The Second Amendment is still under threat under Trump

I wanted to write out a log of sorts about the attack on the Second Amendment coupled with some important information surrounding the Second Amendment and the Constitution, as well as other issues. I've spent alot of time researching and breaking down things as much as I could...giving a picture that the Anti-Gun and "Pro-Government crowd is not pushing an agenda for the good of the people, its all about power and control. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must be taken seriously and should be read and viewed as it was intended by our Founders or it means nothing and your Freedom means nothing. Millions died to secure and uphold this document, it will always be relevant as long as Government and people with intent to harm you exist. I have separated the segments of information by margins of spacing, feel free to use it, bookmark it, copy it, fact check it at your will.

Recent Issues and Concerning Legislation:
Gun Confiscation Orders (Red Flag Laws) and Full Gun Registry (Universal Background Checks) which Trump has openly supported have recently been proposed. Trump told Feinstein that "He will get the votes and get it passed" when discussing what would go into her Assault Weapons Ban during the same hearing he said "Take the Guns First, then Due Process". His newly appointed AG has stated his Top Priority is Gun Confiscation, he also supported the Brady Bill and Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban. Trump has said multiple times that "the Second Amendment is Safe". Trump ran on "The War on the Second Amendment is Over" all 2017 and it seems he has gone back on that word with legislation that is so loosely worded that it may be the key that opens the door to destroy the Second Amendment in the coming years. Another pick of Trumps to our system is Justice Kavanaugh, who supports the Patriot Act which he said was "Constitutional" which criminalizes "Patriots" and gives Government more power to spy on its citizens.

I do not like how "Patriot" is being used to describe a Trump/"Q" Supporter, you're not a Patriot because you support Trump or the Government. A Patriot is someone who stands up for the Constitution, Civil Rights, and their Land. That Patriot Act is Unconstitutional on multiple grounds as it Violates more than just the 4th Amendment but it's main purpose is to destroy any sense of privacy/anonymity of the Citizens. The Patriot Act was recently Replaced by the "Freedom Act" and just like the "Patriot Act" the name sounds great but the legislation itself goes a completely different direction - It only reforms a section of the Patriot Act.
Sections of Focus for the Patriot Act, I can't see how skirting the Constitution is Constitutional but the NFA of 1934, GCA of 1986, Hughes Amendment of 1968, and the Bumpstock Ban of 2018 is also considered Constitutional in these people's eyes.

Trump just passed the Bumpstock Ban that allows the ATF to redefine "Fire rate" which will allow any semi-automatic to be considered a "Machine gun". Every Semi-Auto is now on the plate for banning in the near future as the ATF now has been given the power to re-class any of them as "Machine Guns", if your firearm is semi-auto and is made after May 1986' then it has the possibility of being banned. This bill also gave way to the arbitrary banning of parts, accessories, and attachments for any reason. So expect that when a Democrat as power of a Town, City, State, or the Country - all your Semi-Auto's are now sitting on the chopping Block thanks to this legislation riding through...that was Backed both by the NRA and Trump.
       This ban sets precedent that a ban can be placed on a object arbitrarily by a single branch of Government (Executive in this case) using the ATF to loosely define and outline the reason for the ban. This is unconstitutional and shouldnt stand...but if it does this will lead to a world of hurt in multiple ways from taxes, imports, business, motor vehicles and more...dont be blinded by Trump, pretend it was Hillary instead and Hillary did this, there would be real public outrage. Trump pushed this through, with support from the NRA who actually proposed this ban. They both have also approved of Red Flag Laws that destroy Due Process and criminalize those who havent even been convicted of crime....no proof is required for a citizen to loose their firearm rights and needs to plead to a special court to get them back after they are lost....please...look into it.

"I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope!"
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 22, 2018

"Even if [the plaintiff] were entitled to Second Amendment protection, his challenge would be baseless: [8 U.S.C] section 922(g) furthers the government's compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals who are likely to use the irresponsibly. Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that those previously convicted of drunk driving are significantly more likely to abuse alcohol and commit acts of violence. And these drunk drivers are significantly more likely than individuals without alcohol-related convictions to be arrested for crimes involving violence and/or misuse of firearms."
- Trump Administration Brief to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (PA, NJ, DE, VI)
      So if you have ever gotten a DUI then you may not have your "entitled" Constitutional Rights anymore if the bill he is putting together goes through...or he decides to force it through with executive order once again...People make horrible choices at young ages, I, myself have a DUI from when I was young and stupid and I thank god for it as that DUI saved my life - I havent had a drink since then and I've cleaned up my life. Without that DUI I would have continued to drink and abuse drugs and I most likely would have died by now. Now because I have that DUI, it means I will loose my Second Amendment Rights even though I have cleaned up and started over....this is a slippery slope guys, what's next after this? No fly lists? Trespassing charges? How far do you think this could go if this passes??


The Bumpstock Ban is unconstitutional in two ways:
First, by requiring an uncompensated surrender of the devices (which were legal when purchased), the regulation violates either the Takings Clause or the Due Process Clause—or both. The government can’t just take your lawfully-owned stuff.
     Second, and more importantly, it violates separation of powers. An agency like the ATF can interpret statutes which it is assigned to administer, but cannot contradict the text of those statutes—to do so would be to amend the law, which only Congress may do.
     The term “machine gun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

—26 U.S.C. 5845(b)
But that’s not how a bump stock works. A semiautomatic is mechanically incapable of firing more than once per trigger pull.
A bump stock uses a passive mechanism to cause the recoil of the gun to bounce the trigger against the shooter’s finger, causing him to pull the trigger much faster, and therefore shoot at a rate equivalent to [the low end of] fully automatic fire.

There is a loaded history of criminal individuals doing harm to others and the citizenry (who've done no wrong) loosing their rights because of it, with this ban in place expect a few certain weapons like the AR15 to go first, then others like the AK47, then there will be handfuls of types at once...along with aftermarket triggers, hand grips, stocks, pistol braces and more. ITs not "reaching" in any way and its illogical to expect otherwise.
Examples:
1934 NFA (huge gun control package in response to a shooting that had specific people targeted)
1968 GCA (huge gun control package in response to a few high profile shootings that targeted specific individuals)
1986 FOPA/Hughes amendment (ban on new full auto)
1994 AWB (huge gun control package in response to a few shooting sprees, and Bill Ruger offered an alternative solution, but the anti-gunners just said "oh, good idea, we'll include that, too")
2018 Bumpstock Ban (Response to Las Vegas Shooting)
Didn't just happen once, expect more until all is gone...especially if one branch of Government is all thats needed now and not congress.

READ THE LEGISLATION YOURSELF....
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5635249/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.pdf
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/lawsuit-challenging-trump-bump-stock-ban
https://www.gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/trumps-bump-stocks-ban-bigger-danger-2a/#axzz5aZkISPEC
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/trump-bump-stock-ban-now-what/#axzz5aZkISPEC
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/new-bipartisan-bump-stock-bill-would-actually-ban-all-semi-automatic-weapons

National Red Flag Laws (Gun Confiscation/Destruction of Due Process) and Universal Background Checks (Full Gun Restoration + Owner Databases)....both Unconstitutional.
The Red Flag Laws being passed state to state destroy Due Process and they dont even need evidence or proof to roll out a call to confiscate firearms, anyone in your "family" (soon will be extended to co-workers) and take your civil rights in the middle of the night now - which has resulted in deaths already. Those who are victims of these Red Flag Calls loose their rights and need to fight in a special court to get them back, which may take years and the costs are staggering ($10,000+).

