This Little Light Of Mine

Friday, August 28, 2015

Why Should I Own/Need An AR15 (Or Any Other Weapon Of Choice)?

Because it is my RIGHT to own one, given to me as a private right for defense by God and the 2nd Amendment, as the intention of the framers who wrote it.

The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but 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 use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

as well in the following comments of other founding fathers and contemporaries discussing the 2nd Amendment:

Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." 

George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." He also questioned: ""I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." He further stated in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: ""Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it 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."

Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail said: "...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"

Richard Henry Lee in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 stated: "Whereas, 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; 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."

Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith in 1787: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." 

James Madison to Congress: "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 ..."

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, stated during floor debate over the Second Amendment: "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."

Patrick Henry during the Debates in the Several State Conventions: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Samuel Adams: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "


Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. 
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense."
And that is why I (and all other Americans who are not felons or mentally incompetent) can have and NEED an AR15 rifle (or any other weapon), with a big magazine if we should so desire to own one! It is also why the 2nd Amendment says that this right SHALL NOT be infringed. The government has absolutely no right to infringe upon my right to own it! So, when states & federal government ban certain guns/ammo, they are violating my 2nd Amendment right. The overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights was to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread. In other words...my right to own and bear arms to match a standing army is not a constitutional right, it is a PRIVATE right, which so happened to be reiterated and strengthened by an amendment to the Constitution, just so it would be absolutely clear to any future government as to what they cannot fool with.

Other Resources:
Right To Keep and Bear Arms

Police State Now Legalized In North Dakota!

No Longer a Conspiracy Theory, First State Legalizes Weaponized Drones for Cops


North Dakota — Nothing says “police state” quite like unmanned aerial vehicles patrolling the sky ready to deploy 80,000 volts to the nearest protester or dose entire crowds with chemical weapons.
The idea of weaponized drones has long been a dystopian, yet fictional idea. However, thanks to House Bill 1328, in North Dakota, this police state hell from above is now a horrid reality.
Thanks to a police union lobbyist, the idea of police using drones for “less than lethal” weapons is now written into North Dakota law.
According to the Daily Beast,
The bill’s stated intent was to require police to obtain a search warrant from a judge in order to use a drone to search for criminal evidence. In fact, the original draft of Rep. Rick Becker’s bill would have banned all weapons on police drones.
Then Bruce Burkett of North Dakota Peace Officer’s Association was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328 and limit the prohibition only to lethal weapons. “Less than lethal” weapons like rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers are therefore permitted on police drones.
 The term “less than lethal” is thrown around to make tasers, which have been responsible for hundreds of deaths since 2001, seem like they are okay to be deployed on infants.
The reality is that “less than lethal” weapons are only slightly less lethal than the real thing. Now that these weapons will be put on drones, entire new safety concerns arise, such as accuracy and the simple issue of a drone falling into a crowd.
After being duped by the police lobby into passing a bill allowing cops to equip drones with weapons, Rep Becker is worried. He spoke up about police deploying these weapons when they aren’t near the intended target.
“When you’re not on the ground, and you’re making decisions, you’re sort of separate,” Becker said. “Depersonalized.”
One need only look at the Middle East and the thousands of innocent women and children who’ve been slaughtered by US drones to imagine the grim reality of such legislation.
Law enforcement and their union lobbyists are assuring lawmakers that drones would only be used in non-criminal situations, like a missing person case or for photographing crime scenes. This begs the question of why they would need such ominous legislation if they say they’ll never use it?
According to Keith Lund of the Grand Forks Regional Economic Development Corporation, laws like this one are to combat restrictions in drone development to create jobs.
North Dakota has been hit hard by the oil bust, and more drones equal more jobs.
“It’s really all about the commercial development, which is where all of this is heading,” Lund replied. “If [a law] is somehow limiting commercial, law enforcement development… that is a negative in terms of companies looking and investing in opportunities in the state of North Dakota,” Lund said, according to the Daily Beast.
It’s not only weapons attached to drones that are raising issues in the state either. Police and their lobbyists are putting up a big fight to allow the use of drones for spying without a warrant.
“Requiring a search warrant for surveillance is ‘restricting development?’” asked Rep. Gary Paur, a Republican, at a hearing.
It seems that corporate and state collusion, at the expense of the people’s liberties, doesn’t even have to happen behind closed doors anymore.
Get ready, because if we know anything about the military-industrial complex, it’s that it spreads like a virus. It is only a matter of time before other slimeball politicians sell out civil liberties to prop up “Big Drone.”

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

A Marvelous Message of Liberty!

Please listen to the video below through to the end as that not only will you get the full message but you'll also be able to click on 2 links to listen to 2 great songs by this wonderful artist, Jordan Page. One of them being "Arm Yourselves". Jordan is not only a very gifted musician, but a great supporter of liberty and freedom. He is a member of an organization that I belong to called "Oath Keepers" which is supporting Jordan in getting his music out to mainstream America and the world.

Please, do go and read about Jordan and his message as well as listen to his fantastic music. You will at least be entertained. If you can, also help support him in getting his message and wonderful music out to the public by donating anything you can. If it can't be financially, then do what I have done and that's to blog, tweet, facebook and share this message where ever and however you can.

Thank you and may you and yours be blessed!