Electrical Parts

  Joe Cell

  Spark Plugs

  Stainless Steel

  My Videos

  Favorite Sites



2nd Amendment

BigFoot - Sasquatch

Black Powder Making

Build a Wood Tree Stand

Moonshine Stills

Hemp Revolution




War on The Second Amendment


 "When they take our Guns, they will also seek to take our God.
That is when Americans will fight back."


NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer

The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thursday, January 10, 2013



The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).


The 2nd Amendment and Obama's agenda


The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was drafted so the free people of the new United States could defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

It reads:

"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."

To have a true understanding of the 2nd Amendment, it is important to put it into the historical context in which it was written. America had just defeated the world's greatest superpower. They did it, by and large, with the weapons they had at home.

The Colonists were suffering under the oppression of an all-powerful central government in which they felt they had no representation. King George III ruled by official edict from London with total disregard to the popular opinions of the people.

Their taxes were raised and new taxes levied and the Continental Congress filed grievances with the King. The Stamp Act again raised their taxes and the Sons of Liberty were born. They protested this new tax and dumped tea in to the Boston Harbor. The event has gone down in history as the Boston Tea Party and gave our group its name.

But, none of those actions by the British were enough to cause the Colonists to take arms.

On 18 April, 1775, the British forces in Boston started marching to Concord. Their purpose? To seize the weapons and arms that the colonists had stored there. In the hearts and minds of the militiamen, that was the final straw. They would fight for their right to bear arms.

The first battles of the American Revolution were fought over the right of the private citizen to arm himself. Despite all the previous grievances the colonies had about taxes, fees, penalties, executive orders and regulations, it was the threat of the government to seize their arms that pushed the Colonists to fight.

Read the 2nd Amendment again:

"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."

It was written as much to allow the private citizen to acquire arms as it was written to prevent a tyrannical central government from seizing the weapons the people already owned.

Is that where we are now? Leftist Progressive politicians from NY State Governor Andrew Cuomo to Vice President Joe Biden and of course, President Barack Obama are all calling for more laws, rules and regulations to control the private citizens' right to arm himself.

On 8 January, Governor Cuomo took it a step further. In his 2013 State of the State Address, he said “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said (http://bit.ly/YtcWPV).

In this country, founded on the principle of the private citizen's right to bear arms, we have a state governor calling for the government to forcibly seize the private property of law-abiding citizens in the form of their guns. Arms are the only category of personal property specifically protected in the Bill of Rights.

In his press conference today, Obama stated "I’m grateful to Vice President Biden for his work on this issue of gun violence and for his proposals, which I'm going to be reviewing today and I will address in the next few days and I intend to vigorously pursue" (politi.co/W6khAa).

He said he has been presented with a "list of sensible, common-sense steps that can be taken to make sure that the kinds of violence we saw at Newtown doesn't happen again." What steps taken by an over-reaching Federal government would have prevented a mentally troubled man from killing his mother, illegally seizing her guns and taking them into an elementary school?

He killed his mother. That was a crime. He stole her guns. That was a crime. He took them into a school. That was a crime. Then he shot all those innocent people. That was a crime. Another law, or thirteen more laws, as advocated by George Soros' Center for American Progress (bit.ly/W5yD3Q) would not have deterred his murderous rampage.

When asked what kind of legislation he was looking for, Obama replied "My starting point is not to worry about the politics; my starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works; what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing the incidents of gun violence. And I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment."

This is a lie or he is seriously delusional. The president's hometown is Chicago. Chicago has the toughest anti-gun laws in the country and that city also had over 500 murders by guns last year. More laws to restrict law-abiding citizens' right to protect themselves fail. The fact is, where there are more lawfully armed people, there is less violent crime.

There has been a focus on the so-called "high capacity" magazines. As a law-abiding citizen that has lawfully acquired my firearms, I don't have to justify the 30th, 50th or even the 2nd shot fired. I only have to justify the first one. When a person is defending their life, their family or their property, it doesn't matter how many shots they need to fire to eliminate the threat. Either they need to use their firearm to defend themselves or they don't.

Private ownership of firearms is a fundamental right protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In Obama's progressive, utopian world, this isn't about controlling guns, it is about controlling us.

As Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


, Watertown Tea Party Examiner

Joe is a retired US Army Military Intelligence officer and has served in Germany, Korea, all over the US and has 3 tours in Iraq. Currently he is the Director of Emergency Services for St. Lawrence County, NY along the Canadian border.




In The News

Good news on Gun Violence could shape Gun Control Debate http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-07/good-news-on-gun-violence-could-shape-gun-control-debate
Missouri Lawmakers Pass Bill to Nullify Federal Gun Control Laws http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/missouri-lawmakers-pass-bill-that-would-nullify-federal-gun-control-laws/

End of the line for the lead bullet? Regulations, bans force switch to 'green' ammo

Backdoor gun control is here: no lead means no bullets
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2013/12/backdoor-gun-control-lead-means-bullets/#JbYfE6oMRfDHVXDS.99
Backdoor gun control is here: no lead means no bullets
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2013/12/backdoor-gun-control-lead-means-bullets/#JbYfE6oMRfDHVXDS.99


How to find Free & Cheap sources of Lead for casting and reloading bullets

    Copyright © 2003   All rights reserved.   Revised: 04/03/22.                                             Web Author, David Biggs
The information presented on this web site is for information purposes only. Should you decide to perform experiments or construct any device, you do so wholly on your own responsibility
-- Neither the company hosting this web site, nor the site designer author are in any way responsible for your actions or any resulting loss or damage of any description, should any occur as a result of what you do.