There has been a new ruling on the right to keep and bear arms. It was this past week in a supreme court case, McDonald v. Chicago, involving a suit filed against a gun ban law in Chicago. The court ruled by a slim 5-4 decision that their last ruling against a federal gun ban in Washington D.C. also applied to state and local governments. So this would be received by most second amendment supporters, including myself, as good news. And it is good news. It keeps alive and continues to strengthen the correct belief that ownership and bearing firearms is a Constitutional right.

BUT there is something un-mysteriously missing from the entire debate. And that is an indepth discussion about what the second amendment is really about. Over and over, we hear from gun rights groups that the right to keep and bear arms is about personal safety and defence. They also like to throw in hunting as a legitimate reason why the 2nd amendment cannot be overruled or expunged. Really? Is that what the second amendment is trying protect? Is that why it is positioned in the second spot right after the right to free speech and to assemble? And why would the Founders position an amendment which decrees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed directly after the first amendment? The answers in order are no, no, no, and the reason for its positioning is that the second amendment PROTECTS the first. And who does the second amendment protect the first from? Why it is blatantly obvious. It protects the first from those who would seek to stamp it out, who would seek to curtail it, who would seek to make it history. I ask you. Would that group threatening the first amendment be street criminals or even organized crime? When in the history of the Republic has a political gathering or any other mass protest or event been driven out by common criminals? Perhaps the renegade deer and bear are the hidden threat to our rights to speech and organization.

No friend, the threat to the first amendment that the second defends against is the government. It is the government, at all levels, federal, state, and local that has ALWAYS been the threat, the interested party in curtailing our rights. And it will ALWAYS be the threat. It is the government who intrudes and regulates what we can say or write and when and where we can say it. It requires permits to organize. It sends battalions of police to ensure order and to intimidate when people decide to gather for any purpose, political or otherwise. It prevents the people from protesting at the organized rallies of the elite, witness the recent political conventions of both parties in 2008. It prosecutes those whose speech steps out of line with what the latest perimeters of the day are. It is time that those would speak out on the second amendment inject some truth and courage into their basis of argument.

What these so called guns rights groups actually do, when they invoke the pedestrian side benefits of gun ownership to validate the second amendment, is cheapen it. Indeed, the idea of listing hunting as any part of the second amendment is a fool’s ranting. Hunting? We have a Constitutional right to hunt? What writings can these people point to in the Founders’ work that invoke the reasoning of home defence and hunting as the activity at stake in the second amendment? These shallow excuses allow the enemies of the Constitution to essentially laugh at the second amendment. What fool would spend hours of their daily life, donate hundreds of dollars annually, attend large rallies and conventions, and vote for the leadership of the Republic based on a right to have the means to hunt? These worthless arguments do nothing more than undermine its profound utility in the order of natural rights. They deny its philosophical derivations that date back to the Magna Carte. And that is that a free man MUST BE ARMED.  To be free a nation must be armed. There is no alternative. A nation disarmed is nation of slaves. The Constitutional rights listed are there to offer protection to our NATURAL RIGHTS to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY. And the second amendment stands alone as the guarantor of everything above it.

The right to keep and bear arms is the right TO BE ABLE to destroy the government. Do you understand that? Read it again if you must. The ownership of weaponry gives the PEOPLE the right to be able to reform the state. It does not confer the automatic right to attack the state, but it gives the people the right to be and remain an everpresent threat to a government. This understanding was dramatically underscored in a supreme court case from 1939, Miller v US. In this decision the court wrote the following as the basis for upholding the conviction of Mr. Miller for transporting 2 sawed off shotguns for sale across state lines:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

What Chief Justice McReynolds is saying that only weaponry used by the states militia or the military of the day are protected by the second amendment. That is that the infantry weapon of the time is precisely the weapon that is the subject of second amendment.  Unfortunately for Miller, what the supreme court was unaware of, due the defence failing to offer any rebuttal, is that the US Army had made the short barrel shotgun a standard military issue weapon since WW1, some 30000-40000 were sent to the troops for guarding of German POWs. The majority of subsequent court decisions have erroniously misinterpreted this ruling as only protecting the right of the state militia to own firearms. It takes quite a willful misreading of the text to arrive at that conclusion, but nevertheless it is what has occurred.

