Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary
From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. Please join my Facebook group American Patriots in a free and open discussion to further the cause of FREEDOM.
Part 1 of a 3 part series on the 2nd Amendment
Once again, the Democrats have shamelessly exploited a tragic event to resume their attack on the 2nd Amendment. Their mantra of “never let a good crisis go to waste” is on full display as they pulled up simmering legislative measures and shout their demands into the nearest cameras.
Just to be clear, here is the actual Second Amendment (full text):
“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.”
— Ratified 15 Dec 1791
The recent Uvalde school shooting has placed “sensible gun control” alongside the January 6th Hearings under the brightest spotlights. Don’t pay any attention to the myriad of disasters the Biden administration has created in the past 17 months. The most important issues at the moment are to ban “assault weapons” and indict Trump for something, anything that would prevent him from running in ’24. They haven’t told us what “assault weapons” are, but they’ll just leave it at that so they can expand the definition at whim. Rest assured, if there are no firearms at all and a mob picks up pitchforks and pikes, they will be classified as “assault weapons” too, even if law-abiding “citizens” (oops, subjects) need them for other useful purposes.
There are numerous bill proposals in the House pending legislation that include a complete ban on all semi-automatic weapons and magazines that have a capacity over 9 rounds of ammunition.
Democrats can’t wait to get to the podium to express their self-righteous moral superiority and exploit the emotions of their supporters by seizing the moment to further corrode our constitutional rights, which are obstacles for the DNC in “fundamentally transforming” America into their utopian dreamscape. The undeclared objective is to repeal the Second Amendment, disarm law-abiding citizens, and establish their communist regime permanently.
They camouflage their agenda under the guise of public safety, but the reality is; only criminals will be safer, and your citizenship will be transformed into subjugation.
One of the methods they plan to employ is essentially a repeal of the 4th Amendment that bypasses the individuals’ right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . “ ; known as “Red Flag” laws. There are 10 Republican Senators on board with these “Red Flag” laws, which will permit the “authorities” to enter your home and confiscate your legally owned property without due process based on a complaint, whether legitimate or disingenuous. Anyone who is mad at you, or dislikes your politics, will be able to file a complaint and all of a sudden a search of your home becomes “reasonable”.
It’s a two for one “sale”; repeal the 2nd Amendment and get rid of the 4th with it. Apparently, these RINOs and their DumboCrat cohorts have no compunction about violating their oaths to “support and defend” the Constitution. It’s difficult to keep up with their relentless attacks on our civil rights, which “coincidently”, is the Obama stratagem of war; overwhelm as many systems as possible, simultaneously, and erode the foundations of American values, its culture, and its institutions. He is playing the long game. He never thought of himself as holding power for eight short years. The torch of his “legacy” is to be carried by many successors. That’s why he organized a 30,000 member army of activists to further his agenda. And that’s why I say he is orchestrating everything we see going on today. If there was one phone the NSA should be eavesdropping, it’s Obama’s
Madison and Montesquieu
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), a case considered by many to be the most important case in Supreme Court history, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of “judicial review”, interpreted as the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress that conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall’s rationale had to do with creating better balance between the three branches of government; Congress had power to create legislation, regulate expenditures, and impeach officials; the Executive branch (The President) had power to restrain Congress and held veto power over their legislation; but the role of the Supreme Court had not been clearly defined in terms of their checks on the other two branches.
Marshall concluded his written opinion by stating,
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” 
The principle of separation of powers can be traced to the French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat (1689-1755), who wrote in his The Spirit of Laws that there should be balanced forces acting against each other to prevent tyranny. He argued that “the separation of state powers should be by its service to the people’s liberty: legislative, executive and judicial.” 
Let’s look at three of the Democrat “arguments”, and my replies to each one. All relate to their demands for stricter gun control. But before I counter their foolishness with logic, let me warn any would-be trolls who think they can outwit me. I choose my debates wisely. That’s why I’m undefeated. If you find yourself in an argument with me, it’s already over. You just haven’t been able to accept it yet. You might call it arrogance. I’m just saying it matter-of-factly.
The Second Amendment is not absolute.
Nonsense! The Constitution is defined by its own language as the “supreme law of the land”  and is absolutely established as such.
In the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it is stated, in part, “RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.” 
In other words, it is clear that the intention of Congress was to recognize the Bill of Rights as integral to the Constitution itself. They were to be considered to be “supreme laws of the land”. There is no ambiguity. They are absolute.
