along with a despotic turn of events. So let’s, in a worst case scenario, assume that there are 500,000 of the “just following orders” types in our police forces and military forces. This amount is purposely inflated. More accurate guesses of the potential for treason in the armed forces and police are at about the five percent level. To verify this estimate, ask any loyal cop or soldier their opinion on how it would pan out.

Therefore, if (at the very most) 500,000 traitors showed their true colors, they would go to work each day with EIGHTY MILLION American gun owners watching their every move.

They would be outnumbered by 160 to 1.

Think about it. It’s not a good job description.

This is why the elitists and the authoritarians in our government and burgeoning bureaucracies want the (their?) cops and soldiers to have high capacity ammo mags … but not you. The Schumers and Bloombergs (and a disgusting line up of big city police chiefs) yelp all day long about “protecting our police”, but conveniently forget the fact that few American gun owners want the cops hindered by magazine limitations or rifle function limitations. We simply demand the same for ourselves.

So, the next time someone skirts the issue of the “elephant in the room”, quietly and somberly remind that person what the Second Amendment really intends.

Now, in conjunction with JPFO’s “High Cap Freedom” campaign, keep buying those “high capacity” magazines for your pistols and rifles.

Let’s get millions upon millions of them into citizens’ hands. A magazine ban is coming, either now, or when the inevitable “Loughner II” occurs.

Since 1968, modern “gun control” legislation has depended upon the acts of “crazed lone gunmen” to achieve its insidious goals. There will unfortunately be another “crazed lone gunman”. Whether propitious or programmed, an act of lunatic mayhem would seem as inevitable as the next earthquake.

Prepare now. Exercise your “High Cap Freedom” while you still can.

Frequent JPFO contributor and strategist, Kirby Ferris collaborated intensively with Aaron Zelman over the last two years. Ferris is now the Public Affairs Director of JPFO.

Quote of the Day

America is coming to realize in its national awareness that there is no substitute for the sovereign citizen who is independent of their own public servants.

~ John Longenecker

"Norming Guns Away"

From the Anchorage 2nd Amendment Task Force, in today's e-mail:


The following was sent to us by our friends and allies at AMGA. It emphasizes how important it is that we stay vigilant and active in the preservation of our rights. Thanks to AMGA.
The authors wish to thank Dillon Precision Products, The Blue Press, for permission to reprint & distribute the following article.


Reference: Dillon Precision Products, 800-762-3845, www.DillonPrecision.com; The Blue Press, Dec 2010, Pg 48-49; Reprint; "Norming Guns Away: Why We Need to be Concerned About the UN"

Norming Guns Away: Why We Need to be Concerned About the UN
by Paul Gallant, Alan Chwick, and Joanne Eisen

We American gun-owners need to become more familiar with the process of
"norming." The "norm" of civilian disarmament already surrounds our country
and has the potential to nullify our Second Amendment right. When global
firearm-prohibition ists speak about "norming," they are actually discussing
the process wherein society becomes increasingly hostile to the possession
of arms in the hands of civilians.

This standard, or `norm,' was deliberately created during several decades of
lies about the safety and use of firearms, their benefits to society, and
the kind of people who possess them. And yet, we gun-owners remain unaware
of its ramifications and its dangers.

During the creation of this norm, we have seen the prohibitionists lie time
and time again, magnifying the costs to society of private firearm
ownership, minimizing their benefits, and creating widespread fear in the
process. We know we're on the side of truth because we don't need to
manipulate the facts to fit our philosophy, as do the prohibitionists. In
two decades of firearms research and experience, we have never seen a
deliberate attempt by unbiased firearm researchers to obfuscate data.

The more people who accept the norm, the stronger the norm becomes. Owen
Greene of Saferworld, an anti-gun non-governmental organization (NGO),
elaborated: "It is generally agreed that controls on possession by civilians
of Small Arms and Light Weapons [SALW, an ambiguous group of weapons that
includes ordinary firearms] are a critical element of national controls to
prevent, combat, and reduce SALW trafficking, proliferation and misuse."

Greene is secure in the knowledge that this norm already has extremely
vigorous and widespread global support.

The new norm does not allow for self-defense, as government intends to
provide that service for us. Even if one might actually comply with strict
regulations and even if one might actually be permitted to keep his/her
sporting gun at home, instead of being locked up at the local range, these
guns will never be available for emergency use.

One of the most damning ramifications of the new norm is that those few
remaining gun-owners will be looked upon with disdain.

This is the norm that is presently being codified into a global
legally-binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that will encompass all conventional
weapons.

It might be possible for our laws to be changed because of this treaty, even
without a Presidential signature, or Senate ratification. The ATT is set to
become the global norm, and the global firearm-prohibition ists would only
need to wait for an opportune time to act. We expect that 175 of the
approximately 200 nations in today's world would sign onto the ATT. Although
many of these nations will sign with no expectation of complying with its
provisions, this will not affect the strength of the norm.

According to attorney Joseph Bruce Alonzo, "gun control laws could affect
United States parties in the event that gun control becomes a customary
international law [i.e. becomes a norm].. Non consensual customary
international law may arise as a result of international practice. This
international practice may be evidenced by events not approved by the United
States but eventually held binding on the United States."

That's how this norm, or soft law, has the potential to trump the Second
Amendment.

John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, recognized the
norming process, and rejected it as being destructive to our Constitution.
Expressing his displeasure, he wrote: "Much of the development of norming
comes as a result of people who are dissatisfied with political outcomes
they have achieved at the state and federal level and who are determined to
take their argument into the broader international context, who see the
norming process as the way to constrain the United States."

There is another norm-our norm-which was bequeathed to us by our Founding
Fathers. Ed Laurence of the Monterey Institute of International Studies
complained : "An opposing norm that favors continued high levels of arms
sales-based on the belief that citizens have the "right" to buy guns for
self-defense, self-determination, entertainment, or to provide for their
families-is preventing the development of a global consensus on small arms
policy."

We are the last remaining hope for the sovereignty of individuals and the
civilian possession of firearms. U.S. civilians own about 270 million
firearms, about 30% of the total global stockpile of 875 million firearms.
But we estimate that only about 5 million people, out of approximately 70-80
million American gun-owners, have joined in one or more activist groups that
have been formed to protect our right to private firearm ownership.

This simply is not enough. We must get gun-owners out of the closet and
actively working hard with us.

How undamaged we and our rights emerge from this United Nations firestorm,
that will engulf us for the next 5-10 years, depends upon how willing we all
are to accept our responsibilities today.