So the only case to seriously investigate the meaning of the second amendment, without referring to stare decisis as a crutch, determined that the weapons of war are the protected class of firearm by the second amendment. It is the M-16 and the AK-47 that are foremost protected for civilian ownership and much less the 9mm handgun. They are the weapons that allow the people to stand and defeat the state when that day comes. And this precisely validates what the Founders envisioned to be the basis for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The people must retain the capability to throw down a corrupt state when they determine by mass consensus that the state has ceased to be a net positive. When the state has overgrown and metastisized to an ungovernable entity, tyranny is the result. A nation disarmed has no recourse for this.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – T. Jefferson

The guns rights groups are not as ignorant as we may want to believe. The NRA and its leader LaPierre know exactly what the second amendment is. They are simply afraid to put what they know is right out on the table. They fear that the public will not accept such radical ideas. But this is a false rationalization. It is time for the gun rights groups to stand unabashed at what the significance of the second amendment really is. At what it truly protects. And against whom it guarantees recourse. To fail in this will allow the enemies of an armed people to enact ever more regulation and restriction on the basis that the “right” to hunt deer or defend against a street thug is outweighed by the domestic risks of mass gun ownership. And that the most vital weaponry for the people to maintain liberty, the assault rifle, can be restricted as being necessary for neither.

http://www.youtube.com/wa…

Vote Debra Medina For Texas Governor!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Perry Still Way Ahead in Texas (politicalwire.com)
• Glenn Beck Accuses Tea Party Candidate Of Being A 9/11 Truther (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Can Perry Avoid a Run Off? (politicalwire.com)
• Was Debra Medina Set-up? (riehlworldview.com)
• Candidates make last sweep before Texas primary (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

“The most important political office is that of the private citizen”
Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Were it not clear before yesterday in the manner which Glenn Beck sandbagged and set a trap for surging Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina who was rising in the polls and closing in on establishment insiders Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, it should be clear now that Glenn Beck is an inside job, an establishment status quo shill masquerading and posing as a revolutionary. His job is to obfuscate the truth, to serve as an outlet for the supremely misguided and ill informed in America, a master manipulator, a minister of disinformation and propaganda telling authorized truths as a card carrying member of America’s propaganda matrix.

Since I’m a SMU grad and I’m very disappointed in these ratings. I expected students at my Alma mater to recognize true liberty… Debra Medina is the ONLY choice, and owned the other 2 in the debates! What’s going on since I left?

By Elisabeth Brubaker
ebrubake@smu.edu

SMU Professor Dr. Rita Kirk held a focus group in Umphrey Lee Friday night to study the Republican reaction to the Belo debate. Kirk recruited 30 Republicans- both first time and repeat voters to participate in the focus group during the GOP Debate.

Kirk has been doing research for over 20 years. CNN first hired Kirk for the debates during the presidential election primaries. This past weekend she brought her research back to the Hilltop only one day after going to Ohio to dial test the President’s State of the Union address.

The focus groups are used to “dial test” a particular speech or event. Each participant is given a dial to record their perceptions of the candidates (or the President) at any moment throughout the speech or debate.

Kirk loves analyzing the data afterwards. During the candidates’ closing statements Kirk was able to see who did the best overall. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison had the highest rating with 73 out of 100. Governor Rick Perry got a 67 and Debra Medina got a 63.

Some participants offered their opinions of the dial testing and candidates after the debate. Watch the videos for their reactions.

(Editor’s note: Elisabeth Brubaker is a student assistant for Dr. Kirk’s research study.)

One participant said this about the “jeopardy” portion of the debate:

Another participant discussed how she reads the candidates.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rick Perry Pulls Out Of “Value Voters” Straw Poll (huffingtonpost.com)
• Prof Runs GOP Debate Focus Group on Campus (smudailymustang.com)

DALLAS—An obscure candidate with backing from the “tea party” movement threatens to deny a decisive victory to either Texas Gov. Rick Perry or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the battle for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Texas.

