Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment’

Canada’s crackdown on the freedom convoy proves the genius of The Bill of Rights

Posted: February 24, 2022 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

I am absolutely outraged by Trudeau’s despicable crackdown on the peaceful freedom trucker’s protest.  What I saw unfold reminded me quite forcefully of incidents that are far too common is totalitarian regimes.  That sort of nonsense has become all too common place the past two years. 

Far too many national leaders have demonstrated similar totalitarian tendencies.  Hundreds of millions have had their most basic rights stripped away in the name of fighting a virus with a greater than 99.7 percent survival rate.  Power hungry politicians have seized on this pandemic as the perfect opportunity to amass total control over their populations.

Trudeau’s seizure of the bank accounts of anyone associated with the freedom convoy, the mass arrest of peaceful protestors, and the trampling of peaceful protesters by police horses is most shocking to us here in the United States because Canada appears to be a country very much like the United States.

As similar as Canada appears to be to the United States, it is lacking one key ingredient, our Constitution, with its Bill of Rights.  Canada’s Constitution is only a shabby copy with a very week Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  It is week because it can be so easily tossed aside by a sniveling coward of a Prime Minister who is faced with a peaceful mass protest.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms normally does offer some protection for the freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest.  It is similar to our Bill of Rights.  However, our Bill of Rights cannot ever be set aside, even during an emergency.  A lot of politicians here would be shocked to learn that fundamental truth.  Our Bill of Rights is the very foundation of our Constitutional Republic. 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not held in such high regard in Canada.  The majority of Canadians have no trouble with Trudeau’s despicable actions.  In the US only a majority of Democrats are cheering him along

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is missing one absolutely crucial right, the right to bear arms.  If Canada had a Second Amendment, Trudeau would not have been able to crush the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa.  Thanks to the Second Amendment it is impossible for an American president to crush a similar protest here.  Our Second Amendment makes it impossible for politicians to strip away our most fundamental rights,  That is why democrats have been trying to do away with the Second Amendment for decades.

With the panic they have caused over this pandemic, Democrat politicians have been far too successful at manipulating the people of their party into surrendering their most important rights.  Recent polls have shown that independents, and even some of the ordinary members of the Democrat party are getting tired of  Covid restrictions.  That is why the restrictions are being lifted in Democrat controlled States ahead of the Midterms.

It the Democrats here still honored the Bill of Rights, and far more Democrats embraced the Second Amendment, none of the restrictions imposed by Democrats would have been possible

Yes Joe Biden did threaten those of us who believe in the founding principles of the United States with military aircraft and nuclear weapons

Posted: July 1, 2021 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

On June 23rd Joe Biden made some extremely disturbing comments about the Second Ammendment.  They are captured in this official Whitehouse transcript: Remarks by President Biden and Attorney General Garland on Gun Crime Prevention Strategy

This particular part of the statement is very troubling because it demonstrates that Joe Biden operates under the delusion that the purpose of the Second Amendment is all about hunting.  That is a delusion that is shared by a majority of those on the political left.

For folks at home, here’s what you need to know: I’ve been at this a long time and there are things we know that work that reduce gun violence and violent crime, and things that we don’t know about. But things we know about: Background checks for purchasing a firearm are important; a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — no one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something; community policing and programs that keep neighborhoods safe and keep folks out of trouble.

This next quote contains so many dangerous falsehoods about the Second Amendment that I will discuss each one separately.

And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.
 
Those who say the blood of lib- — “the blood of patriots,” you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
 
The point is that there has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it.

The statement about the Second Amendment limiting what kind of weapons we Americans can own is so egregious that even the liberal Washington Post Gives Biden Four Pinocchios for ‘False’ Cannon Claims

The Post also talked with University of Pennsylvania’s Kermit Roosevelt, who remarked, “I think what he’s saying here is that the Second Amendment was never understood to guarantee everyone the right to own all types of weapons, which I believe is true.”

