The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Today’s decision by the black robed thugs still demonstrates that “shall not be infringed” is still not understood, even though most gun owners are going to claim this interpretation of today’s events as a “victory”.

Shall not be infringed means that the Federal government and the State’s cannot infringe upon your individual rights to “keep and bear arms”, PERIOD. Yet this decision “probably leaves most firearms laws intact“.

The truth is, the thousands of existing firearm “laws” in effect around the country infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

This so-called “decision” (reinterpretation) of the Constitution by the Supremes does not have a damned thing to do with “self defense” as a right or reason of ownership. That is only one reason among many, but inferring this as the justification of ownership is patently absurd and shows a tremendous lack of understanding by the judges.

The dissenting judges are even more clueless then the rest. The Second Amendment does not even mention handguns (which means that are not regulated), yet in their dissenting opinions, this idiot writes:

“In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

Stupid fools. What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand. Clearly, ALL OF IT.

There’s more, even one of the thugs that ruled in ‘favor’ said this:

Scalia said nothing in Thursday’s ruling should “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

Which is why deranged killers can go on killing sprees in our country’s schoolyards. Does everyone realize that this is a direct result of the “no gun” policy in such locations? Even if you managed to vaporize every firearm in the country, any unprotected area (home, schoolyard, workplace, government building, city street) will be vulnerable to those that will do harm with ANY weapon (knife, baseball bat, chemical weapons, firebombs, anything).

Gun laws are WRONG and undermine (infringe) upon the basic right of firearm ownership, and even the true reason for firearm ownership.

Laws governing ownership, permits, licensing, registration, barrel length, stock design, magazine capacity and on and on and on are simply sucessful attempts of the government (city, state, federal) to infringe upon the rights of State citizens (as opposed to a Federal citizen) on their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

Anybody that tells you different is a liar, period. Here’s a bit of proof of this fact:

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.”

Gun laws are not constitutional and NEVER WERE. Period, end of story. The “interpretation” of the Constitution is not that hard, especially in this case. Shall not be infringed is stupidly simple, but still too much for the Supremes to understand.

Posted under Tyranny because this is exactly what the Second Amendment was REALLY for (read the Declaration of Independence if you do not believe this) and because the Supremes didn’t do their damned jobs (again).


admin at survivalacres dot com

11 thoughts on “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

  • June 27, 2008 at 2:00 am

    I have to say I love this post.

    I’m not a gunowner, though I’ve thought about it. Unfortunately, even though I enjoy my life for the most part, I sometimes would feel tortured enough to turn it on myself. This is probably the main reason I don’t own one (or two, or three, or four).

    But I’ve got wildlife all over my land, and many of you have suggested (insisted?) on hunting skills as another survival technique. I lean vegetarian in my diet, so this again is something I’ve not taken to heart.

    Early on in my political thinking, I believed that gun ownership was something for extremists (the Klan or the Timothy McVeigh’s or the world). Peace, love, and non-violent change, Ghandi, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King all held sway. This naive belief has given way to the cold hard reality that our system of government is so corrupt, it is foolish to rely on it for so-called protection or to think that so-called progressive change will ever really take place in the AmeriKa. In fact, with the growing police state, if anything, we are moving backwards, and at a fast rate. (I remember telling my son two years ago that there are now so many laws on the books it would be impossible for the average American not to break one).

    Weapons themselves do not constitute security in my book. I still believe in getting along with neighbors and trying to influence with sugar instead of salt.

    But I have been persuaded that gun ownership is a right that should be cherished and protected, inasmuch as it may be necessary in the future to gurantee our freedom. Revolution may still come to AmeriKa, and if it does, a well-armed populace would be a definite advantage.

  • June 27, 2008 at 3:31 am

    A well-armed citizenry is not to keep the neighbors in check…its to keep the government in check. The second amendment ensures the first.

    As much as we who understand the second amendment shake our heads at this ruling, I have to admitt, I am happy for people in D.C., New York, and elsewhere where they cannot even get a BB or Pellet rifle (after all, you might shoot your eye out).

    But still, the anti-gun rhetoric just makes me moan. “Gun violence is going to explode!” Well, everything I’ve seen is just the opposite because the criminals don’t fear the law…they fear a well-armed victim.

  • June 27, 2008 at 10:10 am

    IMO Monkeyfister’s gun rant is worth reposting here:

    “…Shall Not Be Infringed.”…

    “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 Second Amendment to the US Constitution

    It’s not ambiguous.

    “Militias,” at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, were comprised of the local PEOPLE. Citizen Farmer, when called upon to defend against an attack from the British, or Native Americans, was expected to drop his plow and rake, pick up his musket, and come to the rally point for the defense of wherever. This SCOTUS ruling re-affirms that that is still the case.

    You, me, all Americans were expected to take up arms. We ARE that “well regulated Militia.” Period. Since then, we’ve added Local, State and Federal Constabularies, and the National Guard… and some… erm… Militias. I really don’t want to be a part of some of those “Militias” today, but, if the shit hit the fan, and my town or my neighborhood said that they need help defending itself against some form of tyranny (that I actually considered tyranny, whether crime or government) I’d take up arms, and do my duty.

