This site is dedicated to American life and features evidence and true data (facts)
US CONSTITUTION and the 2ND AMENDMENT
Brief History of America's Right to Bear Arms
The Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution reads: "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."
The Second Amendment, often referred to as "The Right to Bear Arms," is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the U.S. Congress.
The framers of the Bill of Rights adapted wording of the amendment, from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions. During the Revolutionary War (when the United States declared its independence from Great Britain and King George III in 1776), “militia” referred to a man or groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and states.
Many in America at the time thought federal government should only be allowed to raise armies against foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary individual civilians using their own weapons.
Opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that a federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms. This is the danger of congress, for the constitution protects us from them, so congress never overpowers the people.
Therefore, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower state militias. So the Second Amendment established the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISARM CITIZENS.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a Collective Rights Approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita."
A national firearm registry is prohibited due to the1986 Gun Control Act and the Brady Act of 1993, which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and made it clear that NICS cannot be used to create a firearm registry.
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood 32 years. The Court, meticulously detailed the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and proclaimed the SECOND AMENDMENT ESTABLISHED AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT FOR U.S. CITIZENS TO POSSESS FIREARMS and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The Supreme Court held that the "SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM UNCONNECTED WITH SERVICE IN A MILITIA, AND TO USE THAT ARM FOR TRADITIONALLY LAWFUL PURPOSES, SUCH AS SELF-DEFENSE WITHIN THE HOME.
In 2022 the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on 6/23/22 that citizens have the right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
In Heller the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense (right to keep arms). The case of McDonald states this individual right is enforceable in the states. The ruling in Bruen means the Second Amendment also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home (right to bear arms).
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court: In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
Now states may no longer force gun owners to show a special need when they apply for a carry permit, we have an individual right to keep and bear arms including carrying them in public and any future gun control measures by state or federal government must justify its regulation by demonstrating it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. This ruling strikes down New York regulations requiring citizens to show proper cause to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
The 2nd Amendment is one of 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the US Congress
Democrats Want Gun Registration - for Confiscation
Biden and Harris Want to Completely Erase Your Second Amendment Rights
Isn't it considerate that POLITICIANS WHO ARE PROTECTED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC REAL ASSAULT WEAPONS, WANT TO TAKE AWAY AMERICAN'S RIGHTS TO DEFEND THEIR FAMILIES WITH JUST SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS? Wouldn't it be wonderful to be so special as a politician, that your life is above the laws and dangers that the normal public families have to face?
June 26, 2021: by Charles C.W. Cooke: Faced with polls showing support for stricter gun control is lower than it has been in years and a Congress that has, thus far, rejected the more radical among his ideas, President Biden (D) decided to fall back on lies.
During a speech he announced a slew of executive orders. Biden ran through a Greatest Hits of misleading gun-control talking points. He said that “nothing I’m about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment.” This is false. He said “if you walk into a store and buy a gun, you have a background check, but you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check.” This is false. He said “universal background checks are supported by the vast majority of the American people.” This is false. And he said “the only industry in America, a billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, that’s exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers.” This is false.
Biden alternated between insisting the Second Amendment is “not absolute,” which is technically true but practically meaningless, and arguing that none of his proposals “in any way impinges” on the provision, which is a lie.
It is correct that the U.S. Bill of Rights leaves room for exceptions at the margin; felons, for example, are not permitted to own guns. But it does not follow from this that whatever the president wishes to do is acceptable - especially given that this president wants to prohibit the AR-15 and ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, both of which are protected by Heller’s “in common use” standard.
Doubling down, Biden proposed “from the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.” Naturally, though, he failed to elaborate beyond that. Why? Because it’s simply not true. The first federal gun law, remember, was passed in 1934, and, crucially, even that prohibited nothing.
