Thursday, May 31, 2012

The Second Amendment


The Second Amendment
By Leon Howard

“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.”

Probably the most maligned of our God-given rights is the Second Amendment; politicians since 1939 have used the maligning of this right for their own political gain and it hasn’t diminished the hue and cry for more gun control when every “law” passed has made no difference in gun crimes.

Probably to understand the 2nd Amendment, we should look at what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they adopted this contract; a contract between the government and the governed. This was the first time in world history that the People created their own government and built in restrictions to protect the natural rights given by God! These were not rights “granted” by a benevolent government or ruler; these were the rights that are natural, born to all moral People.

The Constitution, adopted in 1787, was the Contract that limited the role of government but, even at it’s adoption, many of our founders worried that our natural rights could be abrogated and demanded a Bill of Rights. James Madison argued against it, saying he was afraid by enumerating our rights, many natural rights could be missed. Where the framers wanted the governments duties limited or enumerated, they felt the People’s rights were boundless.

James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, 12 were approved by the Congress but only 10 were ratified by the states in 1789. James Madison wanted to be certain our rights couldn’t be limited and that is why the 9th and 10th Amendments were written as they were.

But why did they feel we, the People, needed the 2nd Amendment? Our founders were brilliant men and women, living during “the Age of Enlightenment” and were students of history; they had 3000 years of history to study governments and human nature. They referred to our nation as “the Great Experiment” – Democracy? No, they, to a man, feared and despised democracy; it has never succeeded in the history of man! The Great Experiment was man governing man! A Republic with democratic representation!

We are the first nation created on freedom of religion; our founders were primarily Christians but there were also Jews and maybe even a couple of Deists and felt strongly that a man or woman’s religious persuasion was private and no business of the government. I think Patrick Henry stated it best: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

Our founders also feared a large standing army. Washington’s “Army” was made up of primarily farmers, hunters, and shop keepers, with a few volunteers from  Europe who fought beside us for Liberty and self-determination! Many of the founders feared that even though the federal government’s contract limited it, it would be like governments in the past and try to subjugate the People and, therefore, the People should have the means to bring the government back under control. Thomas Jefferson stated it this way: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

George Washington said: “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' liberty's teeth.”

Samuel Adams, called the “Father of the Revolution” was very clear: “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

George Washington also said: The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.”

James Madison voiced his opinion: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”

At another time James Madison put it this way: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. …A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

This last quote of Madison’s has been shown to be true innumerable times in history and even today! Oppression follows disarmament of the People in every nation it has taken place! Russia: 1919; Germany: 1939; China: 1949; Cuba: 1959.

As apparent as this trend is, we see nation’s disarming the People trying to prevent crime! Let us look at the gun control laws of the United States to gauge their effectiveness or lack thereof:

·      1939 Gun Control Act – This law expanded the power of the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco to now control the ownership of automatic weapons (machine guns). This was in response to the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun; the “Tommy gun” was a favorite of the crime families and the Chicago Mob.

·      1964 Gun Control Act – This law further expanded the power of what is known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and created a paperwork trail for gun retailers to stop known felons from acquiring firearms. This was in response to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

·      1993 “Assault Weapons Ban” – This law outlawed semi-automatic firearms with a certain cosmetic appearance and firearms magazines with cartridge capacities greater than 10.  This was in response to drive-by shootings and robberies in the metropolitan areas of many states.

What effect have these laws had on crime?

·      1939 Gun Control Act – Still enforced. An interesting statistic from the BATF: A federally licensed Machine Gun has never been used in the commission of a crime! But machine gun crimes have not abated; the drug dealers use smuggled machine guns in commission of their “business”.

·      1964 Gun Control Act – Still enforced. Guns bought through a licensed dealer have been used in “crimes of passion” and the number of these crimes has not been affected by the law.

·      1993 Assault Weapons Ban – The law “sunsetted” in 2004; dealers said it was totally ineffective.

So what is the point?

Those who abide by the law aren’t the ones committing crimes against society; the law-abiding People are the only ones affected by gun control laws! Outlaws operate outside the law; they don’t care what the law says, they buy their guns on the “black market” or steal them!

In cities where guns are not permitted, crimes are highest and, if you think about it, it only makes sense: If the law-abiding adhere to the law, the lawless are assured of unarmed victims! Washington, D.C. was the “Murder Capitol” for several years in a row and they had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation! It was the murder capitol because the People were not able to defend themselves and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Heller: It is a natural right to protect yourself and your family and possessions!

Thomas Jefferson stated it best, when he said: 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. …Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776
These facts aren’t just true here, they apply anywhere in the world. Australia outlawed private gun ownership a few years ago and the following is the latest update:

Australian Gun Law Update

                        Going Down, Down Under
                                                                 WRITTEN BY SEN. H. L. RICHARDSON, (RET.)
                                                                     THURSDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 1999 19:00

On April 28th 1996, a maniac shot 35 people in Port Arthur. The media went ballistic, screaming about the evil of "assault" firearms. Australians were shocked. Nothing like this had ever happened in sleepy, peaceful Australia. The shrill cry and incessant anti-gun propaganda paid off and, in just 12 days, Federal resolutions were passed and the states enacted them into laws.

What did they enact? Did they just go after "ugly" guns, those military look-alike assault weapons? Think again! They outlawed every semi-auto, even those "pretty" duck guns, the Browning A5 and the Remington 1100's. They even struck down pump shotguns; the Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870 are two examples. The law read "Any pump shotgun with a magazine capacity of 5 rounds or less."

Do you own a Browning BAR rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn't miss a one.

You may ask, "Surely they left 22's alone, didn't they?" Nope, the criteria the government used was simple. If it's a semi-auto, it's gone. If caught with one of these "illegal" firearms, the crime was considered serious, punishable by multiple years in prison.

The Australian government offered to buy back all of the listed firearms. They then imposed a 1% tax on everybody to raise the money necessary to secure the "illegal" firearms. The massive 500 million buy back program was quickly, but poorly, implemented. Of the estimated 7 million firearms, roughly 40% are now prohibited. Close to 2.8 million firearms should have been surrendered to authorities. Was it a success? Hardly. Less than 25%, or 640,000 weapons, were turned in.

Gun Control and left-wing politicians said great things about the new law. A university of criminology professor stated, "It is probable that the crime rate will drop by up to 20 percent."

Nothing of the sort happened, in fact just the opposite took place. In 1997, just 12 months after the new laws went into effect, across Australia homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent, assaults up 8.6 and in the state of Victoria there was a 300 percent increase in homicides. Prior to the new dictatorial anti-gun laws, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms; now, there has been a dramatic increase in break-ins, especially against the elderly.

In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, new figures reveal that the assault rates in the state of NSW has risen almost 20 percent.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially less than Australia, Canada, and Britain. The data from a comprehensive study from the University of Chicago [Lott, Mustard] showed that in these same three countries, people were home almost half of the time when the burglaries were committed.

In the US, it was less than 13%. Fear of firearms in the American home was the reason given.

Again, in Australia, Canada and Britain, all handguns were already severely controlled. Failure to yearly re-register in a prompt manner could bring law enforcement to the doorstep to confiscate the firearm.

Reasons must be given why anyone needs a license. The government lists only 10 reasons for owning a firearm-- protection of self and family is not considered a "reasonable" request!

The Second Amendment is not “outdated” anymore than the First Amendment, or the Third, or Fourth, etc. A natural or God-given right is as timeless as nature and God are timeless!

Remember, according to our founding fathers, our 2nd Amendment is the final assurance that all our natural rights cannot be taken away!

The Fools We Elect to “Serve” Us


The Fools We Elect to “Serve” Us
By Leon Howard

From time to time, the fools we elect to “serve” us violate their oath of office and the People suffer because of it – This happens more often than would seem reasonable for, supposedly, intelligent officials.
Case in point:
The Stormans family, who owns Ralph’s Thriftway pharmacy in Olympia, has
spent over $500,000 of their own money to defend their right to not sell the Plan B
“morning after” pill, arguing that it disregards their deeply held religious beliefs.

After a 5 year protracted battle in which the state government spent over $300,000
per year fighting against this family-owned small business to force them to violate
their Constitutionally-protected right of conscience, a federal judge definitively
ruled that the state is wrong. (And they wonder why we have a budget “shortfall”?)

In this landmark case, Judge Leighton ruled that the law in question violates the First
Amendment right to free exercise of religion:

“The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally
 applicable. They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense
Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts
of secular reasons were permitted.”

