Tucson Shooting & the Second Amendment...

With the tragedy in Arizona as a springboard, the anti-Constitution politicians and talking heads are jumping on the ‘gun control’ bandwagon again. Already, on the horizon are all kinds of ‘solutions’ such as ‘where’ you can carry your sidearm or limitations to magazine capacity such as that proposed instantly after the ‘event’ in Tucson by Sen. Frank Lautenberg & Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York. If either of these “leaders” had the remotest clue they would know that banning or regulating a firearm’s bullet capacity is meaningless as evidenced by President Garfield being killed using a five shot Webley revolver, President McKinley being killed using a six shot .32 caliber revolver and Lincoln being killed with a single shot derringer. the fact is, a determined nut will use whatever tool is at his disposal to wreak mayhem and while controls like these will have zero effect on murder but certainly WILL adversely effect your Rights (what few may be left).

Before we’re inundated with new calls for stricter controls on firearms due to this latest nutcase, let’s remind everyone why there’s a Constitutionally guaranteed Right under the 2nd Amendment to bear arms. Contrary to what the ‘talking heads’ (idiots) will spout, the Amendment is not enshrined in our Constitution to hunt deer or ducks or target shoot, although those activities are enjoyed by some 80 million gun owners. Rather it’s to insure that every individual Citizen will have the ability to protect and control their destiny.

The Second Amendment breaks down into three (count em, 3) guaranteed abilities or Rights that every Citizen is assured, by the legal foundation of our Constitution, that the government “shall not [lawfully] infringe”.

1.] Self Defense: Citizens have the Right to defend themselves and their families from harm. No one, no government, has the lawful or moral authority to render a Citizen or their family helpless when confronted with danger. (NOTE Cairo Egypt right now [Feb 2011] where civilians are defending their homes & neighborhoods with kitchen knives and sticks while police are no where to be found.)

2.] National Defense: The 2nd Amendment was intended as a mobilization contingency such that every able bodied Citizens would have the means, were the need to arise, to defend their State and country from aggressors.

3.] Abolition of tyranny: Pursuant to our Declaration of Independence which states quite clearly:

“...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, ... 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.”      

The 2nd Amendment was intended to insure that the People had the means to turn out any oppressive regime that might come to power and attempt to overturn, water down or usurp their Rights under our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Even here in New Hampshire Part 1., Article 10 (Right of Revolution) of our state’s Constitution guarantees us the same Right and duty and that, my friends, is the Raison d’être for advocating, proposing and supporting gun control measures in this country.

Crime and mayhem will never be stopped through legislation and they (politicians) KNOW that. Government isn’t afraid of “crime” - crime empowers them. So what’s the motivation for infringing on your Rights even further? The government is AFRAID of you, your neighbors and, indeed, every thinking Citizen of the United States. They do not want you to have the ability guaranteed by our 2nd Amendment to ever throw them out once “a long train of abuses and usurpations” becomes clear to the general public. (Again, take note of Egypt today) So, when more measures are touted and more legislation submitted allegedly to “protect us” from future bogey men (or women:-), I suggest you think about this and then ask the ‘politician’ who swore, by God, to “bear true faith” to the Constitution, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t they understand?

The Supreme Court ruled in Norton v Shelby (never overturned) that: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed” What that means is merely passing ‘laws’ doesn’t make it binding on the public or lawful. The ‘law’ needs to be Constitutional to be effective. The fact is, when Rights or a liberty are guaranteed by our Constitution, ‘limiting’ or ‘removing’ them through mere Legislation is unConstitutional. Rights, under the Constitution can only be altered or ‘legally’ limited by way of Amending our Constitution and anyone who’s studied ‘Civics’ in school should know that. If your politicians don’t understand that FACT relating to the Bill of Rights, they should be thrown out and sent home; Perhaps WalMart is hiring.



Christopher T. Sununu

District 1

Mike J. Cryans

District 2

Andru Volinsky

District 3

Russell E Prescott

District 4

Theodore L. Gatsas

District 5

Debora B. Pignatelli

Click on the above photos to read about each of our council members.


Home Q & A Rules Q  & A Answers RC's Column