    “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.– The Federal Civil Servant Oath of Office

    I am duty bound.

    I fully support the right to bear arms. It shall not be infringed. There are still plenty of Laws on the books that DO infringe. There are plenty of those Laws that protect us from crazy people getting guns, as well, but, a stroll through this week’s headlines shows that crazy and gun crimes happens.

    I don’t plan on any crime spree involving guns. I’m neither criminal nor insane, but I recognize that there are plenty of desperate and crazy people in our country.

    I own an AK-47, a high-power .308, with which I can hit a cantaloupe at 300 yards, a .22 rifle, a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, and a CZ PO1 9mm pistol. I have a Concealed Carry Permit. I hope that I never have to exercise that CCP, but, I’m trained to if needed.

    Criminality only exists in the minds of individuals and small groups, and sadly, we cannot know every thought of every person. Crime will always happen, sadly.

    We can help to mitigate crime in our own immediate area, and upon ourselves by taking care of one’s neighbors, being friendly, providing aid to the young and the elderly in one’s neighborhood, not being an asshole, and not presenting yourself as a target.

    Save for this past five years, I have always been poor, and have always lived in ghettos and poorer neighborhoods. I got along, and continue to, by feeding those in need, shoveling a granny’s sidewalk… not being judgmental, helping when I can, and knowing when not to get involved directly.

    When I moved down here to Tennessee, I could only afford a house in a very serious ghetto. Thugs were robbing houses all the time, but they never hit me because I was giving their grannies food out of my gardens. They told me this. They PROTECTED my house and my gardens. Maybe I was just lucky, and encountered thugs with morals. Donno, but it’s always worked for me. The one time I’ve had something stolen from my property was just a couple of months ago, in this “nice, white neighborhood.”

    Two years ago, Florida passed its “you can shoot if threatened” Law. Everyone expected Florida to turn into Dodge City. That hasn’t exactly happened.

    Here’s how felonious thugs get guns: Thug walks into the gun store with an innocent girlfriend who has no criminal record. Hey tells the girlfriend to buy the TEK-9. He gives the girlfriend the cash. She passes the record check, buys the gun. She never sees that TEK-9 ever again. If a thug wants a gun, he’s going to get it.

    There were gun crimes in DC before the ban, there will be gun crimes in DC after the ban, but now, otherwise Law-abiding Citizens can LEGALLY defend themselves.

    I don’t expect the SCOTUS decision to spark crazy gun-crime waves, any more that we already have today. If you don’t want to own a gun, then don’t. It’s up to you. But, when you need one and don’t have it, you can only blame yourself.

    But, here’s the kicker– its neither Constitutional nor American to try to prevent me, or any other US Citizen from legally owning or carrying a gun.

    That is what the SCOTUS decision means. It’s a proper decision, and the very POINT of the Second Amendment.

    The Second Amendment was written to give us the means to protect ourselves “from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.” From thugs, invading forces, and a tyrannical government run amok.

    Let us not forget that the bomb-plotters of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, were members of the Michigan Militia. I used to know some members of that Militia– I wouldn’t want to associate with crowd ever.

    What’s left to say but, “WOLVERINES!!!”

    Yes, I am VERY disappointed, and upset with the passing of Cloture of the new FISA Law. Extremely upset about it. I see Police State rising, and view it as one more reason TO own a gun. Wanna talk about domestic threats? we can start right there.

    “So help me God” PUKE
    quoting G. Carlin classic punchline , “[rant rant rant] …BUT, he luvs you.”

    So help me me.

  • June 27, 2008 at 11:03 am

    I can’t believe you posted this here. But I’ll let it stand on its own and simply say — I do not agree with much of it.

  • June 27, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    I agree with his final paragraph (before my “so help you god’ comment) and that “The Second Amendment was written to give us the means to protect ourselves “from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.” From thugs, invading forces, and a tyrannical government run amok” But NOT his ‘militia members did OKC remarks’. Apology for fucking up your blog … again

  • June 28, 2008 at 7:59 am

    Lysander Spooner had a great article on “The Constitution Of No Authority”.  This should be required reading.

    Nobody is “duty bound” in reality to ‘obey the Constitution’. We may think we are, because this is the rhetoric being taught, but it is untrue.

    Other points that are incorrect:

    a) militias does apply to the people, but this in reality only applies to the people bound by the Constitution (read Spooner).

    b) the denigration of the militias is almost always caused by ‘those that don’t know’. Many militia groups are the most truly patriotic people in the country. They are often wrongly labeled as ‘conspiracy nuts’ (read on) because they do not agree with the party line.

    c) guns do not have anything to do with crime spree’s as suggested. Crime sprees as they occur, are caused by criminals, nothing more.

    d) I’m pretty sure the ‘bomb plotters’ as it is alleged were NOT members of the Michigan Militia. As I recall, they attended a few meetings years back, which doesn’t make them members at all. Oklahoma City was another false-flag event, what transpired was not what we were told, not even close.

    e) we use the Constitution as a standard, despite it being null and void for all today (in reality it is, for several reasons).