The president continued his attempt to sell “universal background checks,” which he pretended were unanimously popular and justified with a myth that was first debunked in 1994. “You go to a gun show,” Biden said, “you can buy whatever you want and no background check.” But you can’t. Under the 1993 Brady Act, the same rules apply to gun shows as apply everywhere else: If a person is in the business of selling firearms, he is obliged to run a background check on his customers wherever the transaction takes place; if, by contrast, he is not in the business, then any private transfers in which he engages are subject to the rules set by his state.
As for Biden’s claim that his plan is popular? That is correct only until the discussion reaches the details. When asked vaguely whether they favor “background checks,” supermajorities of Americans will say that they do. When asked how that should be achieved, however, they disagree strongly - which is why referenda on this question invariably pass or fail by a couple of points and why Congress has steadfastly declined to amend the existing rules.
Biden wrapped up with what may be the worst falsehood of all: That the firearms industry is “the only industry in America ... that can’t be sued.” This is nonsense. As Biden knows, the protections the firearms industry enjoys—as codified in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - are limited to the misuse of their products by a third party. In other words, gunmakers are protected if a criminal uses one of their pistols in a crime, but not if one of their pistols malfunctions or is badly made. This law exists because bad-faith actors were attempting to use the courts to get by fiat what they could not get via legislation - or, in other words, because bad actors were attempting to perform exactly the same circumvention as President Biden is trying to achieve with his pen, his phone and his many, many lies.
Click "We the People" image for Full Article
WORLD Gun Registration + Confiscation HISTORY
Are We Smart Enough to Learn from History, so we Don't Make the Same Mistakes Again?
Individual Rights are Not a Privilege - Government Does NOT have Authority to Take Our Rights Away
Individual Rights are Not a Privilege - Government Does NOT have Authority to Take Our Rights Away
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
History teaches us over and over, that Registration ALWAYS leads to Confiscation, then increased government fascist control.
Once the government knows what firearms you have through registration, and where you have them stored, it is much easier for them to come and confiscate them by force (while at the same time, all politicians remain protected by fully automatic real assault rifles.)
- In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents (people who oppose an authoritarian state), unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1996, Australia established the gun control buy-back program. Since this Gun Ban in Australia: Armed Robberies increased 69%, Assaults with guns increased 28%, Gun murders increased 19%, and Home invasions increased 21%.
- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
- SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN AND TRAINS EVERY ADULT HOW TO USE A RIFLE. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!
- DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET FOR CRIMINALS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE KNOW THAT CONGRESS COULD BE THE BIGGEST CRIMINAL WE NEED PROTECTION FROM.
- Once the government knows what firearms you have through registration, and where you have them stored, it is much easier for them to come and confiscate them by force (while at the same time, all politicians remain protected by fully automatic real assault rifles.)
Individual Rights are Not a Privilege - Government Does NOT have Authority to Take Our Rights Away
Individual Rights are Not a Privilege - Government Does NOT have Authority to Take Our Rights Away
Individual Rights are Not a Privilege - Government Does NOT have Authority to Take Our Rights Away
The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of Liberty. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote and a majority has no right to vote away individual rights of a republic. The political function of our rights, is to restrain the government and to protect all of us from the government. This includes protection from oppression by mob majorities (including government) and protection for women, senior citizens, and minorities, with the understanding that the smallest minority on earth is the individual.
For 140 million American gun owners (42% of population), the right to a firearm is the right to live independently with protection from predators, but a leftist democrat movement has been threatening to dismantle it. Curiously, it is funded by Ultra-Rich who hire armed guards to protect themselves, and it is being designed by politicians who are protected by security with fully automatic real assault weapons. They don't like that the second amendment protects our human right to self preservation.
Leftists are afraid of the public being a free people. The Second Amendment undermines their attempt to turn people into submissive subjects. Gun controllers say they want safety, but measures they propose would not affect criminals who do not obey laws. And it would make law abiding individuals dependent on, and at the mercy of, the government for their safety. Thus robbing individuals of the fundamental right to preserve their own lives. The left wants a subservient citizenry that begs for government handouts, and has to cower to thieves, rapists, and murderers. Gun-rights advocates want freedom and to be at the mercy of no one else. The state is not omnipresent at all times to protect everyone, and therefore a personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of necessary defense - to be used until the arrival of authorized police, thus preserving our safety and independence.