However, Roosevelt noted that Biden’s statement “as phrased…sounds like the Second Amendment itself limited ownership, which is not true.”

The first half of the fact check demonstrates the bias of the Washington Post. Notice that the so called expert ends it with the phrase “which I believe is true” rather than any actual proof.  It was not until 1934 that the federal government began restricting what type of Americans can own, in direct violation of the Second Amendment.  This is chronicled in this Time Magazine article: Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

1934 The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”

1938  The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 required gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers to obtain a federal firearms license. It also defined a group of people, including convicted felons, who could not purchase guns, and mandated that gun sellers keep customer records. The FFA was repealed in 1968 by the Gun Control Act (GCA), though many of its provisions were reenacted by the GCA.

As I discussed in a previous article, the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure we the people could deal with an abusive federal government, contrary the lunacy spouted by Joe Biden..  This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.  

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the drafting and ratification of the Second Amendment that the United States was never meant to have a standing army because standing armies proved to be a threat to the liberty of the people of any nation that had one.  Militias, which are meant to be made up of almost the entire population were meant to provide the defense of our local communities, States, and the United States.  Militias, made up of the people of the individual states were meant to be a barrier protecting the people of the United States from an abusive federal government.

When the Second Amendment was ratified all weapons held by the people of the United States were military weapons. The people of the United States, who make up the militia, were meant from the beginning to have the military type weapons.

The idea that the people of the United States would stand up against an abusive federal government is one of our most cherished and important founding principles.  Any president, including this illegitimate president, who would even contemplate using tanks, military aircraft, or nuclear weapons against Americans who are standing up for their rights should be impeached immediately.  Should any attempt be made by a president to use weapons of war on Americans simply standing up for their rights, that president’s legitimacy would immediately evaporate and the American people would rise up.  Most members of the American military would refuse such orders.

Joe Biden’s upcoming war on the First and Second Amendments

Posted: June 17, 2021 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

The Biden regime is working overtime on schemes to deprive us Americans of some of our most important God=given Natural Rights, the right of freedom of speech and our right to bear arms. 

The Capitol Hill Riot on January 6th is providing the justification for an all out assault on the First Amendment by Joe Biden and the rest of the Progressives in Washington DC. That is why they have blown that one incident completely out of proportion.  This NBC News article discusses the latest deeply troubling proposal  White House unveils new strategy to counter domestic terrorisme’laser-focused on violence’

The strategy and an accompanying White House fact sheet call for more scrutiny of public social media posts and better coordination among security agencies. 

This entire effort would be a gross violation of the First Amendment which prevents the federal government from interfering with the free speech of all Americans.

The Biden administration’s review of its domestic counterterrorism strategy began with that intelligence assessment. The unclassified version, released in March, concluded that the two most lethal elements of U.S. domestic terrorism are racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of the white race and anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, such as violent militia extremists.

Unfortunately Joe Biden and progressives consider any speech or writing that conflicts with progressive dogma to be hate speech and violence.  Any individual who is from the right side of the political spectrum is considered a violent extremist.  Leftists are constantly and erroneously calling those who disagree with them white supremacists.  The founding principles of the United States are very much anti government and anti authority.  This is an attempt to criminalize them.

The Biden strategy is based on what it calls four pillars, designed to understand, prevent, disrupt and address long-term drivers of domestic terrorism. Although it involves new government scrutiny of what Americans say on social media, officials say they have been careful to avoid any move that infringes on political speech.

Any scrutiny of what Americans say or write by the federal government is a gross violation of the First Amendment and I believe with 100 percent certainty that the Biden Regime will most definitely infringe on the political speech of those of us who are conservatives and libertarians.

“We are not targeting speech. We are not attacking speech,” Mayorkas said. “We are working with the social media companies to be able to better identify the false narratives, to be able to identify disinformation and misinformation and really educate the American public.”