Little-known Debra Medina made a splash two weeks ago in a televised debate. She criticized the governor for “painting a rosy picture that doesn’t exist” about the Texas economy and said her rivals’ “squabbling isn’t getting us anywhere.”

Mrs. Medina “stole the show,” said Harvey Kronberg, longtime editor of the Quorum Report newsletter in Austin.

Associated Press

Debra Medina

On Friday night, Mrs. Medina will try to prove that her debate showing was no fluke.

A nurse and former Republican Party leader in Wharton County, in south Texas, Mrs. Medina is running on a platform of small government, states’ rights, and the elimination of property taxes and gun-registration laws.

While she appeals to many of the same primary voters as Mr. Perry, she has been trying to tap into Texans‘ anti-incumbent fervor. Mr. Perry has been governor since 2000 and is seeking a third full term; Ms. Hutchison has served in Washington since 1993.

The winner of the March 2 primary is likely to face Bill White, the Democratic former mayor of Houston, in November.

A Rasmussen Reports poll of 831 likely Republican voters, taken three days after the Jan. 14 debate, gave Mrs. Medina 12% support, a jump from the 4% or so she had in earlier surveys. She appeared to have drawn new backing from undecided voters as well as from the Perry and Hutchison camps.

To be sure, Mrs. Medina remained far below Mr. Perry’s 43% and Ms. Hutchison’s 33% voter backing.

And though she has raised $100,000 since the Jan. 14 debate, according to her staff, bringing her total to more than $360,000, the establishment candidates have raised millions of dollars and have already started funding ad campaigns.

They also outpace her on the endorsement front. Sarah Palin is slated to campaign for Mr. Perry in Houston on Feb. 7, and last week former President George H.W. Bush came out for Ms. Hutchison.

Mrs. Medina said her goal was to win the primary, and that victory wasn’t out of reach. “I believe we are fighting the very same battle the Founding Fathers fought,” she said.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, left, and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison last week

Her current level of support wouldn’t be enough to win her a place on the November ballot, but it could keep the other candidates from receiving the 51% of the vote needed to avoid an April runoff.

“As long as Medina is in double figures, you have to figure that a runoff is pretty imminent,” said James R. Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project, a program at the University of Texas in Austin that does nonpartisan polling and research.

Spokeswomen for the Perry and Hutchison campaigns predicted their candidates would win outright on March 2.

Mrs. Medina is critical of both Mr. Perry and Ms. Hutchison, calling them “two sides of the same coin.” But she has reserved some of her sharpest jabs for the governor, whom she described in an interview as the “jumpy, fidgety frat boy sitting on stage with me two weeks ago.”

In response to Mrs. Medina’s remark, Catherine Frazier, a spokesman for the governor, said: “Under Gov. Perry’s leadership, Texas is the strongest state in the nation. If that is what she thinks about where Texas is headed, that’s unfortunate.”

Dr. Henson of the Texas Politics Project was among the political mavens who thought Mr. Perry would prevail in a runoff, because he was most likely to capture Mrs. Medina’s voters.

But others thought Ms. Hutchison would benefit from the extra campaign time a runoff would afford and from Mrs. Medina’s attacks on the governor, which the senator encouraged during the first debate.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more fire coming in from Gov. Perry in the direction of Debra Medina,” said Ken Emanuelson, a leader of the tea-party movement in Dallas, which worked to ensure that she was included in both debates.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The showdown in Texas GOP governor’s primary (tech.bl0x.info)
• Texas GOP gov candidates clash over taxes, jobs (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Perry Leads Hutchison by Double Digits (politicalwire.com)
• Perry Rakes in the Money (politicalwire.com)

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry is far from having the Republican gubernatorial nomination sewn up, but a new poll indicates U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is in danger of having the bottom fall out of her campaign.

The political newsletter Rasmussen Reports released a survey of likely Republican primary voters showing Perry leading 44 percent to Hutchison’s 29 percent, with activist Debra Medina following at 16 percent.

Medina’s support has grown from the 12 percent she held in January, and the

publication said most of her gain appeared to be coming from Hutchison. Both of Medina’s gains in the polls occurred shortly after her participation in debates with Perry and Hutchison.