Biden thinks people should not have weapons that look like military weapons, but the constitution says the opposite. The Constitution was written to guarantee our rights. Congress does not have the right to abuse its constitutional power by preventing people to be equipped with adequate arms. In fact, the constitution was designed so "We the People" have more strength than the government. The founders wrote the Second Amendment to not be infringed, so the government cannot not limit a citizens right to have adequate firearms. The government also does NOT have the right to disarm citizens. This is our protection; so the government can never overpower the people. Remember, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm connected with, BUT ALSO unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense from criminals and the government (who could be the biggest criminal).
The constitution guarantees that We The People are in control of the government. Whereas Leftist Democrats want the government to have complete control of the people as servants of the government.
The constitution was written to prevent government intrusion into our lives.
Remember, Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
BideN & Harris' Plan to put american Families in Danger
What have Biden and Harris said about our Constitutional Guaranteed Right to Bear Arms?
If leftist democrats get their way, the only civilians allowed to own firearms to protect their families will be politicians, the ultra-rich, Hollywood and criminals. Democrat goals include Red Flag Laws - so anyone can take your firearms away without public court proceedings; Create universal registrations to keep a database of what firearms you own to protect yourself from criminals and the government so they can come and confiscate them; Tell you what kind of protection you can have; Heavily tax firearms and ammunition so only the rich can afford them; and Pack courts with anti-freedom, anti-independence and anti-gun stooges.
Biden wants a Gun Ban on the most common firearms in America; semi-automatic firearm rifles (such as the AR15) and 9 mm pistols, even though this was already tried with the 1994 Gun Ban on AR's, that the government admitted it did nothing to prevent crime. In addition, the 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court Collective Rights Approach, determined that Congress does not have the right to regulate a ban on firearms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia (which per Heller, also protects an individual right unconnected with a militia.)
Definitions: Civilian firearms are SEMI-AUTOMATIC, which means they only FIRE ONE BULLET AT A TIME. Military assault weapons of war are fully automatic. Biden and Harris want to confiscate or heavily tax handguns and rifles just because they LOOK like military weapons, pretending they are the equivalent of assault rifles:
- Fully Automatic Military Weapons of War Assault Rifles (also known as machine guns) are fully automatic rifles that fire continuously as long as the trigger is kept pulled. Fully automatic rifles are restricted to use by military, police, government and politician's security guards. Civilians cannot purchase these without special expensive permits.
- Semi-Automatic Civilian Rifles fire only one bullet with each trigger pull. These are NOT fully automatic military assault rifles, but many confuse them. Due to lack of knowledge, or just for the sake of promoting government control, most politicians mistakenly call these military assault rifles too, even though they are not. No one would go to war with a rifle that looks like a military rifle, but only fires one shot with each pull of the trigger, while the enemy has fully automatic real assault rifles.
- Now Biden says he also wants to confiscate every 9 mm firearm, or heavily tax them and ammunition, as he wants to do with so called assault weapons, because they have detachable magazines that hold more than the "magic 10 bullets," (which the majority of all firearms have.)
Biden and Harris say they want a government Gun Ban, or a Buy-Back (confiscation) of firearms. How can they "buy-back" something that was never purchased from them? Per the Constitution, they don't have the right to disarm families who want independence and protection from criminals, while politicians and the wealthy are protected by fully automatic real assault rifles. Will criminals magically behave and give up their firearms if they make this into law?
Biden says he might allow honest citizens to keep firearms they already legally own, as long as they register the same way sex offenders are registered. Do you feel safe having your name in a national database with the type of firearms you own, your photo, fingerprints, address, and any other personal identifying information they decide on, just so you can have that information hacked into by thieves, or used against you by the government for possible confiscation?