I call BS on the entire statement by Mayorkas.  The Frist Amendment prevents the federal government from playing any role identifying false narratives or disinformation, Progressives consider anything that conflicts with their beliefs to be false narratives or disinformation.  The statement about educating the American public brings images of political reeducation camps to mind quite clearly.

This Townhall article The Largest Gun Registration and Confiscation Scheme Is Being Planned By the Biden Administration is a clear warning that the Biden Regime will attempt to use executive orders, federal regulations, and federal agencies to disarm the American people.

A new rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) at the request of President Joe Biden would make most firearms with stabilizing pistol braces illegal. Owners would have to register, turn in, or disassemble the guns to avoid federal felony charges. One government estimate found as many as 40 million guns could be affected.

“It will be the largest gun registration, destruction, and confiscation scheme in American history,” Alex Bosco, who invented the stabilizing brace and founded the biggest manufacturer of them, told The Reload.

Today’s proposed rulemaking on pistol-braced firearms represents a gross abuse of executive authority,” said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, in a statement.

Bosco said the rule would outlaw the vast majority of braces on the market and read like it was “reverse-engineered to make braces illegal.” He called it “arbitrary and capricious.”

I firmly believe that any attempt by the Biden regime to disarm the American people will have very grave consequences. It is best that they do not try.

Joe Biden made a very dangerous and foolish statement about Constitutional Amendments

Posted: April 15, 2021 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

When I saw articles such as this my blood began to boil Biden on the Second Amendment: ‘No amendment is absolute’.  The level of constitutional ignorance demonstrated by Joe Biden when he made this statement is quite staggering.  The fact that he is currently inhabiting the Oval Office and intends to govern by executive order made this statement exceedingly dangerous.

No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” he said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

That statement is made up of several complete mistruths and a couple of half truths about the Second Amendment in particular and constitutional amendments in general.  A careful examination of the transcripts from the drafting of the Bill of  Rights in House of Representatives will prove just how wrong he is.. 

This  quote from June 8 of 1789 explains the general purpose of the Bill of Rights.  As you can see the Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to protect the most important rights of the people by denying the federal government the power and authority to regulate them in any way at all.  That prohibition on the federal government was in fact absolute.

But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. 

This quote from the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the Congress of the United States which was begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789 explains that several states demand that the Bill of Rights be added to the US Constitution to protect our most important rights by chaining the hands of the federal government

The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;–

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,–

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.   A standing Army was believed by the drafters of the Constitution to be very much a threat to the liberty of the people.  Defense of the United States and the individual states was to be maintained by unorganized state militias made up of the people of the states. That can only be achieved if we the people have military weapons.  When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified all weapons held by the people were military weapons.

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Mr. Gerry.–This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It has been maintained by many revisionist historians, college professors, and liberal politicians that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was a formal military unit, the same as the modern National Guard.  George Mason put the kibosh to that mistruth during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1787

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

Richard Henry Lee echoes this in Federal Farmer 18. The National Guard would be considered by Mr. Lee and the rest of the founding fathers to be a select militia rather than one made up of all of the people.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. As a farther check, it may be proper to add, that the militia of any state shall not remain in the service of the union, beyond a given period, without the express consent of the state legislature,

The creation of the modern National Guard did not begin until the passing of the Militia Act of 1903.  At that time the National Gard was created as a select militia.  That is completely different from the unorganized militia that existed here well before the formal beginning of the United States.  The modern National Guard is the exact type of select militia that was warned against by Richard Henry Lee and the rest of the founding fathers.

No article or Amendment of the US Constitution prevents the states from regulating or interfering with our rights. Every state does however have a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people living in the state,  I believe every state’s Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms.  Here are the two articles of the Massachusetts Constitution that protect the right to bear arms of the inhabitants of this state.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article XVII.  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

If no amendment to the Constitution is absolutely then the clause protecting us from double jeopardy can be taken away from us at the whim of the federal government along with trial by jury, and due process.  Slavery could be reinstated if the Thirteenth Amendment is not absolute.  That is extremely scary.

Older Entries
Newer Entries