The one Constitutional Amendment that defends the rest

Let’s get something straight right from the start. Guns do not kill people; crazy, murderous people do. 85,000,000 law abiding gun owners did not kill anyone today and no gun by itself did either. I am and always will be a staunch and firm believer in the one Constitutional amendment that defends and enables all the rest of them to exist, 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.” The Supreme Court has thus far ruled on only two of the three components of the Second Amendment; that is the “keep” component and the “militia vs individual” component. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual right to possess arms and not that of only the militia.

Since the “keep” component has been ruled as a Constitutional right and that the militia vs individual has been ruled as an individual right. The third component that is never mentioned is the “bear” component and is just as important as the first two in the Constitutionality of the Second Amendment. Again, not that I am any smarter than your average Supreme Court Justice, but since the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the Constitutional (and actually a “God-given”) Right for the individual citizen (militia vs individual) to possess (“keep”) firearms, then it is therefore Constitutional (and therefore a “God-given”) Right to carry (“bear”) firearms (“arms”). Further clarification if I may…

Definitions:

“Keep”: verb. To hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own. To have the care, charge, or custody of.

The definition of the term “keep” in the Second Amendment means for the citizenry to own and have in their possession “arms” necessary for them to use for their own personal and their community’s protection and security.

“Bear”: verb: to hold or carry; bring; to possess.
The definition of the term “bear” in the Second Amendment means for the citizenry to carry and possess the “arms” on their person, to be readily available when needed to defend their person and community.

“Arms”: noun: weapons, especially, firearms, swords, spears, knives.
The definition of the term “arms” in the Second Amendment means “weapons”, any weapon that can be used for their personal and community’s protection and security such as firearms, swords, spears, knives, et al.

It is therefore, by definition, unconstitutional to for Congress to “infringe upon the rights” of law abiding citizens by legislating concealed weapons laws and legislating what type of “arms” they can “keep” and ” bear”. By doing so, restricts and infringes upon the law abiding citizen’s personal freedoms and Constitutional Rights.

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.” – Nancy Pelosi (ex-Speaker of the House)

Which is scarier to you, law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights, or a tyrannical government who is hell bent on taking them away and then tries to make you believe that it is for your own good and protection? The government does not have the authority to dictate to me what I do and do not need. When a government does that, its called Socialism/Communism.

Impeach or Not to Impeach? That is the question...

What are the limits of presidential power? If you've followed the news lately, this question has cropped up more and more as we spend billions of dollars we don't have fighting a dictator that has not attacked us or our interests in quite a while. In fact, he's pretty much left the United States alone and worked with us for the better part of two decades and we rewarded him by removing Libya from our terrorist state list.. Now don’t get me wrong, Gaddafi is a terrorist, brutal dictator and a mad man. But should we have initiated what Obama calls a “kinetic military action” against him because of the civil unrest in his country that posed no threat to the US? Maybe...I don't know, but that’s not the crux of the problem I have with this administration’s decision. My problem lies in the fact that Obama did not have the common courtesy that is mandated by our Constitution, to go to Congress, lay out his plan and reasoning and ask for approval for this military action! President George W. Bush did for Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama instead unilaterally just went along with the United Nations and the Arab League, but did not notify the governing body he was constitutionally required to go to first. For the first time in my life I actually agree with something that Louis Farrakhan said about Obama and this action in Libya…”Who the hell do you think you are?!”

For some reason, world leaders decided that in the face of all the Middle East revolutions everywhere, it was time for Gaddafi to step down after more than 42 years in power. The Americans took a subservient role in the operations and allowed the other allies (who have traditionally refused to lead any global effort) to dictate the policy of this attack ... whatever that policy may be at this moment as it has constantly flip-flopping from one objective and then to the opposite of that objective. And to top off this whole thing, the crème’-de-la-crème’, now we find out that some of the rebels we are helping are our sworn enemy…al Qaeda…and we are also arming them!!! What is the matter with this administration! They are assuming that the enemy of our enemy is our friend, not that they are also our enemy. This is basic national security 101 stuff. It is amateur time in the White House. Anyway, I digress…

All we hear is that it's time democracy came to the Middle East. I caution the world on using the term “democracy” too loosely. The “democracy” we are seeing in the Middle East is nothing more than the “mob rules” kind of “democracy” which inevitably will lead to a powerful centralized figure or party corralling the passion of the mob...sound familiar? It should…after all, “democracy” is what Hitler and Lenin called for when they took power as well.

But is “democracy” what these Middle Eastern nations want? Do they really want to take our Constitution, its underlying principles, and simply yank it out of its historical context and deliver it to the nations that have nothing in common with the inherent theme and values of the "rule of law" and “inalienable rights” that underscores the foundation of this document?

So then, what do we REALLY mean when we talk of "the rule of law and inalienable rights?"
In essence, it that there is a higher law and God given rights that governs the affairs of men, ones that come from God and not from man and therefore can never be taken away or infringed upon. Because we are endowed by God with the rights enshrined in our Constitution, our human government must conform to those laws. But again, what exactly does that mean? I know what it used to mean, but believe that we as a country haven't a clue anymore.
Whether you want to believe it or not, it was essentially the Judeo-Christian framework of the Ten Commandments that formed the foundation for the laws enacted in this country. Our history also instilled within us the understanding that man was essentially sinful at heart and did not possess inherent goodness. We understood that with power usually comes corruption and that, that corruption was as evident in our governing bodies as it was in society as a whole. That is why the Constitution limits the power of government and what power it does grant must be shared equally among the three branches. Therefore, if a President authorizes a military action without approval from the Congress, who has the sole Constitutional authority to do it, then the President usurped the Constitutional power from Congress under Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress…”To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Should he be charged with a crime and impeached? You betcha! I’m not the only one that thinks this way either. Here is what VP Joe Biden said as a Senator in 2007 when President Bush was contemplating an attack on Iran over its nuclear weapons ambitions.