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 will essentially leave everyone with Pump Shotguns, Muzzle Loaders and Revolvers, Bolt Action Rifles but cannot hold more than 10 rounds, cant have detachable magazines or threaded barrels or pistol grips. It also bans pistols that are over 50 ounces and pistol braces for the injured/physically disabled. Background checks for everything, no private sales or homemade firearms.

The Second Amendment protects the First and with more and more infringements that target the average gun owner and not criminals it only points out that the Government is out for control over its population and not its best interest. Criminals dont spend thousands of dollars on new firearms, they dont buy high end 3d printers or cnc machines to machine/print out AR lowers, they dont spend hours and hundreds of dollars building their own guns, they dont spend $400 on bumpstocks and binary triggers.
I am concerned that Trump will use the Second Amendment to barter for the Wall Funding, considering what he's done so far I wouldn't put it past him.

AG William Barr Gun Confiscation Information:
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/ag-nominee-william-barr-on-second-amendment-during-confirmation-hearings/#axzz5dccjhiVx

HR1263: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.
Which will turn ANY SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE that accepts a detachable magazine into an NFA item. $200 tax stamp 6-month wait ect....
I repeat ANY SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE that accepts a detachable magazine!
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1263/all-actions?s=1&r=33&overview=closed

HR 282: Federal Gun Ban Omnibus Bill
HR 282 covers the whole gamut of “problems” anti-gunners have with the Second Amendment. HR 282 would seek to prevent the sale or possession of most semi-automatic firearms and outright bans All AK and AR “types”, require disclosing lost or stolen firearms, mandatory gun show background checks, and the restriction or outright banning of firearms parts and accessories. HR 282 will bring about a Second Amendment crisis if allowed to pass.

HR 1297: Classifying AR Pistols/Others as NFA Firearm
 The Law Enforcement Protection Act, would add armor-piercing, concealable weapons as a category under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Presumably, Rep. Demings is targeting AR/AK pistols and other guns like the FN Five-seveN that fire “high-powered” rounds. Demings states that “If the handguns addressed by LEPA were designed to be fired from the shoulder, they would be considered a short-barreled rifle, subjecting them to NFA regulation. They fire the same rifle rounds, but because they are designed to be fired from the hand, they escape NFA regulation.”

S 184: Funding for Biased Gun Violence Research by the CDC
S 184 would appropriate $250,000,000 over the course of 5 years in order for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence prevention. S 184 is creates a perfect storm for the CDC to find confirmation that guns are the problem and give a solution of gun confiscation.

HR 820: Closes the “Gun Show Loophole”
HR 820 would prohibit all private firearms transfers at gun shows. By calling this a loophole, Rep. Maloney is implying that somehow law-abiding gun owners are getting “around the law.” In reality, they are following the law. And one more law isn’t going to do anything except to further trample the rights of all Americans.

HR 1266: Considers Firearms Parts to Count as Firearms
HR 1266 would treat any part that can be assembled into a firearm or can turn any device into a firearm as a firearm under the law. Labeled the “Ghost Guns are Real Guns” bill, HR 1266 is Rep. Espaillat’s feeble attempt to “do something”. What HR 1266 will really do is cause lawful gun owners more pain when it comes to transporting parts, manufacturing their own firearms, and storing firearm parts.

HR 1279: Promotion of Gun Buyback Programs
HR 1279 would set aside funding for State, local, or private gun buyback programs. This bill uses taxpayer dollars in order to bribe gun owners to give up their 2A rights.

HR 167: Mandatory Licences for Dealer Transfers at Gun Show
HR 167 would mandate that all firearms transactions at a gun show be processed through a licensed firearms dealer and failure to do so would result in a minimum $10,000 and/or 1-2 years in prison. This bill would also empower the government to track every firearm you buy or sell and punish otherwise responsible gun owners.

HR 1112: Extended Time Limits on FBI Background Checks
Under current Federal guidelines, FFLs can transfer a gun immediately after receiving a “proceed” authorization through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. In cases where the FBI gives a “delay,” it is up to the dealer whether to go through with the transfer after three business days. HR 1112 would remove that discretion and instead impose a delay of potentially 20 business days before the transaction could go through. There is no reason that the Second Amendment should be held up at the whim of a bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

HR 1186: “High Capacity” Magazine Ban
Limiting your magazine capacity to a completely arbitrary amount of 10 rounds, Rep. Deutch & Sen. Menendez are cutting you at the achilles in your ability to be prepared for any and all threats you as a law-abiding gun owner may face. The "Keep Americans Safe Act" will do is leave lawful people who only wish to protect themselves the best they can from being able to do so.

H.R. 8: Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019
You will no longer be able to privately transfer a firearm, Without a background check. This includes passing firearms to relatives in a will, among many other unconstitutional things.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text

H.R.1112 - Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019
NICS background checks could be extended past 30 days with the delays that are written in
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1112?s=1&r=203

2019 Assault Weapons Ban
https://www.range365.com/feinstein-introduces-2019-assault-weapons-ban
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=EFC76859-879D-4038-97DD-C577212ED17B
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_An86bSe0I&t=25s

H.R. 7115 - 3D Firearms Prohibitions Act
Congress to Define ALMOST ALL Semi-Autos as ASSAULT WEAPONS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H65Ohaoi4

HR 6747 - National Red Flag Laws
https://freedomoutpost.com/national-red-flag-gun-laws-are-coming/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfFG1D8V2Pc

H.R. 1217 - Universal Background Checks
This thing is labeled like the Patriot Act and Bumpstock Ban was, giving it a nice name so people are for it without reading into what it actually does...Its called the "Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act".
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150314/anti-gun-universal-background-check-bill-reintroduced

H.R. 5717 -  To authorize the Attorney General to make grants to States that have in place laws that authorize the seizure of firearms from dangerous individuals, and for other purposes. (What are ‘other purposes’ Martial Law?) SEC. 5.
There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this Act for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2021.
SEC. 4. Requirements for firearm seizure law. (2) SEIZURE OF A FIREARM WITHOUT A WARRANT.—  A law enforcement officer may seize a firearm from an individual who the law enforcement officer determines there is probable cause to believe is dangerous without obtaining a warrant under paragraph…- (Do you trust the Police to determine YOUR state of mind given how they fabricated shit all the time.)

Legislating Away Our 2nd Amendment Nationwide: https://youtu.be/6br4yL0_8K8

Republican Majority Want Your Guns, How We Are Set Up To Victims Of Crime, & Million Defy NJ Gun Law - https://youtu.be/y18CXVsE_3M

Bill Requires Social Media Passwords To Buy Guns, Renew Permit; Parenting Via GPS Ankle Monitors - https://youtu.be/xxmFExENlZs

The U.S. Department of State granted $133,000 to Michigan State University in support of research developing new technologies that advance arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament through the Verification Fund. (AVC): https://www.state.gov/r/pa/map/index.htm

Status of State ‘Red Flag’ Laws Red flag law enacted (13 states, quickly sweeping up the rest.) - https://www.thetrace.org/2018/03/red-flag-laws-pending-bills-tracker-nra/

Maryland Law Enforcement Goes to Confiscate Guns, Kills Gun Owner - Anne Arundel County police shot and killed 61-year-old Gary J. Willis while executing a firearm confiscation order under Maryland’s ‘red flag’ law. - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/11/maryland-law-enforcement-goes-to-confiscate-guns-kills-gun-owner/
After Parkland shooting, numbers of children hospitalized for mental health care jumped - The day after the (staged false flag) Parkland shooting, there were at least 177 ‘Baker Acts’ of children statewide. On Feb. 20, some 188. The 195 seen on Feb. 27 appears to be the peak, the university's numbers show. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-florida-school-shooting-baker-act-law-20180427-story.html?




