Best Book: Second Amendment & Bill Of Rights

Halbrook, Stephen P. (Ll.D.);
The Founders' second Amendment: Origins Of The Right To Bear Arms;
Ivan R. Dee (Publisher), In Association With The Independent Institute;
Chicago, 2008
The above cited book is excellent for the following reasons:
1. It provides a deep and well documented (Original documents) review of the development of the Second Amendment to our Constitution and, more generally, of the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution;
2. The author presents both sides of each argument before and during the Revolution and during the development of the Bill Of Rights (Especially as to the Second Amendment) and the Constitution as they occurred and iin a logical sequence.;
3. The "Conclusions" chapter are very apparently the opinions of Mr. Halbrook and honestly separated from the body of this history.

Those who teach materials as to the subjects covered in this work would be unprofessional if they do not read this book. "Misconduct In Public Office" would be the least accusation I would make against any law-maker or jurist who fails to do the same before dealing with gun related issues. Editors and publishers who fail to know the materials in this volume should be considered unprofessional if they fail to consider the facts presented and conclusions made by Mr. Halbrook before reporting or writing editorials on the Second Amendment.

The points I found very interesting are here listed.
1. "The Militia" (Or "general militia) is the whole body of adult-and-free citizens who have a Natural Law Right to own weapons and to carry them anywhere they please AND may have a duty to own weapons for defense of self and his State.
2. The "well regulated militia" noted in the Second Amendment is that part of the "general militia" as organized into companies (Often at a town or village level) and equipped with standard firearms, drilled in military skills and organized into larger units (Usually under officers appointed by the Governor of each State).
3. These (Both) militias were seen as necessary for the defense of each State AND, much more important to most of the founders of the USA, to provide a defense against the potential tyranny of an overly powerful Federal government.
4. The "blunderbuss" was an early type of very short barreled shotgun, much like the sawed-off shotguns. These weapons were, in fact, sought by the members of the short-of-weapons early, revolutionary, militias, This is in opposition to the Federal Court case (Citation needed) which ruled that such shotguns were not nor never a militia weapon.
5. Pocket pistols were carried by our Founding Fathers with no concern as to CCW permits.
6. British General Gage was specially concerned about the "back woodsmen" most specially skilled in accurate long range shooting being often dependent on such hunting skills for survival
7. Even at the time of the writing of our Constitution and Bill Of Rights there were persons who distrusted the People as to possessing arms.

From other readings I note that:
1. Abraham Lincoln was elected as an officer of his militia company in the "Black Hawk War"; And,
2. As late as 1856 The US Supreme Court noted (In the Dred Scott case) that only free citizens could arm themselves and then travel as they saw fit. this being a right of citizens at that time (And now).

Obama's Speech Of 15 June 2010

To paraphrase a much better writer than myself, Mr. B. H. Obama's TV speech of 15 July 2010 was: "Full of emptiness and signified nothing"

Making Islamic Martyrs----Help Achieve Goals

If Palestinians, those who share their militant-and-murderous ideology and their flunkies of the dhimitude inclination wish to be martyrs and to meet Allah (Or is it Shaitan or Iblis?), then we (In cool and dispassionate ways)must arrange for that status and meeting in the soonest possible time and with the least "collateral damage".

History has clearly demonstrated that Islam will not respond to compromise, "reaching out", inter-faith meetings/seminars, kindness; But, responds only to properly applied physical, military level, force---By governments (eg The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth),international groups (eg The naval powers who destroyed the Turkish fleet at Lepanto) and even citizen groups (eg The Greeks who won freedom from Islamic Turkey).


Tues-les tous, Dieu Redonnatdea les sein!

Too Many Words Seves Evil?

I have, to my point-of-view, today completed an extended debate with some assertive/militant/pathological pacifists. I have put, over the months, two questions which could best be answered by a Yes/No OR Choice A/B basis. Instead I continued to receive the same flood of words which can not be supported by the rules of exposition and rhetoric, by logic and (I believe) not even by the Scriptures AND, certainly NOT by Natural Law which was given to humanity by God.

I have reflected on the history of such techniques and who has used who is using them. I provide the following examples.
1. As to speeches: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, B. H. Obama and that front man for the mad mullahs of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinnejad.
2. As to written works: Mao and Joseph Stalin.
3. Those US attorneys who drown the courts with words to convince judges that black is white, up is down and wrong is right.
4. Those appellate judges who use masses of words to support the same attorney arguments AND to destroy the essentially simple ideas and rules of the US Constitution, jury decisions and votes by the People.

Yes, there are cultural differences in speaking and writing styles. Speakers of Arabic and Spanish tend to use more words to express the same ideas as can be expressed in other languages. But, if you do a semantic study of those speeches, you will detect the same excesses as noted above for some of the worst people in history and in our current world.

Those who use too many words, to cover up honest and concise statements, is in danger of being in service to the "Father Of Lies".

Edward Everett was reckoned one of the greatest orators of his time. Yet, who remember anything of his two hour speech at the dedication of the military cemetery at the Gettysburg battle site. Yet, any literate and real American has had exposure to that most expressive of speeches, lasting two minutes, by President Lincoln.

Truth is simple and simply separated from outright lies. Half-truths are usually buried in a sea of words which make them worse than lies. There is also the quote: "A lie told often enough becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin OR Adolf Hitler---A context in which I have place the repetitive and non-responsive statements of the noted pacifists (Who are at whose service?).

Now, have I used too many words?

Pacifist VS Soldier: Parables On Justification

For some time I have, by email, conducted a debate with some very assertive pacifists. Although I know we will not convert each other to even lean towards the others' points-of-view. I have continued this debate so that I might define, for myself, the issues of "just war", the best rules for a warrior, how much force should be used to stop a clear-and-present attack on innocents and to prevent future such attacks.

Below you will find two parables dealing with "justification".

Luke 18:9-14 (New International Version)
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."


The Parable of the Pacifist and the Warrior

Two men went to a Church to pray; one a committed-and-absolute pacifist, the other a simple warrior.

The Pacifist stood up and prayed: 'Lord Attend me and the fact that I limit my earnings and life-style so I do not pay taxes to support military, police and those sinners who use force against others such as that murderous warrior over there; I surely know Your Mind and intentions as to the use of force; I even know that our Father truly told Moses that the Command was "Thou shall not kill" and NOT "Thou shall not Murder1'; O' Jesus the Christ please aid me in the perfection of myself."


The warrior bowed low and whispered "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Please forgive me my trade. The only excuse I have for such is my intent to protect the innocent, in which occupation I have never intentionally attacked those innocents and only those who attacked them, my comrades and this poor soul. Please allow me Your Grace as will allow me to put my body between the agents of the Evil One and their victims. I dare to offer my blood, limbs and life in that service, in Your Name for the age-of-ages."


Now, who was justified?

PS---THE NOTED PACIFISTS REFUSED TO GIVE A CLEAR ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION!