Sandy Hook Gun Control Act Proposal

Sandy Hook Gun Control Act Proposal

How many arguments and private interpretations have we heard since the days of Lee Harvey Oswald and guns and gun control and lone nut assassins ? Too many that never answered the truth, plainly, of what the U.S. Constitution says about it and is our Law of the Land ! Even much of Congress appears not able to say EXACTLY what the Constitution says plainly is the law. Let’s see if all can accept the plain truth of what our Law is in the United States about arms and the rights to bear them.     
U.S. Constitution – Amendment 2 Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms
“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.” 
That is in simple plain language that ANYONE in Junior High School or even lower to Elementary School levels can PLAINLY understand. THERE ARE FOUR PARTS….. 
#1 CONDITIONAL – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” This PLAINLY states that the right to keep and bear arms is COMPLETELY CONDITIONAL upon a State Militia such as  ‘National Guard’ IS ACTIVATED IN ACTUAL SERVICE of State protection or Federal Troops themselves – in ACTUAL SERVICE protecting a State against occurring Invasion, Insurrection, Terrorism acts, mass murderers at large, etc.   This is WHEN the rights to bear arms are active and NO OTHER time.
#2 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is clearly defined as CONDITIONAL that the State and/or Federal Troops are in ACTUAL SERVICE in defense of the Free State – the Free State meaning free of take over by Invasion, Insurrection, etc. The right to BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed upon. WHEN such Events are occurring and the Troops (Militia) are in Actual Service in Defense to Secure the Free State from same – it IS THE RIGHTS of the Citizens to bear arms publicly to aid in defense and to fight in defense of their Free State, life limb and property.   
#3 RIGHT TO KEEP ARMS ….It is the Citizens’ RIGHTS to KEEP these arms for this defense against attack, invasion, internal Insurrection etc. occurring. Neither the Government nor the Troops (Militia) may order them to disarm…. (“…shall not be infringed.”). The Right to Keep Arms establishes the Right of Self Defense for Citizens. It can not be argued that arms must be turned over, such as to an Armoury storage etc., in Times of Peace. “KEEP… SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is time dependent as meaning now AND in the future. During Times of Peace then, Citizens CAN NOT BE ORDERED TO DISARM, Citizens have the right to Keep Arms.
#4 SOURCE OF REGULATION…. Amendment 2 declares “A well regulated Militia, being necessary…” – declares that a well REGULATED Militia as DEFINING the Militia itself, as NOT meaning as some citizen’s group or groups, but as regular trained Troops of Actual Service of the United States as Federal or State such as the National Guard or U.S. Army, Navy etc. THE SOURCE of the definition of REGULATION of these Troops is CONGRESS…..  Article I Section 8To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; ” Congress is the defining authority of REGULATION of the United States Armed Forces with the Executive Powers necessary – as Providing for the Common Defense of the United States. It can not be construed that any State is the source of Regulation of Troops but, rather, modeled after the Republican Form of Government of the United States and under Federal Powers of Regulation. In short, No State may assemble or create a Militia as an independent force and power within the United States – State being a member of the United States – but that congruent Executive Powers of the Governor of Each State exist in Defense against Imminent Danger and Invasion, etc. and are implied, and are as the Powers of the Presidency of the United States in that Event of the State invaded etc. such as the Pearl Harbor Invasion as a prime example if Hawaii had Statehood at that time. It is implied the Governor would have had Executive Authority to Call into Service the State Militia and the Citizens would have had the Right to Bear Arms in Defense. The War against the United States began in the State – if Hawaii had Statehood at the time as example of State being invaded etc. In short, States have the Right of Self Defense as well. This is above any political definition – as an actual Event of War or Insurrection etc as by a Regulated Armed Force or Irregular Forces etc., intending actual lethal casualties of war, damages to life limb and property – and not meaning any “war of words” or elsewise such as some political view is an invasion as same. There is no political definition for these Events clearly. This means physical attack.  
Clearly on the surface, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Citizens entitles them to all the SAME WEAPONS as the United States Armed Forces have at their disposal right up to MX and SDI 1 and 2 as example. BUT it is CLEARLY INFERRED that REGULATION OF ARMS being source and soul authority is in Congress with the Presidency as EXCLUSIVE POWER to DEFINE REGULATION OF ARMS of Each Citizen by and with each State Legislature and Executive – Governor. Obviously the average Citizen does NOT have the ability to engage Defense with ALL the Weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces such as nuclear and artillery etc. Clearly the Founding Fathers intended the Citizen Right to Bear Arms as being ultimately the very last line of Defense in that successful of an Invasion as laying waste virtually all power of the Regular Forces – as the last defense of the U.S. Constitution as Law of the Land and way of life as a Democracy. Clearly they intended the Citizen Right to Bear Arms as additional fortification of Defense when necessary in Event of Invasion or Insurrection etc. Clearly they had no imagination of modern nuclear weapons etc.. Their clear intention was Citizens defending in a capacity similar of Regular Army ground troops – rifles and artillery as first line defending and advancing – and if any Citizen could fire a cannon if need be – then well, or today as a bazooka or artillery piece to make point, as scenario the regular army being wounded and dead before them as any last effort of defense laying in their hands.  
We go back to Los Angeles Police about the beginning 1990s against all the plague of the continuing drive by shootings and gang activities declaring they were being out-gunned and needed help of greater fire power for defense of self and city. We see continual arrests nationally of alleged drug traffickers no matter how small having these same weapons. If you are going to argue the Citizen has any chance of defense with a 38 caliber single shot pea shooter against AK-47 and similar weapons you are NEVER going to win the argument. Gangs have even been suggested moved to Violation of the RICO Act placing them as Organized Crime which means National Threat. Citizens in some States have had the power to publicly bear arms. This has changed the course of Common Defense and Public Danger towards a required Federal Response as opposed to a Citizen Response by nature and definition. We ARE seeing this in Mexico as we speak. In short, if the Citizen has a handgun the criminal will get an automatic one. If the Citizens have automatic rifles the criminal will get bazookas and rpg grenade launchers and sams against armed citizen aircraft and so on etc and on and on.  
Today in America we are still blessed with one of the most powerful Armed Forces available, prepared for all contingencies. This reduces the need of the Citizen as shrunk to more localized Right of Arms as Self Defense in more common scenarios of Home Invasion. As Los Angeles Police themselves said, what defense is there against street sweepers performing drive by murders armed with automatic military rifles (AK-47 etc) with what is deployed existentially – the LAPD ? And so the Citizen is without sufficient defense or experience or commensurate regulation and training either against this type of weapons assaults. Much as a Home Invasion can involve this weaponry, an automatic handgun as close range defense should be sufficient. Otherwise we move to friendly fire by Citizens engaging street sweepers etc. with same type weaponry killing or injuring bystanders – thus defeating their own purposes and intents of defense actually aiding the criminals with more murder and terror by their own hand. Would that really be considered “friendly fire” casualties ? Friendly Fire casualties are casualties of War by Regulated Armed Forces engaged – not citizens wildly firing these same type weapons back at those using them without training and experience. Even these best trained regulated Forces were legaly defined as Treason as levying War against the United States as confederate to it and was called the Civil War. Let’s not believe if the time came for armed revolution in a greater majority that it would be deemed anything less by the Law of Land. The architects of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers, incorporated two last efforts to ammend or change existing laws as Rights of the Citizens and States. Three fourths of the States as minimum majority can propose Ammendment to the Constitution and will be passed by two thirds of Congress as minimum majority. As well if that fails, the people have the Right to Peacably Assemble and Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. If a controlling majority of corruption were present in Congress and refused even tens of millions of Citizens screaming at them for redress they would know they would NEVER be re-eleted obviously unless the granted Petitions – they would be out of a job forever. What corruption woulod be that stupid as to not offer appeasment ? This is the apparent wisdom of the Founding Fathers against such indignity and desparity.