My Arguments against these Unconstitutional Unjust Bills that only serve to remove power from the Citizens and give it all to the Government:
I find it insane that people push for gun control and say regulations and restrictions are lawful or even helpful. The Revolution was sparked off over gun control....2A was meant to be absolute, the people as armed as the state, and a "hands off" description to Government Officials....but they dont interpret it that way...our officials need to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and look into what the Founders thought and practiced. The supreme court should do the people a favor and do some research before signing anything that infringes a right of their citizenry. Government infringing on the only insurance policy the people have against Government is a Conflict of Interest...there shouldnt be any regulations as intended. The only people those regulations effect are the average citizen who has done nothing wrong, criminals dont follow the law and thats why after 130 years of increasing gun control and legislation/regulation/restrictions/taxing there has been no dramatic positive change. There is not a crime that you can commit with a firearm that is not a crime without the firearm, just about every gun law is unnecessary, if they want to punish criminals then penalties are whats called for....which would not effect those that obey the law.

What happened to America? Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable to punish good people for the deeds of bad people whenever firearms are involved but not elsewhere? Could you imagine the outrage if you told folks they could no longer purchase pain medication because SOME people abuse them and die from overdoses. Oh and the hordes of people would lament and demand their meds and they would be told "surely you can do without those drugs because even if it saves just one life, it's worth it". Oh the people would be outraged and it's not even a Constitutional RIGHT to take prescription drugs.
I mean, that's just one random example but you get the point. Why are good, law abiding citizens of the United States of America having their God given rights stripped away based on the actions of a handful of evil people? It makes no sense whatsoever, yet they call it "common sense" go figure.

Shootings are no where near the amount that the media claims there are and it has manipulated people across the globe into thinking that America has a high number of shootings - For example Ill go on about school shooting stastics. What they dont tell you is they include any firearm discharge within a quarter mile of a school, or within 2 blocks of a school bus. Also included are suicides, negligent discharges, domestic homicides, bar conflicts, and other ridiculous "tallied" incidents involving students off school ground. Its incredibly unfortunate that this is how it is today and I wish people were more informed. Data, Statistic, and studies can all be falsified and thanks to Obama repealing the Smith-Mundt Act (Propaganda is now legal) they can outright lie to you without consequence....

"If a guy lives next to a school and kills six people residing in his home" it would be called a "School Shooting", there are many examples just like this in bars a few blocks away from school being tallied into "school shootings", there are also examples like a teen murdering his family on visit day in his dorm being called a school shooting when it was actually a domestic homicide. A kid fired a cap gun on the school bus and it was added to the school shootings for the Newtown study....examples go on and on.

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/01/27/media-gun-control-advocates-misrepresent-facts-school-shootings/

Reporting issues:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/02/26/broward-county-likely-inspiration-for-obama-school-discipline-policy-to-report-fewer-arrests-suspensions/
https://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/colorado-schools-not-reporting-violence-to-state/
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/apr15/042915.htm

Have you actually investigated the way these surveys are done and the way the information is collected? Mass Killings used to be counted with deaths that tally over (6) but now the media reports them as "Mass Killings" if their are 3 dead, meaning that robberies and gang attacks now fall into them, these are just small examples of how these surveys are manipulated and out of touch with reality. The incredible tallies of "Mass Shootings" disintegrate to almost nothing when you look for REAL Mass Shootings...The media inflates numbers to make it seem there is a dramatic issue when there are bigger things to be concerned about.

The "promoted" studies on firearms and homicide surveys worldwide are manipulated and easily discredited with very little research.....Have you actually investigated the way these surveys are done and the way the information is collected? Have you ever wondered if they actually investigated each and every claim so that the survey is realistic and not just embellishment or an exaggeration to trend with an agenda? Many of the "School Shootings" and other "Mass Shootings" arent even "Mass Shootings", a school shooting is any firearm discharge within a quarter mile of a school or a school bus, even if there are no deaths or injured. Mass Killings used to be counted with deaths that tally over (6) but now the media reports them as "Mass Killings" if their are 3 dead, meaning that robberies and gang attacks now fall into them, these are just small examples of how these surveys are manipulated and out of touch with reality. The incredible tallies of "Mass Shootings" disintegrate to almost nothing when you look for REAL Mass Shootings...

They start off with countries with largely different population sizes. The google charts, and other studies do the ratio by a certain amount of people, though the area and type of people within the area matter just as much. These along with others are small variables that matter greatly when conducting a survey like this and its pretty easy to manipulate them to fit your needs, especially when your needs are also parroted by corporations that control other news/media organizations that all work together to push the same narrative. They dont point out that those surveys are not to up to date (about 4-6 years old info) and that the USA has had a steady decline of murders/deaths overall (including firearms) while the countries they point towards with positivity have had a significant increase in every negative aspect year after year.

Whats funny is the media and news have skyrocketed purchases and owners of firearms in the USA but the decline in violent crime and murder is still there. London just surpassed the Homicide rate of one of our worst cities (NYC) and that's with strict firearm laws. https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/28652-londons-rising-murder-rate-raises-questions-about-gun-control

You may think that the US is a terrible place to live due to reporting of the media but we aren't being injected with thousands of immigrants per month that are destroying the property/business we have, raping our women and children, setting fires far and wide...while also throwing acid into citizens faces. There are now large areas in each of those Countries(Countries that accepted the Immigration Pact by the UN) where your not allowed to go into (No Go Zones) and will most likely be assaulted, raped, and/or killed if you do, your offenders will not be penalized for it. Citizens who are raped or assaulted are learning that they (the real victims) will ultimately become the ones with penalties/fines if they speak out and demand justice for the assaults, as the native citizens are treated as sub-human. Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe. Germans are now leaving Germany in droves. 1 million Germans have fled since the savages began entering Germany. As the invaders continue to kick in doors and chase the families out of their own homes, more and more Germans will leave. France is in the same situation as are all of the European countries who have taken in millions of illegal savages. Welfare alone is going to destroy all of these nations that are allowing this to happen, not to mention Healthcare or that the immigrants are not assimilating and living there own culture and laws in their new place of residence. Check out "The Iconoclast" Channel on Youtube.

Guns are not the issue and it's stunning if you believe they are. Guns are an object and have no control over the person wielding them, they are nothing more than a tool. The numbers being pushed around by the media are manipulated to get you to believe they are more often than they actually are and more dangerous.

