Whenever there is a shooting or a terrorist attack, Democrat lefties immediately seize on the tragedy, seemingly before the bodies are cleared, in order to ride their favorite political hobby horse of gun confiscation, or as they like to more gently refer to it, gun control. There seems to be a complete logic disconnect as they suggest that taking guns away from ordinary citizens is going to make everyone safer when the bad guys or the terrorists come to shoot them. How will unarmed citizens be safer under those circumstances?
There is, in fact, ample evidence that arming the public will do more to advance the safety of society than even a huge increase in police might would. Police cannot be everywhere at every moment, but an armed populace, especially one with hidden weapons, is a tremendous deterrent to bad guys since they have no idea who is armed or where they may be. And it certainly does not require arming every person in a crowd. The unknown factor of who might or might not be packing a nine millimeter pistol keeps the baddies guessing.
The evidence for this proposition is that most or all of the recent mass shootings have taken place in “gun free zones,” meaning zones designated to be free of guns. And they were, except for the bad guy or guys, who somehow missed the rule and so were able to mow down countless unarmed and defenseless citizens.
Another arrogant, anti-gun “progressive,” in this case a law professor by the name of David Cohen, has rushed to print anti-American propaganda in Rolling Stone magazine. While there may be as many as a dozen people who still actually read the magazine, it might still be instructive to broaden the reach of his musings and review some of the good professors points in this article.
Read anti-gun arguments on page 2:
Steve Bontje , First , this law is place along with a second law to get rid of also !!!…..Then ,….” There is US /We the People ” ….WINNING by Us !!!! ——————————————-#2….>The$#%&!@*Act of 1902 – Gun Control FORBIDDEN! Were you aware of this law?$#%&!@*ACT of 1902 – CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government It would appear that the administration is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don’t know this, their rights and the constitution. Don’t prove them right. The$#%&!@*Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. **SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE ** The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The$#%&!@*Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard. Sources: http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/gun_control… http://rosieontheright.com/what-is-the-militia-bill-h-r…/ Get this message out to all your email contacts. It’s time to learn about your rights. Our current President and the Democrats don’t seem to worry about breaking laws or the U.S. Constitution. They do things regardless even if it goes against the Constitution which they swore to abide by when each one of them took office. That itself is an impeachable offense!!!
————————————————————————–
#3…Law……..
Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902
DECEMBER. 20, 2014
The$#%&!@*Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The$#%&!@*Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917
$#%&!@*Act of 1902
Can’t be Repealed
civilrightstaskforce.info
No way.. Rolling stone$#%&!@*you
What an idiot. First, it’s NOT a representative democracy, it’s a representative republic. Second, we have the right to defend ourselves. We can’t do that with rocks and sticks very effectively. In case these folks don’t understand, the police are NOT there to protect us, but to ENFORCE the laws. That’s why they are called Law Enforcement Officers. It’s up to each of us to protect ourselves, that’s our job and no one else’s.
Rolling Stone magazine can go to hell! Let’s take the liberals guns away,and believe me they have them..The body guards they hire can be disarmed since they don’t like the second amendment.Game Over Liberals,surrender you still have time.
It’s time to start printing the rolling stone on toilet paper.
The Rolling Stone Mag Rag writers and editors can go straight to hell. It si our right to keep and bar arms, PERIOD!!! Nothing more needs to be said!!!
Jerry W Plumb I couldn’t of said it better. Thanks for serving.
F**e
Ignorance
its time to get rid of rolling stone