When Joe Biden assumes the authoritarian’s pulpit and proclaims that the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute, he is either ignorant or lying. Webster defines absolute as “1a: free from imperfection ; PERFECT”. There is zero possibility to improve it.
I’m guessing the left is using the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to persuade their gullible followers that the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute when he wrote the majority opinion in the landmark case, District of Columbia v. Heller , wherein he wrote,in part, “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited . . . “
Biden and the rest of his ilk want you to think “unlimited” rights mean they are not “absolute”. So they all repeat the phrase “Amendments are not absolute”, echoed ad nauseum by their propaganda machine, the mainstream media, expecting the notion to be accepted by the masses of useful idiots. Goebbels once said, “If you tell a big lie often enough, it will become the truth.”
Stricter gun control laws work.
On the contrary. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, yet lead the nation every year in homicide by gun.
Top 10 U.S. Cities – ranked by gun deaths 2020 (in parentheses) 
2021 & 2020 data is total number of homicides in each city – by various sources
Chicago: 2021, 797 – (? by gun); 2020, 772 – (692 by gun); 2019, 498 – (448 by gun)
Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown told reporters the bulk of those homicides were gang related.  I guess black lives don’t matter there.
Philadelphia: 2021, 562 – (? by gun); 2020, 499 – (417 by gun); 2019, (303 by gun)
Houston: 2021, 479 – (? by gun); 2020, 400 – (357 by gun); 2019, (231 by gun)
New York: 2021, 485 – (? by gun); 2020, 462 – (307 by gun); 2019, (172 by gun)
Memphis: 2021, 346 – (? by gun); 2020, 332 – (299 by gun); 2019, (190 by gun)
Detroit: 2021, 309 – (? by gun); 2020, 324 – (290 by gun); 2019, (222 by gun)
Baltimore: 2021, 338 – (? by gun); 2020, 335 – (272 by gun); 2019, (319 by gun)
Los Angeles: 2021, 397 – (? by gun); 2020, 349 – (268 by gun); 2019, (190 by gun)
Dallas: 2021, 220 – (? by gun); 2020, 254 – (218 by gun); 2019, (167 by gun)
Washington D.C.: 2021, 227 – (? by gun); 2020, 198 – (187 by gun); 2019, (144 by gun)
In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of all U.S. gun murders, while rifles, including the category often referred to as “assault weapons”, accounted for just 3% of firearm murders. 
All of the Top 10 cities are controlled by Democratic Mayors and all have restrictive gun control laws. Some of the most restrictive are New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago. New York is the worst. All “assault weapons” (whatever they decide that means) are banned. Magazines are limited to seven rounds, and you can’t even buy ammunition without a background check. There isn’t a single gun shop in the city of Chicago, yet police confiscated over 1,200 illegal weapons in 2021 and obviously gun control doesn’t work there. Following an extensive permit procedure, Baltimore requires all successful applicants to post a newspaper article identifying the license holder. That sounds like an advertisement for would-be burglars that you own a weapon they might want to steal.
Gun Free Zones are a joke. Narrow-minded liberals think posting a sign to advise would-be gun toters to leave their weapons at home is a great idea. They fail to comprehend their message is a clear sign to evil-minded criminals that the facility is a soft target that offers little, if any resistance, where they can attack without much fear of retaliation.
Common sense controls like background checks, and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will save lives.
Here are some survey results cited by gun control advocates: All are taken from a Britannica article titled, Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted? 
A February 2018 Quinnipiac poll found that 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks, 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.  It’s a fairly old poll at this point, but we’ll assume the sentiments haven’t changed much.
An NPR survey conducted in February 2019 found that 65% of Americans believed banning high-capacity magazines would reduce gun violence. 
As they often say, “no one needs 30 rounds to hunt deer”. And they claim that high-capacity magazines transform killings into mass murder.
True, but their presumption is that deer hunting is the only use for a firearm, as if you’re not allowed to consider your own personal safety.
During a 1985 debate of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act amending the Gun Control Act of 1968, then Senator Biden is on record saying, “During my 12 1/2 years as a Member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or Federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control. In my opinion a national register or ban of handguns would be impossible to carry out and may not result in reductions in crime.” He voted against amendments that would have enacted a 14-day waiting period for handgun sales. 