In the USA where 400 MILLION Firearms are in the Hands of 100 Million Gun Owners (1/3 of the US Population) you would think that there would be more than 12,650 of Death by firearms per year, especially when most household and daily use objects kill many more times the amount of people per year. Most of that 12,650 Deaths are from Gang on Gang Violence, Police Kills, and Accidental Deaths, less than a 3rd of those deaths are from Legal gun owners using them against others and there isn't a single Law that could be imagined that would actually change it for the better but the legislation proposed and implemented creates defenseless victims adding to those numbers as criminals prey on those that cannot defend themselves. 100,000,000 of 400,000,000 Armed and less than a 3rd of 12,650 deaths attributed to those that obey the law - that percentage is insane when the media constantly floats "Gun Violence" (nonsensical term) so often. Hammers, Fists, Knives, Chainsaws, Toothpicks, Cosmetics (Make-Up), Food, Cars, Alcohol, Smoking all kill many more people per year than all firearms combined and Doctors are the 3rd leading cause of Death in the USA (250K) but you don't see any of the movements the firearms industry sees to ban them or regulate/restrict them.

Do you fear that you will perish getting a physical by your doctor? An intense rage and emotional outburst in terror if you have to get a checkup? Most likely not as there aren't any media to strike fear into your heart that doctors kill more people than almost anything else around you. Now imagine if the news/media reported every death by a doctors hand every day all year long for 2+ decades. People would have that type of fear in their spines for doctors, this has been done to firearms and firearm owners since the mid 70's and for what ever reason the average gun owner receives the blame for any one person's criminal actions.

What is also crazy is that people think police should have firearms and not gun owners, they fear gun owners but studies have shown that firearm permit holders are 30% more law-abiding than the police. Guns save 250K-3 Million people per year in defensive use against violent crimes (Rape, Muggings, Robbery), many times not even firing a shot.

Is there any other object that SAVES so many people per year? That takes such a small percentage of lives? That is as demonized as firearms? Now on to Mass Killings, these people are MURDERERS...and murder is against the law, yet they are still doing it, they use all types of methods to commit these atrocious behaviors but when its not firearms its usually not reported by the media.

There have been 38 Mass Killings with Knives alone since 2006 and the average death count is much higher than the average death count of firearm-related Mass Killings. There are many more with Bombs (Already regulated heavily and Illegal to own without permits), cars, baseball bats, and other objects but when have you seen a report within the USA about these Mass Killings? There is a agenda and a narrative, whether you believe so or not, there is no other reason for the selective reporting of information. They paint a terrible picture on the media that certain guns are worse than others, some are "military assault weapons" (false made up term). They say the AR15 is one of them but the AR15 is not military and nor does it have select fire. Its a tactical looking hunting rifle and have been used in just a handful of Mass Killings, most are committed by handguns and rifles that shoot no more than 5 rounds before reloading. The firearm isnt important, the persons intent, mental stability, and nature is, especially when every Mass Killing has a trend that can easily been seen if you look. All Mass Murderers have been medicated with Psychotropic medications, have mental instability issues. They go to areas with little resistance (Gun Free Zones) that are largely populated, why restricting the access of more people to firearms will only lead to more defenseless victims.

Do you know what would save school children? Having more good armed people inside the school. Anything else has been tried and failed. Criminals continue to break the law regardless of what laws are written. People with intent to harm others will still harm others no matter what sign is put out front or what measures are taken...California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey have the strictest Gun Control measures implemented...Chicago City is a "Gun Free" City in a heavily regulated State and they all still have the same issues after implementing those "common sense gun controls"...a continuous SPIKE in murder/crime. There isnt a single example anywhere in the world at any point in time where gun control made a dramatic positive change for the people, it has only helped criminals and government.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/publications
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/05/gun-crime-is-a-made-up-word-from-the-anti-gun-world-here-are-the-real-numbers/#axzz5rVycOBcG

Magazine Limits only effect those that obey the law, meaning criminals (murder/assault is already illegal btw) will ignore them and use them anyway no matter what laws are implemented. Magazine restrictions only reduce the chances of a law abiding citizen surviving a deadly scenario as each bullet is a chance at defeating a criminal or murder and limiting those chances is asinine. A person who isnt breaking the law should be able to have what ever they like to defend themselves, no matter how crazy it sounds to anyone else - it is their Right outlined by the Constitution. Are people really that inept where they think people that commit mass murder care what a politician decides to say or sign in to law? Do you think criminals look up what laws they need to follow up until they decide to commit a crime? What is wrong with public servants today - you are supposed to be helping and working FOR the people...not against them. There isnt a piece of legislation that will stop evil people from doing evil things and that is why we need to be armed and ready as that is the only way to ensure safety whether you agree or not. I hear alot of crazy quotes from officials like "why do you need more than 10 rounds?", have they not wondered how accurate people are under stress or fear during a attack? They will miss atleast a handful of shots and the shots the hit the attacker may not even effect them - 10 rounds may be enough for one attacker but what if there are 2? 3? What if they are on PCP/Drunk or on other drugs? You are just creating scenarios where a person is limited in surviving and their life may be saved if they could carry the standard 17 round magazine or more if they would like. You are doing more damage than good with gun laws, an average of 250,000 to 3 million people are saved every year by using their firearms for defense, many times not even firing a shot.

I think that if someone has "Paid their debt to society" ALL of their rights are to be restored to them. Withholding rights after the sentence has been served is punishment in perpetuity, and meets the definition of unusual as stated in the sixth amendment. The existence of a bureaucratic system to restore an individuals rights after the completion of a felony sentence is a tacit admission of the injustice of of the current application of the law.   Furthermore, If someone is found to be unsuitable to own a firearm because of a felony conviction, are they not unfit to remain IN society?
   Counties acting against a State, within their capacity, from reducing freedom IS the right thing to do as a part of taking the fight to the State level, it is not a "Retreat". Might does not make RIGHT, but force does make what IS! Sheriffs are elected to apply force within the confines of the law and within their County they have been elected. The US Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, and as such, the Sheriffs are duty bound to defend their counties from tyranny. Declaring that they will not enforce an unconstitutional law passed by the State is the first step toward what is obviously necessary in many, if not all, US States.
"Shall not be infringed" is not only a limitation of the authority of the state, it is a call to action by those that have been elected to be the administrators of force on behalf of the population.

Recap:
There are approximately 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. We are the majority of voting adults.
53% of all shootings are by black men under 30. So, 3% of the US population does more than ½ the killing. 83% of all shootings are gang and drug-related.
Only about 7% of all shootings from a rifle or shotgun and less than 40% of that 7% involve Modern Sporting Rifles.
The U.S. ranks 11th in mass shootings for industrialized nations. 50% of the counties in the US will not have a murder within their boundary. 2% of the counties had 53% of all the murders in the U.S.
Both Japan and Korea have much higher suicide rates than the US. Both nations virtually ban private gun ownership. 75% of all gun deaths are attributed to suicide. Guns are not the cause, just the means.
An Obama administration study showed guns are used over 500,000 time a year to save a life or prevent crime or assault.
We don’t have a gun problem we have a declining moral problem. There’s a direct correlation between the perceived general opinion of morality of this country from 40 years ago and the lack of mass shooting and today’s perceived general opinion of moral standings today and the increase of shoots.




Gun Rights Groups?
The problem with Gun Rights Groups like the NRA "that support 2A, BUT"...They want Gun Control and pretend to fight against it, they fight for it secretly and say its for "common sense" and other fallacies. It is not in their best interest to fight for gun rights, if 2A was absolute as it was intended to be they would loose their base and funding.
Please do not support the NRA and instead support GOA and JoinFPC.org who actually care about your Rights and the Constitution and fight tooth and nail for your liberties.

The NRA is the reason that the Bumpstock Legislation came to be, they proposed it and got officials to support it just like the Unconstitutional NICs System they openly gloat about. They have given in so much of our Firearm Freedoms speaking for us that its asinine at this point in time that anyone who wants firearms give them any support.