In Biden's proposal, only the rich and politicians would be allowed to own firearms. Biden and Harris want to use taxes to punish law abiding gun owners, especially minorities, senior citizens and the poor. They want a database of every citizen and to impose a punitive tax of $200 on every semi-automatic firearm. And if that's not bad enough, they want an additional $200 tax on every magazine that holds more than the magic 10 rounds (bullets), and most firearms come with magazines that are detachable and hold 15 - 30 rounds. These taxes would apply to firearms and magazines people already own. So if you own one firearm with 4 magazines, you would pay 4 + 1 (to equal 5) federal fees of $200 each for a total of $1,000, just to keep one firearm you already own. Calculate what that adds up to if you have more than one firearm. How many middle class, elderly, or minorities could afford that to protect their families? Answer: None. So only the rich and politicians will be able to protect their families if the left gets its way.
Biden and Harris also want to make it illegal for people to buy firearms through the internet, but it is already illegal to purchase a firearm on the internet and have it shipped to your home. Currently this will send you to jail. However, you can legally pay for a firearm on the internet through various stores, BUT Federal Law mandates that firearms you purchase must still be shipped to a store with a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The store FFL Dealer has to complete an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on you, as required by federal law, before you can receive that firearm. This is the same federal background check you would have to pass if you purchased the firearm from their store directly anyway, so this is only a political move based on stupidity.
Biden also said he wants to get rid of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA was enacted by Congress in 2005 with broad bipartisan support of republicans and democrats both, to stop frivolous lawsuits seeking to hold firearm manufacturers liable for acts of criminals who used guns to commit offenses. This was done because a business is not responsible for wrongful acts of a third party that misuses its products. For example, the victim of an accident by a drunk driver cannot sue the car manufacturer or car dealer. Under this PLCAA law, you can still sue a firearm manufacturer for faulty parts, but you cannot sue them because someone misused their product, no more than you can sue the owner of a hardware store for selling you a hammer, if you later misused the hammer and smashed your thumb with it. Suing someone for misusing a product is insane, but bankrupting companies by forcing them to defend lawsuits, or to accept settlements that require punitive gun control measures, is the left's real agenda anyway. Biden says he wants to end this protective law, which will do nothing but force firearm manufacturers into bankruptcy. Then say good-bye to personal defense, defense of your family and defense by our military and police.
Biden also wants all guns to be "smart guns," like in science fiction movies. These do not work 100% of the time, they are expensive and do not exist in any practical form. What if your finger is dirty or sweaty, or the gun got wet, or the battery is low, or the electronics defected, then your firearm will not work. Will Biden and Harris use these to defend their families? Of course not.
The 2nd amendment guarantees us the infringed right to bear arms for individual protection. The left wants to register gun owners like sex offenders in a national database. Would you tell a criminal (with knowledge that one day the government could be that criminal) what you have to protect your family with? Would that be wise? Remember, crooks are not afraid to break into homes when people are home, as long as they know those people have no means of protecting themselves or their families.
Also ask yourself this question. Why do criminals vote for democrats?
Billionaire Bloomberg bodyguards. Criminals Prefer Unarmed Victims.Dictators Prefer Unarmed Citizens
Wisdom of Protecting Our Individual Rights and Freedoms
Quotations of the Founders of America Who Respected Liberty
- "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
- "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
- "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
- "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
- "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
- "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
- "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
- "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
- "I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
- "To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
- "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
- "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
- "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
- "...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
- "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
- A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
- "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
- "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
- "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. 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. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice (greed) and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." - Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
- "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
- "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
- "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
- "For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
- "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
- "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
- "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Biden/Harris Think 2nd Amendment is NOT an Individual Right
Democrats Communist Motto, “We Don't Let Them Have Ideas, Why Would We Let Them Have Firearms?
by NRA-ILA Contributer, Monday, September 21, 2020
During a September 2019 “townhall” hosted by New Hampshire ABC affiliate WMUR, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden made it clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was incorrect.
Biden was asked, “Do you agree with the D.C. v. Heller decision in regards to protecting the individual right to bear arms that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?” Biden responded in part, “If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one.”