“Now that the people of Texas are watching and listening, we expect to accelerate drastically this next month in the polls,” Medina campaign manager Penny Langford Freeman said in a statement.

But without financial resources to keep her campaign on television with paid advertising, Medina is likely to fade between now and the March 2 election. A Texas Ethics Commission report filed this week showed Medina had just $68,483 available on Jan. 21.

War chests nearly equal

Perry and Hutchison had enough cash on hand to spend about $2 million a week. Perry pulled slightly ahead of Hutchison for the first time, reporting $10.4 million in the bank to her $10 million.

In the Rasmussen survey, Perry led among conservative Republicans by 18 percentage points, and Hutchison led by 11 percentage points among party moderates. Conservatives tend to dominate party primaries. Rasmussen said for Hutchison to win with current voter attitudes, half the primary voters would have to be moderates.

Both Perry and Hutchison’s spokespeople said the only poll they rely on is the one conducted on Election Day.

“The governor is going to continue traveling the state talking about his conservative record and his vision of the future,” said Perry spokesman Mark Miner.

Hutchison spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said Hutchison will continue to promote a “positive vision” for the state, but she said the poll also had bad news for Perry.

“It should be very troubling to a nine-year incumbent that he can’t get over 44 percent,” Baker said.

[ad#halfhoriz]

Common Sense; Common Values.

The federal government’s expansion into our State and our own lives has increased exponentially, reducing personal and State sovereignty to the breaking point.  Federal mandates retarded the Texas economy and threatened our Life, Liberty, and Property.
We Texans deserve a candidate who stands up to Washington and stands up for Texans.  Debra Medina stands up for Texans every day.  She works hard to assert and protect our Rights and fights against Big Government at every turn.  She’s an activist, who desires nothing more than to get government out of our lives!
When was the last time you saw a candidate take a hard, principled stand?  Certainly not our “Republicans” who express opposition to the federal healthcare takeover or the imposition of “Cap and Tax” simply because they’re expensive!  Not our governor who watched as hundreds of children were stolen from their families in one day! While Perry’s attempts to steal land for the Trans Texas Corridor and his edict for young girls to receive untested vaccinations have failed (largely thanks to activists like us), how many chances are we going to give him to violate our property and individual rights?
Debra, when elected, will employ nullification and interposition to fight violations our Constitutional Rights.  Our outgoing governor can crack jokes about secession all he wants, but, if he’s not first willing to take a stand and exercise all of the existing legal options available, then the joke is on us.  Join us and demand that our State Legislators call for a Special Session to discuss and implement NULLICATION!
One of the reasons that the State of Texas is in relatively good shape is that we don’t allow our State Legislature to get together often or long enough to do too much damage.  They have 6 months every 2 years in which to change laws and improve our State.
I’ve come to realize that our elected officials think that we don’t care if they don’t get the big stuff done, while incrementally increasing spending; that we aren’t noticing the slightly higher property taxes; that we can’t do anything about their persistent intrusion into our lives.  In the last session, our Legislators couldn’t even discuss whether a voter should prove that he or she lives in a particular district, which leads to election fraud, which costs good candidates countless elections and compromises out fundamental right to vote.
I’ve reached my limit.  I will not stand idly by as my State is increasingly victimized by career politicians who only desire more power at the expense of my Liberty!  I will NOT sit here and take it as my Congressman calculates the cost of yet another UNConstitutional bill, when we all know that the cost isn’t the issue!  I will NOT sit back as EVIL PREVAILS because GOOD MEN DO NOTHING!
I’m going to work hard for my candidates who will represent me here, in Austin, and in Washington because I know that I can set an example for the rest of the country.  When other States see what we’ve done here in Texas and how we worked to get the nomination of a real, principled Conservative, we will start the fire burning in the hearts of all Americans who believe that the government that governs BEST, governs LEAST!
Sincerely,
Jarrod Atkinson
Dallas County Chair – Debra Medina Campaign

Check it out

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Debra Medina

Rick Perry

Watch Medina debate Gov. Perry and Sen. Hutchison online at http://texasdebates.org

The Texas Debates: Race for Governor on Thursday, January 14 at 7:00 p.m.