The NRA also helped write up the NFA of 1934, they gave full support of the 1968 GCA and 1986 FOPA/Hughes Amendment - they told their supporters they would fight the Hughes Amendment tooth and nail to repeal it, after it passed they went dead silent.

The NRA were against Open Carry Texas, calling it a distasteful and dangerous Movement...when Open Carry Texas won their Lawsuit the NRA took credit for the win. Please, if you do support the NRA - remove your funding and put it to a organization that actually cares for your rights and the Constitution.

They have supported and endorsed the majority of the legislation in the past decade (almost 300 Bills [State and Federal], all while claiming to be a gun rights organization. There has been more Gun Legislation passed under Republicans (Including Trump) than any Democrat...this I find very troubling. When Trump took office he told us that "The War on Gun Rights is Over" yet he has signed more legislation to destroy those rights than Obama who was labeled a 2A destroyer....Trump will not be getting a vote from me in 2020 unless he repeals the NFA or Hughes Amendment because that would be the only things that would save him at this point (for me anyway). Gun Rights are a good way to judge on how Civil Rights and Freedom will lay out when Politicians are in office, this isnt a good sign for the future with the way things are going so far...

Wayne LaPierre's wife, Susan LaPierre, served as president of Youth for Tomorrow between 2013 and 2017, NRA made contributions to Youth for Tomorrow (Reported and Unreported)

NRA contributions were at the highest "Diamond Sponsor" level. These contributions were from NRA Foundation (see page 12 of the following link)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6044484-Youth-for-Tomorrow-Fliers.html

Youth for Tomorrow is one of the organizations housing unaccompanied illegal immigrant children
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/04/2016-26673/announcement-of-the-award-of-nine-single-source-program-expansion-supplement-grants-under-the

https://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/warner-kaine-announce-more-than-176-million-in-funding-for-virginia-health-services-and-early-childhood-education

Youth For Tomorrow - New Life Center in Bristow will receive $2,985,400 for unaccompanied migrant children services;
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5009010-ORR-Shelter-Contract-Youth-for-Tomorrow.html
https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-sherman-statement-following-visit-to-immigrant-child

Internal Leaked NRA Documents:
ftp://67.190.79.35/sda1/nra2019documents1-clean

America's largest gun control organization
Archived from Citizen Review On Line
NOTE: — Be sure to read other articles on NRA "Lapses in Principle"
By Vin Suprynowicz

On Jan. 16, 1968, in an address to the New York State University law school in Buffalo, Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., stated: "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth took great umbrage at this remark in the October 1968 issue of the NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, terming Sen. Kennedy’s accusation "a great smear of a great American organization." Mr. Orth then went on to point out, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
Really? But the NRA has always been portrayed in the mainstream press as a radical anti-gun-control organization. Is it? Has it ever been?

In that 1968 issue of The American Rifleman, associate editor Alan C. Webber picked up the defense of the NRA’s gun-control credentials. I quote again from the NRA’s own, official organ:
"Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame the Uniform Firearms Act of 1930. ... Salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to the local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery."
     Remember, I’m not asking whether you think these are good ideas. I’m asking whether the NRA is the pack of wild-eyed, take-no-prisoners, "pure language of the Second Amendment, take my gun from my cold dead fingers" radical extremists which the national press corps would have us believe. In fact, can the NRA rightly be said to be a "gun rights" organization, at all?

"Item," Editor Webber of The American Rifleman continued back in 1968: "The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ...

"NRA currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. ... "
Nor is there much room to believe the NRA has changed its stripes in the past 23 years.
In Utah this year, Utah Gun Owners Alliance lobbyist and M.D. Sarah Thompson had worked to get through "a good bill that would have honored concealed-carry permits from any other state without restriction," notes Dennis Fusaro, who himself was let go from GOA in March for not being cooperative enough with the gun-grabbers at the NRA.
In the final days of the session, however, NRA lobbyist Brian Judy arrived in Salt Lake City and made a deal to accept an amendment that the out-of-state permits would only be honored for 60 days.

"Sarah had the senators pretty well under control and was pushing them with grass-roots pressure, and then Brian Judy goes in the back room and accepts this bad amendment," Fusaro reports.
Says Thompson: "Read their magazine. The NRA helped write the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. ... Here in Utah they backed our Olympic gun ban" (restricting the right of Utah citizens to carry permitted weapons at Olympic venues while the winter Olympics are in town, so as not to offend the hoplophobic foreigners).

"In the 2000 (Utah) Legislature the NRA backed a midnight gun control bill that vastly expanded the list of people prohibited from owning guns in the state, a retroactive ban on people who were adjudicated years ago. As a result of this I get calls from people who have been hunters for years who now have to go through a background check, who did something wrong as a juvenile 30 or 40 years ago, and they’ve lost their gun rights."

The test case for whether GOA or the NRA remains a true "gun-rights organization" will be "what’s going on with (President) Bush’s proposal for Project Safe Neighborhoods," Thompson warns.
Project Safe Neighborhoods is designed to prove the Bush administration is not against "sensible" gun control, she explains, "and the tagline on it is, ‘If you use a gun illegally you will do hard time.’

"But you don’t have prosecutors saying ‘We're not going to prosecute rapists because they're really good people.’ That’s not the problem. Those laws are already enforced. So the people they’re really going after are people who are violating one of the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws, people who put a flash suppressor on their rifle, or have a high capacity magazine on their firearm, or who drive by the school with a hunting rifle in the back of their truck; it’s all the unconstitutional, politically correct gun control laws they’re going to be enforcing."





The Second Amendment broken down in plain English using the definitions of the terms during the time it was written:
Before we get to that, everyone should check out this video done by Political Juice "The History of The Second Amendment. It gives a similar breakdown and sheds a bit more context and information in a animated and fun way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhBwHiLcTG8

First, a breakdown of "Natural Laws, Inalienable Laws, God Given Rights":
Natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away. It has nothing to do with religion...

"Conservatives take a different view, one that is rooted in the nation’s foundational philosophy. The American premise is a theological premise: that all mean are endowed by their Creator — not the state — with certain unalienable rights. For our Founding Fathers, who were steeped in the Anglo-Protestant liberal tradition, this was not only the truth but the “self-evident” truth. The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to speak one’s mind, worship as one sees fit, and petition the state for redress of grievances, is not the king’s gift to give or to withhold — the matter was settled by no less an authority than God Himself. For those who are not of a religious cast of mind, the same conclusion can be arrived at through the tradition of natural law and natural rights, which the Christian liberals of the 18th century understood as complementary to their discernment of Divine intent. Whether one believes that man was created by God or by evolutionary processes, the conclusion ends up being the same: Man has reason, individual and corporate dignity, individual and corporate value, and these are not subject to revision by any prince, power, or potentate.

Put another way: The right to keep and bear arms would still be there without the Second Amendment. Like the right not to suffer political or religious repression, it exists with or without the law. It is an aspect of the human being, not an aspect of the governments that human beings institute among themselves. The state does not grant the right — the state exists because the right exists and needs protecting from time to time. The state protects our rights from criminals and marauders, and the Constitution protects our rights from their protectors." — Kevin Williamson

“The Laws of Nature are the Laws of God, Whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to Him from whose punishment they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict His laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey.” — George Mason

[The Second Amendment]:
*"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."*

_*A well regulated Militia*_
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

There area dozen or so examples that are found showing that "Well Regulated" does not mean that Government has control of it.
The following examples of "Well Regulated" are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;" - Richard Henry Lee 1788

A Regulated Militia was anyone 18-40 that was capable with firearms.
Im Well Armed, Well Versed in Firearms, and I am one of the People (US Citizen)...therefore I am part of a Well Regulated Militia.