Later, the noted resume padder and law school plagiarist boasted, And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers, I taught the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is not absolute. And we can argue, the fundamental argument is well regulated militia and all those things, I won’t get into that. I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a right because we needed to be able to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.
Aside from his denunciation of Heller and denial that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, Biden also displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was not “given as a right” by the U.S. Constitution. Rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Heller, the Second Amendment protects a right that pre-existed the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Biden’s position on Heller and the Second Amendment is in line with that of his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). As District Attorney of San Francisco, Harris signed on to an amicus curiae brief in Heller that argued the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Advocating against the individual right to keep and bear arms, the brief argued, courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, inter alia, (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments,
According to the document, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but rather, the lower court in Heller “create[d]”this right. The brief stated, The lower court’s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a “lineal descendant” of a founding era weapon and that is in “common use” with a “military application” today.
Biden’s position on the Second Amendment is also in alignment with recent versions of the Democratic Party Platform. The 2004, 2008, and 2012 editions of the party platform recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Such recognition of the Second Amendment was conspicuously absent from the 2016 and 2020 versions of the platform.
The Democratic presidential ticket’s rejection of the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment helps to explain the pair’s advocacy for blatantly unconstitutional gun control measures. Both Biden and Harris have called to ban and confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Biden has made clear that his desired ban would extend to arguably the most popular firearms in America - 9mm pistols. The Heller decision made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.
It is hard to overemphasize the extremism of the Democratic presidential ticket’s position on the Second Amendment. A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted prior to the Heller decision, asked those surveyed, “Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?” The response was unambiguous; 73-percent responded that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, while a mere 20-percent limited that right to state militia members.
A Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after the Heller decision, in July 2008, mirrored these results. This poll asked respondents, “Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?” 78-percent opposed such a measure, while only 17-percent were found to be in favor.
And in May 2009, CNN and ORC conducted a similar poll that asked “Which of the following comes closer to your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? In addition to addressing the need for citizen-militias, it was intended to give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. It was only intended to preserve the existence of citizen-militias, and does not give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” Once again, the American public made their position clear; with 77-percent choosing “individual gun ownership” to 21-percent answering “only citizen-militias.”
Knowing that Biden’s true position on the Second Amendment is political poison, the Biden campaign and its surrogates have done their best to hide the candidate’s views.
In March, when a pro-gun Michigan autoworker accurately confronted Biden about the candidate’s attacks on the Second Amendment, a visibly defensive Biden responded that the worker was “full of s***.” Biden went on to falsely claim “I support the Second Amendment.”
More recently, longtime gun control activist John Rosenthal made the ludicrous claim that “a vote for Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress will…protect gun rights for law-abiding gun owners…” Rosenthal didn’t address how Biden will go about protecting a right that the candidate does not acknowledge exists.
The importance of Biden’s radical view of the Second Amendment cannot be overstated. The fate of the Second Amendment literally hangs in the balance of this election.
Trump: The Second Amendment Will Be “Gone” BY Harris
by Garrett O’Leary, Assistant Editor
President Donald Trump remarked that a Biden presidency would mark an end for your Second Amendment rights.
Biden supports the most anti-freedom proposals ever placed on an official platform. His anti-gun wish list includes bans on the most-popular firearms and magazines, gun registration, licensing schemes and much more.
Kamala Harris, has also made her stances on the Second Amendment clear. Like Biden, she supports a long list of gun-control measures, but she didn’t stop there.
Harris said if Congress did not pass her anti-Second Amendment legislation within her first 100 days in office, she would take executive action. She advocated for the confiscation of firearms, which she referred to as a mandatory “buyback”; a position Biden also said he supports.
Meanwhile, Biden said Beto O’Rourke would help him “take care of the gun problem.” O’Rourke, another failed presidential candidate, said “Hell, yes we’re going to take your AR-15,” at a primary debate last fall.
Trump’s comments came as Americans are choosing to arm themselves in record-setting numbers.
President Donald Trump has been the most passionate president in protecting our 2nd Amendment