    Because of the lip-service this document is paid by the government, we say the government must also obey it too (not knowing any better). But they pass many laws that are directly against it, and it always depends on who is sitting on the bench, which also means that these laws are ‘temporary’, only applicable for a time. The Constitution was always interpreted to be into perpetuity, which doesn’t happen when laws are enacted and retracted according to its current interpretation.

    It’s pretty darned clear that the Constitution is broadly ignored by our masters whenever they bloody well feel like it. Therefore, it’s pretty darned stupid of us to keep pretending that we ourselves are duty bound to it either, especially so when we never were.

    The oaths we have taken (I did and many of you have too) to ‘protect and defend’ the Constitution have also become a sick joke. If we truly believed that, and we truly meant that instead of giving this lip-service, we would actually do this, we would have arrested this entire government decades ago and tried them for treason. In other words, we did not mean it, as evidenced by our lack of action.

    You only mean what you actually (attempt) to do, we keep settling for less then this simple standard, deceiving and fooling our own selves. The result is in this case, deep and widespread corruption, generation after generation.

    The oath by the way, has NOTHING to do with service in a foreign war, yet another myth. You cannot protect the “Constitution” while standing on foreign soil, it was never in effect anywhere else. This is a sleight-of-hand deception, based upon ignorance that claims Americans are ‘defending the Constitution’ when they are killing or injuring other people in other lands, is total hogwash.

    Finally, the ‘SCOTUS decision’ was NOT a proper decision at all. It continues to perpetuate the false notion of the Constitution, and the interpretation of the Amendment itself (which varies, depending on who’s on the bench next) and the ‘laws’ that are still in effect despite the new interpretation, which are still going to be widely interpreted as ‘not infringing’.

    You cannot have it both ways. If you are under the Constitution, then you CANNOT be infringed by a law regarding your individual right to keep and bear arms, period. If you are not under the Constitution as I’ve shown, then the pretense that we are constitutionally bound to obey these laws is also entirely bogus.

    The sheer failure to understand the duplicity of the Supremes, the federal and state governments and the enslavement status of the ‘citizens’ is one reason why we cannot effectively change anything in this country. It is in reality, a much deeper issue the “Constitutionality”, but I don’t have the time or energy to explain why right now.

    There are ALWAYS two sets of rules (at least) that this game is played by, those for us, and those for them. And they get to make up the rules as they go, while demanding that we abide by the rules that they capriciously make up for us.

    I am convinced that the policy makers are fully aware that they are not Constitutionally bound, despite the lip-service we’ve seen. I am also convinced the people have no clue as to what this means for them. It’s just plain stupid to go on pretending that we should play by one set of rules while they go on making them up. We are NOT their slaves as they suppose.

    My original blog post was based on the ‘Constitutionality’ of the ruling as ruled (interpreted yet again) by the Supremes, but I’m not unaware of the entire sham behind all of this. If you or anyone else wants to go on believing that you are Constitutionally bound to obey what others won’t and don’t, then go ahead, I gave up on that decades ago.

    We are now a nation of ‘laws’, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Constitution (which is why these laws are often challenged in court).

    These laws are capricious and arbitrary, many of them, including gun laws, are racist (read your history). Being laws and only laws, many infringe on basic human rights, which transcend such things as the Constitution and cannot be legislated (despite many attempts), they can only be recognized and defended (but not “created” which is what lawmakers attempt to do). Therefore, I do not obey them, because I have no moral obligation to do so.

    I will not get a concealed carry permit for example, this is an immoral ‘law’. I will not buy a hunting license either, this is also an immoral law. Neither the State or Federal government has the right to claim ownership of my protection, or ability to feed myself, this is a basic human right. This state is attempting to pass a ‘law’ that say’s I cannot collect rainwater. Sorry, I will not obey this either because it is deeply immoral. The government does not own me despite it’s many claims to me, nor does it own the land, air, water or plants and animals on this planet. This is the “control” and “ownership” issue I’ve brought up before. NOBODY owns it. And nobody should. Ownership is immoral, because it leads to enslavement.

    Those that will ‘comply with the law’ are only helping to reinforce this illegal, immoral government’s control over the people (just like voting does). And one day (happening every day), they will enact a new ‘law’ meant to take something else away from you (and often, reserve it just for themselves). Either you will take a stand against this duplicity and immorality or you won’t. Most won’t. Most do not have a clue what it means when they ‘obey’ yet again, constantly and forever further empowering these thugs.

  • June 28, 2008 at 10:51 am

    You refer to (co-mingled) the books:

    A.”The CONstitution That Never Was”, by Ralph Boryszewski.

    B “No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority” by Lysander Spooner.

  • June 28, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    You are correct, I’ve updated the entry above to fix this error. Thanks.

  • July 1, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Great, great comment admin: “Neither the State or Federal government has the right to claim ownership of my protection, or ability to feed myself, this is a basic human right.” All draconian laws are made to be broken by fair-minded people, without qualm or pang of conscience.

Leave a Reply