*_being necessary to the security of a free State*_
It says exactly what it was intended for, not for the defense of your home but the security of freedom within the "state" meaning Country. This encompasses the entire Country, not just a home or individual....

_*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*_
The Right of the People, meaning every man, woman, and child has an Individual Right. Meaning that even if the majority of people demand to have their Rights taken by the Government I still have my Right, I never forfeited or gave consent for them to be taken and no one speaks for me. Even if Government wrote laws to diminish the Constitution those Rights are still mine as the Government does not have a higher claim of Authority over me than I do. Keep and Bear means on person or in hand, any and all arms* that exist. Arms meaning any weapon used for offense or defense.

_*shall not be infringed.*_
I shouldn't have to break this down but meaning zero restriction. No regulations, no restrictions, no taxes, that all bearable firearms/accessories/parts/ammunitions/destructive devices and all other weapons are to be free to own by the citizenry. No Government or Union/Group shall interfere on this Amendment in any form or manner, for the citizens will carry arms to keep the security of the free state, against all threats foreign or domestic.

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]
     "Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!"

The Tyrants should all be hung for intentional deception of the people to get these disgusting people into power to force their own personal agendas onto the people...when its clear the people dont want it. This is disgusting behavior. When you try to become a Public Servant, you are supposed to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ELECT YOU and obey the Constitution, all officials should be Constitutionalists through and through- it should be a requirement.There should also be a protocol that evaluates and then removes them from their seat if they confess or show evidence they are against the Constitution or using their seat to implement their own agendas.

This is dangerous and treasonous, if the Supreme Courts "interpretations" will lead to change in how the Constitution is interpreted, while the interpretation is ever evolving, then the Constitution means nothing as the interpretations could say one thing and they can "interpret" whats written as something else and go from there. This is how the ATF has been criminalizing law abiding citizens since their conception and we've seen how dangerous that becomes (See: WACO and Ruby Ridge)

What the Founding Fathers practiced and what they wrote should be weighed and valued, not how people "interpret" it today as the new age views seem to be radically different than what the Founding Fathers practiced themselves, easily seen in the firearms sector for an example of what Im talking about.

The Constitution and our Founding Fathers wanted us to be AS armed as the State, that we should have any bearable arms we could want, as a deterrent to tyranny. Civilians owned Warships fitted with explosive and multiple cannons, the Fathers contracted to build the first automatic rifle but couldn't afford it and they were doing it for the people. There were a slew of "advanced" firearms during the time: Puckle gun, Belton Flintlock, Kalthoff Repeater, Chinese rocket arrows, Hand cannons, Chinese lever crossbow, Duckfoot pistol, German wheel-lock rifles, Rampart guns, Volley guns, Death battery, German axe pistols. They had rifles that carried a handful of rounds also like the Girandoni Rifle that held 22-25 shots. (Mag limit argument). To suggest that civilians couldn't own any and all arms today and that the Constitution didn't cover them is preposterous, do you believe that they didn't envision that technology wouldn't advance? If you don't agree with these claims then Free Speech is also limited to goose-quill pen and an iron gall or carbon-based ink if that argument is consistent.

*US constitution*
_Article IV Section II_
 "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states"

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

“You will never know how much it cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it” - John Adams

"The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late"

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves"

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry"

"Free men do not ask permission to bear arms." - J.S. McCrea

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."  Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs Arizona, 384, US 436 p. 491.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety..." - Benjamin Franklin

"Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse."
--Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Thomas Jefferson

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. We...solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are and of a right ought to be free and independent states...and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour. "“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law.

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. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance. - Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 28)




Just a Thought...
Id actually like to vote to bring the government back from 150 years ago (we can keep the "progress" of civil rights). I dont like any politician or public servant running, there isnt a single constitutionalist or person that actually cares for the Constitution. They all seem power hungry, dismissing those checks and balances, and infringing or taxing where ever they can. Trump is definitely better than anyone else running but thats pretty blight when you put him up against the Founders or presidents shortly after. No one seems to care about Liberty, Freedom, or our communities anymore. Trump cares about business and the economy but he's been trying to appease the Dem's alot lately and it worries me. They wont vote for him, they hate him, and we get no where.

What we need is organized marches and the forceful removal of Oath Breakers, remind them that they serve us and not themselves or their own. Without that lingering fear of the citizens, this is where we end up- total tyrants in office (Im not talking about Trump). We need to remove every politician (especially Dual Citizenship Officials) that does not align with the Constitution, the way it was meant to be read using the terms and definitions of the period it was written....not the "interpretations" they believe we should see it as...it's as clear as glass on what it stands for and what it outlines. All of the politicians on the news today are against the Constitution and have broken their Oath in one aspect or another and they should be unseated for it. Those like Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer, and the other Anti-Gun/Anti-Freedom Politicians should be jailed for Sedition for repeatedly proposing Unjust Laws - criminalizing the Citizenry and leaving them defenseless against criminals and Government.
If the Constitution isn't "set in stone" than neither are your Rights and if its not taken seriously than we are all in trouble...like the trouble we see constantly today and it will not be very long until the majority of people grow tired of it and say "enough is enough" and take up arms. This is why they are trying to restrict, regulate, and tax the crap out of anything that gives the population any chance against the increasingly Authoritarian/Tyrannical Government today.

What I am advocate for is severely limiting and reducing the size of Government, reigning back its power and give it back to the communities. Allowing people to use their money they earned how they like, people need help but people have been programmed by social engineering to be narcissistic and self absorbed, if this social engineering can be reverse we wouldnt need mandatory programs to help others...we would do it because it is self satisfying and brings the community together...like it used to be.

People used to get along just fine and communities would raise funds for people that needed it and then help them get jobs/solve problems, today's social systems do not fix anything - they keep those people in the same spot barely surviving while everyone is extorted of their incomes without consent.

Big Government, Corporations, Politicians and organizations dividing the people to gather votes - fracturing the thought process/critical thinking skills and trading them for tribal behaviors. People are far more immature, ignorant, and dependent because of the Government Nanny State and the Party Paradigm. Government has destroyed the Communities and the bond of neighbors. Government is nothing more than a dangerous religion today, your faith in it is so strong that you will easily disregard your responsibility as a person and give it to others - showing that you feel that people hold a higher authority over your life than you do.

How often do you have interactions with the Government? Unless your living on welfare or deal with the courts your likely not heavily involved with or have relations with Government. How do you survive without them telling you how to behave or act during the day??? You do realize that everything we have today was set in motion from individuals of anarchy right?

The rules are already administered within the Constitution and the Golden Rule. Right and wrong are self evident, natural and can easily be deciphered through cause and effect. All "wrong" things have a negative reaction, this is what classifies them as "wrong".
Theft, Assault, Murder, Extortion, Robbery and the other basic crimes are the only thing that should be held against people....there isnt much else to legislate against aside from criminalizing people that have no criminal intent.

The Constitution is closer to anarchy than what we have today, we are worse off than ever, a criminal body disguised as elite government officials creating legislation to extort and criminalize the people they are supposed to represent.

Bad (immoral) actions are bad because they're bad. What makes an immoral action negative is its negative consequence, but that consequence is an inherent part of the action within a particular set of circumstances. All Im really saying here is that actions with bad consequences have bad consequences. Morality is just a description of reality; it adds no new content. It's not another level of qualification, and it requires no external source, be it divine or cultural. The moral nature of an action is a factual description of the action itself.

Immoral action is defined by its context, which includes its consequences. If I take a cookie from you, this action may be moral or immoral depending on whether you gave your consent to my taking it. The action of cookie-taking is neutral, but when performed within a certain set of circumstances, the consequences can be quite different. The only thing that makes one such cookie-taking immoral (theft) and the other moral (graciously receiving a gift) is the negative consequence.

The negative consequence of all immoral action is the creation of an environment that inhibits the authentic expression of the being in question. In other words, immoral actions do not permit full expression of man's free-will autonomy, which is inherent to his nature. This is what defines the action as immoral. The action does not duly acknowledge the reality of the being. It is a denial of truth. It is a lie.

So immorality is simply acting out of accord with truth - of course this will have negative practical consequences (just like ignoring the heat of a hot stove, or the immutable effects of gravity). More importantly, the immoral action is itself a negative, being an action inspired by error. We do not need to understand some complex chain of causality to see this. There is no leap to make. We need not understand anything more complex than "A is A" to see that morality (acting in accord with truth) is an absolute imperative under any and all circumstances, and that immoral action can never be prudent, desirable, or necessary.

Government cannot give you anything unless it has taken it from you beforehand, it is force being used against others for the benefit of a small group, nothing more. Government isnt a good thing and it boggles my mind why anyone would want more of it, every problem we have today stems from government. We have jumped away from the Constitution and how the Government was supposed to function and turned it into a nanny state/police state and everyone is miserable because of it.

You are only responsible for yourself and your family, police have no obligation to protect you (DeShaney v. Winnebago County) and taking care of others outside of your family should only be voluntary. Government should not extort the population of their own hard earned monies to give to others, it should be a voluntary system. Government should be reduced drastically and people should govern their own actions like you do during your daily routine...no one needs Government telling them whats okay, whats not, what they can or can not have or what they can or can not do....that's what being an Adult is. I do not need a "ruler" and no one holds a higher authority over my own life than I do.

Im not against police and I believe they serve a good purpose but I think their net of responsibility should be reigned back a bit and they should only enforce laws that are purposeful, constitutional, and should hold responsibility to arrest public figures that break their oath.

 “Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html

DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT. (1989)
“the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”

"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection.

Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

Supreme Court Ruling :
1989 DeShaney v. Winnebago County

Relevant Case Laws:
CAROLYN WARREN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1981)
“The trial judges correctly dis­missed both complaints. In a care­ fully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79­6 on “the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide pub­lic services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5
Davidson v. City of Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
Westbrooks v. State, (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674
Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr.
240
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114
Cal.Rptr. 332
Bowers v. DeVito, (1982) 686 F.2d 616. (No federal constitutional
requirements that police provide protection.)
Calgorides v. Mobile, (1985) 475 So.2d 560.
Davidson v. Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rep. 252.
Stone v. State, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 924, 165 Cal.Rep. 339.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, (1983) 468 A.2d 1306.
Warren v. District of Columbia, (1983) 444 A.2d 1.
Sapp v. Tallahassee, (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert. denied 354 So.2d 985.
Keane v. Chicago, (1968) 98 ILL.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321.
Jamison v. Chicago, (1977) 48 ILL.App.3d 567.
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871.
Silver v. Minneapolis, (1969) 170 N.W.2d 206.
Wuetrich v. Delia, (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929.
Chapman v. Philadelphia, (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753.
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937.
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority,
(1982) 55 N.Y. 2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141.?

A Bunch of Oath Breakers we have as "Government" today, I can't believe this people are who we allow to Govern us. Anyone who betrays their Oath to uphold and Protect the Constitution should be unseated and imprisoned. They are supposed to represent the people that elect them into power...not force Unlawful Legislation/Personal Agendas onto the people in accordance with a background influences.
Looks like we shortly will be just like Canada, the UK, or Australia in terms of Civil Rights, once they get a grip on our Firearm Rights then the other Rights will fall as there will be nothing to prevent them from more overreach...




And lastly, the first main Unconstitutional Firearm Legislation that passed and has held with no real fight until recently, thanks to GunOwnersofAmerica:
The NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934) and the ATF arose shortly after prohibition, my guess is that alcohol prohibition caused so many seats to fill in the Treasury that when prohibition was overturned they needed a reason to keep all their new "members" around. Thus Firearms became a BoogeyMan to go after and regulate/tax. Many people think gang members (like Bonnie and Clyde) were the cause of the NFA, people dont seem to know about the Coal Miner Wars which caught Roosevelt's attention, the NFA came shortly afterwards to ensure that no civilian group could ever overpower the Government again (PLEASE LOOK INTO IT). The NFA creates the labels and descriptors for firearm types, many confusing, redundant and contradictive. It exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, even without the Second Amendment its still Unconstitutional. The NFA made guidelines of what was "okay to have" and what needed to be taxed/registered, anything out of the ordinary was gone afterwards - thanks to the NRA for helping to write it up and getting it passed. Originally the NFA also included pistols. It created a Registry for the State that any of these "extreme firearms" would need to be Taxed and a State and Federal Collection was needed to be kept (this part is extremely unconstitutional).

A $200 transfer tax in 1934 is the equivalent of a $2,854 tax today, on top of fingerprinting and permission from the local head of law enforcement PER NFA Item.
The Constitution outlines that Taxes are Voluntary and cannot be used to undermine law, liberty, or Citizens Rights - The Registration System of Firearms is also Unlawful. If you are required to pay a tax and get a receipt that is, in effect, a license. They can simply refuse to take your money and issue you a receipt -- therefore, no license, and you are prohibited from owning them and they have done just that in other areas (New Jersey comes to mind). It is worth noting that 2A says "shall not be infringed". It does not say "shall not be prohibited", a Tax can be an infringement. Imagine if the tax wasn't $200 but it was $10,000 - that would make owning a Firearm listed by unobtainable for the masses.

States Rights are more powerful than Federal statues and Feds are not to argue or intervene with State statutes...which is why I dont understand the whole "plant" debacle but I think that wont be a problem in the coming few years, whether thats good or bad is another discussion but the point is overreach. This is why its very important that you keep an ear and eye out for local meetings/hearings for Firearm related legislation, your voice IS IMPORTANT and it can be the only factor in changing a large group minds if they are considering passing legislation. Apathy has been the biggest problem for Firearm Owners, we dont like bothering other people, we just want to be left alone but we need to start making noise and sharing information, its the only way to turn things around.
We need to Repeal the NFA 1934, GCA 1968, Hughes Amendment of 1986 and the 922(o). None of these have benefit anyone but the IRS/Government/Criminals/Gangs as mentioned earlier.

The ATF is responsible for the Biggest Mass Shooting, Church Shooting, School Shooting in History....WACO.
They've had countless scandals and abuses of power from "Gunwalking" to "Fast and Furious" to intimidating businesses, keeping ownership records illegally, money issues and more...The Agency itself is Unconstitutional as it exceeds Congress's Authority under the Commerce clause, even without the Second Amendment its still Unconstitutional




This section discusses the issues with the average American - as well as politician's perspective of laws and my opinion to push for mass non-compliance for Unconstitutional Statues.

