First off, no one has a "constitutional right" to own a firearm. The Constitution REITERATES a right that EXISTED far before it did. The right to keep and bear arms is a NATURAL right that is afforded all living beings. We have a right to our life, liberty and property and it only stands to reason we have a RIGHT TO DEFEND that life, liberty and property. Any MAN or WOMAN who stands in the way of my right to defend those basic rights, places themselves at a STATE OF WAR against me. If they try to force me to disarm then the place themselves at WAR against me. If they work for the government or the local mafia clan, it matters not. So, to understand...no matter HOW OLD I AM, I have the RIGHT given to me by my creator to DEFEND with DEADLY FORCE, MY LIFE, liberty and property. AND anyone who would try to take that away is my ENEMY. PERIOD. and might find themselves looking down the barrel of THIS:
And by the way, these rights are UNalienable, read the Declaration of Independence. They are NOT inalienable. There is a difference in the meaning. UNalienable means that they can't even be GIVEN away.
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature
unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular
provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions
granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty areUNALIENABLE.Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift
from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances
be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent
either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent
in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable
rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any
form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right
of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
safety and happiness.DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create,
these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has
honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these
limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury,
and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit;
second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public
a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs
require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
Among these unalienable rights,
as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue
their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful
business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal
rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their
faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common
business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which
are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities
from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all
alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let
or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same
age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of
the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they
claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'THE PROPERTY
WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR,
AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE
MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the
strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing
this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without
injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred
property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of
the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The
right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable
right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of
happiness' in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the
fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a
large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all
but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly,
is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary
not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the
constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no
contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Read the Article
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.
Also, here is a list of various gun organizations to support and become a member. Just pull up their website. It takes money to fight these Democracy haters. You will also be able to stay informed on any and all gun legislation.
Many discussions about gun control focus on the use of guns by criminals and the potential for accidents in the home. It's important to realize, however, that the primary reason that the US constitution allows it's citizens to bear arms is so that they have the ability to overthrow an unjust or tyrannical government.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, author of The Declaration of Independence and the third president of the US.