Since the livelihood by hunting game was hand and hand with the original Citizens – Colonialists – with the call to arms for defense it goes many already knew how to safely and responsibly use Arms of the day. Training more involved Military Strategy then weapons training in other words. In today’s sophistication of Armoury – the Citizen is well behind in knowledge or experience of how to safely and responsibly Bear Arms. Being a “super power” negates necessity of training Citizens in appropriate warfare and strategy and response in events, but not to ignore possibility of a partial successful invasion of at least one state before defeat of an enemy. Therefore it is my opinion that Regulation of Citizens Rights to Keep and Bear Arms should be localized as Defense in Home Invasion ONLY. Due to the nature and severity of crime in present truth, they should NOT be lawfully able to Bear Arms publically for all reasons already stated. Trained regulated local City and County Forces as the local Police Departments have already voiced their limited abilities in events and Citizens could only create their own misfortunes as stated above attempting engagement. Local Authority could not identify citizen from criminal in events with citizens bearing arms publically to effectively engage deadly force in defense of self and city. Need we mention the VC in the Viet Nam Conflict ?  
My opinion is that Citizen Right to Keep and Bear Arms should be contained and regulated to Self Defense of Life and Limb and Property against Home Invasion ONLY. Standard traditional hunter designed weapons of course should remain and designed-for-hunting weapons EXCLUSIVELY – completely excluding any type assault or target type sport weapons. This is the 21st Century, not the 20th Century any longer. Regular army type weapons belong under the Regulation of Congress with the President – NOT in the hands of Americans. Anyone wishing the pocession of these type weapons as “assault weapons” and target type sport weapons etc. need to be examined professionally as to their intent and desire of owning such a weapon and having this hobby. If they are Armed Forces Retired then they have been trained in use safely and responsibly by Regulation of Congress with the President. Again, with weaponry above an automatic handgun in scenario of defense against Home Invasion, the Citizen is completely in jeopardy of committing friendly fire casualties and unjustified property damages and is inexcusable – as not being able to safely and responsibly engage deadly force with these weapons as are commonly under Regulation by Congress with the President employed by the United States Armed Forces.   
BOTTOM LINE….. My bottom line is that from the nightmare experienced at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown CT just now, if bans of all these mentioned weapons with immediate confiscation is not imminent with all these preliminary efforts addressing these and as promised – then perhaps as a LAST LINE of action honoring their Memories (the fallen children) perhaps America can press immediately to have all gun owners legally and criminally responsible for ownership and misuse by anyone of mental disturbance or condition of their weapons. The gun owner should be REQUIRED BY LAW to have a trigger lock on the weapons owned – either key lock and/or pin number lock – if anyone of mental condition or state resides in the home. Not simply locked up in some easy to break in cabinet – but the actual key lock device that fits into the trigger area disallowing the firing of the weapon. It shall be a crime for these to have access to the weapon unlocked. There are also the pin number design locks, others ? If the gun owner does not have the weapon locked and the person residing there of mental condition takes and uses the weapon – then the gun owner should be criminally responsible. Likewise this should apply to someone or persons of mental conditions visiting the home with the same legal and criminal responsibility.  
Perhaps a Mental Disclosure Act should be passed hand in hand with this requiring the Professional Medical Community to be required by law to notify Local Authority of any case of professional opinion – giving the Local Authority legal Warrant of Search and Seizure and Fine etc. for Compliance by the gun owner at that address.  
We are Americans. We know what is sane and right and rational in all these things. We need be honest to ourselves and leave fantasy to the arts. We all know as well that our Right of Self Defense – the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall NEVER be infringed. Perhaps we can modify this to fit our present truth in the most sane and rational and honest manner. As the Law sits, it is the right of every American to have their own nuclear weapon ! Let’s end this NOW in the most responsible manner for ALL concerned. This is not infringing on our rights but rather inviting existing Law to Define Regulation as Equal Rights applies to our Government too. President Nixon was not above the Law and neither are the Citizens above the Law, but under it. We can not have America turn into to the Wild West and legalizing dueling either. There is NO reason for Americans to bear arms publically, advancing polluting or destroying of the ability of Deadly Force by Local Authority (Police) with exception of those trained and armed deputized Messengers/Carriers etc such as Armoured Trucks etc.  
eMinister of eChurchofPhiladelphia.Org
Outreach – ChristianEministry.Com
Podcasts: ChristianEministry.Com Podcasts eMinister,eChurchOfPhiladelphia.Org
Forums / Studies Posted:
eChurchOfPhiladelphia.Org eChurch Forums

Leave a comment

Filed under BlogPosts

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s