In his rebuke of the state’s breach of the Constitution, Judge Leighton continued,

“The Board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objections
from their inception. Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented reams of [internal government
documents] demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp
out the right to refuse [for religious reasons].”

Attorney General Rob McKenna and his office erroneously argued on behalf of the
State that if exceptions were made for religious beliefs, the state would be
establishing religion, in violation of the First Amendment.  McKenna’s legal team
recently spent 11 days in federal court trying to convince a Judge to force the
owners of Ralph's Thriftway to provide medicine that they believe will take a
human life.

Undeterred by this week’s ruling, the Governor is now conferring with the AG’s
office on the best path to an appeal. The question for McKenna now becomes – “Do
I continue to spend state taxpayer money to appeal this decision, or do I back off
and give Mr. Stormans the dignity he deserves?"

Shahram Hadian, candidate for Washington State governor, voiced it best:

“The ramifications of this case are huge. If the state continues with its witch hunt
and ultimately prevails, it opens a Pandora’s Box. Any government agency could
force individuals to violate their right of conscience in any matter. Governor
Gregoire and AG Rob McKenna, STOP your persecution of our constitutionally
protected religious freedom and right of conscience.”

I believe Shahram Hadian has covered the point Mr. McKenna needs to address
in this case but an even bigger question for me is: If AG Rob McKenna, who
wants to be Governor, cannot respect the First Amendment as Attorney General,
what other inalienable rights will he “interpret” against the People if elected to
be Governor? Who will be the next victim of an over-reaching elected official
and will they be forced to spend their savings to fight for our rights?

Since I originally wrote this, AG McKenna has appealed to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco so the Stormans must spend more of their
money to defend their ‘right of conscience’ and Mr. McKenna will spend more
of Washington State’s Taxpayers money to rob us of our “absolute right of
conscience”! And he wants to be my governor? I think not!

The Constitution


The Constitution
By Leon Howard

"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example  ... of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness." --James Madison, National Gazette Essay, 1792

Probably the most misinterpreted document in history! The misinterpretations are on purpose and solely to diminish the power of the People! This isn’t a “new” phenomenon and it is tough to mark the exact spot in history that elected officials began to feel superior to the People and began to systematic and diabolical destruction of the greatest form of government ever created – The Representative Republic!

Notice I didn’t say a representative “democracy”! Our government never calls us a “republic” anymore and, again, that is on purpose; they want us to forget we are a Republic because as a Republic, it removes much of their power and places it back in the hands of the People! Why? What’s wrong with a democracy?

A study of history shows democracy never lasts; it cannot succeed because once the People see they can vote money from the Treasury, the nation is on a downward spiral. The two most prominent democracies, noted in history, are the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire; neither ended well. We can argue forever about the demise of these empires but, in the end, the People crushed the government because the government could no longer supply them with all that was promised by the politicians promised to keep them in power! Can you see parallels today? What about Wisconsin and the public employees unions? There are more examples if you think about it for a few minutes but back to the subject: The Constitution and the Representative Republic.

We were the “Great Experiment” and the Constitution laid the foundation for man to govern himself! If you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers you will see this was a much debated and thoughtfully reasoned process with some of the greatest minds unsurpassed today. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, John Jay – The list could go on but what did they say about the kind of government they wanted to create and why? Let’s look at what they said.
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ….John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814.
“[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.” …John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, August 29, 1763.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." …Thomas Jefferson
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. …Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Hunter, March 11, 1790
“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob. …James Madison, Federalist No. 55, February 15, 1788
“[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. …James Madison, Federalist No. 10, November 23, 1787
“The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty. …Fisher Ames, speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, January 15, 1788
The differences between democracy and republic were considered so important as to have papers written for our Army so there would be no confusion: These succinct definitions of what is Democracy and what is a Republic was produced by the US Army in 1928,  These definitions have been quietly withdrawn since, soon after.
Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy. 
Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. 
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury.  From that moment on the  majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
1.            an executive and
2.            a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
3.            a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
4.            certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
There was a time when the People really understood what a Republic was; Joseph Story was such a man. “Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them. …Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
So, when you hear somebody declare us a “democracy”, set them straight: We are not ‘progressives’, socialists, or communists; we are a Representative Republic!