Alot of people seem to have a "new age American" view on whats okay and what isnt. The courts dont have to rule something to be unconstitutional - how does that work when blatant violations are considered constitutional by courts today? Its called Sedition, Conspiracy, and Tyranny and we the citizenry can revolt against it just as our Founders did.

I have repeatedly asked large youtubers to rally their subscribers and get those subs to rally their friends.
All that's needed to make real change is:
Organized Armed Marches
Organize Bank Runs
Mass Peaceful Non-Compliance with Unconstitutional Law
Stop Paying Taxes in Mass

Thats it, nothing more than some walking and choosing not to follow directions or contribute money...that's it. Even if just 10% of the population did this we would see the changes we want overnight. We may not win court cases, the courts are being stacked against the Constitution. Just a few examples of Government/Courts that are supposed to make rulings aligned with our Constitution but did not....

The High Court was asked a simple YES or NO question regarding ObamaCare, is it Constitutional or not. Instead of performing its sole function of answering this simple fundamental question in the preservation of Constitutional Law, the court chose to assume the political position of legislative branch, altering and upholding a law that is blatantly unconstitutional on its face and in its entirety.

The High Court was asked the same YES or NO question regarding Arizona’s right to protect its sovereignty and security by enforcing standing immigration laws, is it constitutional? Once again, instead of answering that simple fundamental question, the court decided to play legislator, parsing the Arizona law to the liking of the Obama White House, which is standing down on enforcement of our immigration laws and even issuing amnesty by Executive order only days before the courts Arizona ruling. Obama has no such executive authority, but who is stopping him?

The High Court was asked whether or not a hundred-year-old Montana law preventing corporate corruption in state campaign funding was constitutional. The court struck down the hundred-year-old Montana law governing state election practices, an area of no jurisdiction or obvious interest for the Supreme Court.

A total disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law is present in the highest court in our land. This simply cannot stand…

The NFA and the ATF both exceed Congress' authority under the commerce clause, even without the Second Amendment they are Unconstitutional, it doesnt take a genius to understand that. The GCA 1968, FOPA/Hughes Amendment of 1986, The Patriot Act, Freedom Acts, Bumpstock Ban, are obviously Unconstitutional and the courts ruled them Constitutional.

During the ratification debates, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists assumed that the courts would have power to void unconstitutional laws. A famous example is Federalist No. 78, in which Alexander Hamilton wrote:
      "By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."

During the Virginia ratifying convention, Federalist George Nicholas responded to fears that the federal government might exceed its powers by saying:
       "But, says he [Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry], who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the extent of legislative powers. If they exceed these powers, the judiciary will declare it void, or else the people will have a right to declare it void."

From "The Constitutionality of Civil Disobedience":
Federalism was not the institutionalization of populist Civil Disobedience. It was the device the Founding Fathers used to prevent the recurrence of what they had rebelled against. It was utilized on a minor scale several times but foundered over the slavery issue. Finally, the tie between federalism and Civil Disobedience was eliminated as a result of the Civil War. Seen in that light, the Civil War had a de-constitutionalizing effect.

There were other devices for institutionalizing Civil Disobedience. Each branch of the Federal government was given authority to veto certain acts of the other two. Later, as democratic practices developed, this principle of constitutionalism was expanded to protect more popular forms of Civil Disobedience. Jefferson"s dream was that the populist political party, operating as the people's form of institutionalized Civil Disobedience, had introduced into history a new stage of constitutionalism. In theory, Jefferson's new, broadly based political party would make it possible for the people to repeat at frequent intervals the "political revolution of 1800"[3] whereby Jefferson had expelled the Federalist Party oligarchs from office. This new kind of Civil Disobedience is what he meant by "a revolution every generation."

In addition, there was the all important Bill of Rights and especially the First Amendment. This protected not only freedom of speech but also the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances. However, as we have seen, the crucial invention required to institutionalize New World Civil Disobedience was Judicial Review: the Supreme Court empowered to act as an impartial umpire. Without this a citizen protesting against the new government would have found himself in the same position he formerly held as colonist. Judicial Review is the Court's authority to rule upon the constitutionality of the acts of the other branches of the government even though their own constitutional status is co-equal with that of the Court. Time was to see the systematic erosion of all the early constitutional devices for checking and vetoing despotic exercises of authority. Moreover, it was often the Supreme Court itself that presided over the erosion and gave it constitutional sanction.

After the Civil War, federalism ceased to operate as a device permitting the states to check the Federal government as a whole. Long before Watergate the separation of powers had succumbed to the engrossment of authority by the Presidency. By the 1950's the two party system hardened against popular dissent and rendered virtually impossible a repetition of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian protests that had given it birth. The media of communications, taken overall, functioned in support of the government rather than as the vigilant voice of conscience which had entitled them to their chartered liberties. The result was to undermine the autonomies of previously independent centers of authority. The Federal government, under the hegemony of the Presidency, acquired a monopoly of power. The Supreme Court, subject to influence through presidential appointments, was an unreliable protector of Civil Disobedience.

Not too far back the English doctrine of His Majesty's "Loyal Opposition" was deemed self-contradictory. Closer to home, John Brown's insurrection opened the door to our own doctrines of civil liberties. Two of America's major contributions to political theory, Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and Calhoun's Discourses, were devoted to the philosophical and constitutional foundations of Civil Disobedience. The Constitution of Massachusetts explicitly protects the "right" to revolution. The American Constitution itself is founded on this right and John Locke, whose doctrines were studied carefully by our Founding Fathers, was history's chief theoretician of the right to revolution. Locke argued that civil liberty, in the end, rests upon two rights: to revolt, or to seek refuge from oppression in vacuus locus. Otherwise, Locke argued, no constitution is proof against tyranny.

All this is well known and yet there remains in our minds a seeming contradiction between the government's need to rule and the obvious necessity for citizens to resist tyranny. This of course is the issue that arose in Weimar Germany and ever since we have pondered the proper antidote should a threat similar to that posed by Hitler again arise. Many Americans are convinced that this country is now threatened with a neo-fascist subversion of the principles of the Constitution and that this can be forestalled only through determined acts of Civil Disobedience.




Sources and other Links:
The Constitution: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/constitution.html
Bill of Rights: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/bill-of-rights-and-the-amendments-to-the-constitution.php
Federalist Papers: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/federalist.html
Anti Federalist Papers: https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/AntiFederalist/TheAntiFederalistPapers.pdf
Drafting the Declaration of Independence: https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/drafting-the-declaration/
Declaration of Independence: https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/read-the-declaration/
The Case for the American Revolution: https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/case-for-revolution/
Thomas Paine’s: Common Sense: https://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/revolution/docs/Common_Sense.pdf

Past Laws, Legislation, and Studies: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/read3.html

Truth About Gun Control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
Amazing Animated Second Amendment Breakdown (WATCH IT): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhBwHiLcTG8

FBI 2018 Crime Statistics
fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2018-crime-statistics

FBI Table 43
Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, Year: 2015
[12,692 agencies; 2015 estimated population 246,920,373]
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

Murder Rates
by State, Types of Weapons, 2015
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-20

Robbery
by State, Types of Weapons, 2015
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-21

Always Adding to this Article, please continue to check in for new information as time goes on. (Updated 10/13/2019)