Now he wants you to think banning guns will remove them completely from the population, but hasn’t told us what his plan is to confiscate them from criminals, just law-abiding citizens. Criminals don’t care about gun laws and if the government bans semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, all law-abiding citizens will be severely restricted in any attempt to defend themselves and their families. When the bad guy breaks in your house with an AR-15, you don’t want to be fighting him with a BB gun. Furthermore, when seconds count, the police might be there in five minutes. But don’t worry, they will process the scene carefully and probably collect enough evidence to identify the killer. They might even lock him up for a few days.
Both the Heller case and in McDonald v. The City of Chicago, the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment acknowledged the right for private citizens to possess handguns in their own homes for personal protection. These are modern-era cases and the Court obviously considered modern weapons. Most handguns sold in the U.S. for many years now have been semi-automatic weapons with “high-capacity” magazines, holding 10 or more rounds. It’s difficult to draw much distinction between a semi-automatic handgun and an AR-15 in terms of effectiveness or firepower at close range (inside the home). In fact, the handgun is easier to handle and therefore a quicker draw in life-threatening situations.
Therefore, hypothetically, any future litigant fighting for his right to protect himself and his family inside his home with an AR-15, banned or not, could cite Heller and McDonald and have a reasonable expectation to win his case before the Supreme Court. The same argument could be made for “high-capacity” magazines, as the Supreme Court was well aware of modern-day weaponry. Seven rounds, ten rounds, 15 rounds – what’s the difference? It’s just an arbitrary number.
I get it; they just want to limit the ability of a criminal to commit mass murder. Oh wait, isn’t murder against the law already? So, we can assume mass murder is illegal too. Criminals don’t care about laws. Biden himself said in his ’85 debate, “I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”
If an evil mind wants to commit a massacre, he’ll find a way, whether it’s a bomb, a vehicle, or an illegal AR-15. Pretzel logic always comes back to bite you in the ass. They should call it “boomerang logic”. If you can’t stop the bad guy, why restrict the good guy’s ability to defend himself, his family, and sometimes others?
Academics and politicians who state that none of the Amendments are “absolute” occupy a ludicrous and indefensible position. If the supreme law of the land isn’t absolute, why have any laws at all ?
COMMENTS always welcome
See Part 2 of the series HERE
 National Archives ; Marbury v. Madison (1803)
 Wikipedia ; Constitution of the United States, Influences
 The Constitution, Article VI, in part (2nd paragraph):
“The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
 The Bill of Rights, Preamble
 District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES et al v. HELLER ; argued March 18, 2008 – Decided June 26, 2008
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion and was joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito in a 5-4 decision. Dissenters were Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer.
HELD: (in part)
1 The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp 2-53
2 Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. Pp 54-56
Two years later, the Supreme Court decided the case McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 SCt 3020 (decided June 28, 2010), in favor of the Plaintiff wherein the Court determined that the Second Amendment rights supersede the laws of state and local governments. In other words, despite Chicago’s strict gun laws, or any other place in America, it is perfectly LEGAL, and your RIGHT, to own a handgun in your home for protection.
 Everytown Research & Policy, 2020 vs. 2019 Gun Homicides ; Dec 16, 2021
 A. P. ; 2021 Ends as Chicago’s Deadliest Year in a Quarter Century, U.S. News ; Jan 1, 2022
 Gramlich, John; What the Data Says About Gun Deaths in the U.S. , Pew Research Center, FBI data ; Feb 3, 2022
 ProCon.org ; Britannica, Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted? ;
Last updated Aug 7, 2020
 Quinnipiac University ; U.S. Support for Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever ; Feb 20, 2018
 Montanaro, Domenico ; npr.org, Americans Largely Support Gun Restrictions to “Do Something” About Gun Violence ; Aug 10, 2019
and the NPR article cited;
National Public Radio (NPR), an extremely biased “news” outlet, didn’t offer any data on the research methodology and the numbers surveyed. The article did break down some of the questions and the responses by Democrats, Republicans and Independents surveyed. For example, in the cited 65% composite response; 86% of Dems were in favor; and 59% of Independents, but just 49% of Republicans thought it would make a difference.
 Frank, BrieAnna J. ; Fact Check: Biden Once Said He ‘Never Believed’ Gun Control, Federal Registration Would Reduce Crime, USA Today ; June 14, 2022
Whoa, where is the Disinformation Bureau? USA Today admits that he said it, quoting the full context, but wants you to think the quote is a falsehood in the headline. That’s what I call propaganda. Your mind has been conditioned to believe that “fact check” means the story is going to debunk the claim. Otherwise, why put “Fact Check” in the headline?