Gun Control: It’s all unconstitutional

2nd Amendment

The left wing and its media will never let a crisis go to waste!  The easiest way for those who want power to gain it is to scare you into giving it to them willfully.  There is no reason to use force to control you if you volunteer to be enslaved.  With the bully pulpit of the entire main stream media at their finger tips, the left depicts an America where we have to live in constant fear. They bully dissenting voices into towing their party line.  Political correctness keeps the dissenters in line for fear of being called names like right wing radicals.  We’ve come to a point where the Constitution of the United States is considered right wing radicalism.  Freedom is radical.  Liberty is insanity!  We are called names by the very people who fit those names, yet those of us on the right are always cowered into never calling out the hypocrisy.  Intolerant of anything traditional or having morals and family values, the left calls us intolerant if we dislike abhorrent behavior.  If we want people to behave, we’re called racists.  If we read the Bible, we’re homophobes.  In this way, they keep everyone afraid to speak their minds.  If we’re silent, it’s easier to control us, because we all feel alone.

Once we’re silent and those we elect in landslide elections are also kept silent, the fear mongering is employed.  While every type of gun related crime is sharply down as gun ownership has steeply climbed over the past several years, it doesn’t stop the media from making it look like the exact opposite is occurring.  Gun crimes are down, but media hysteria is way up!  Every statistic has shown that as gun ownership increases, crime drops, even in places like Chicago.  The left constantly repeats the number 30,000 as in the number of gun deaths every year, which still doesn’t reach the number of vehicle related deaths.  They will never break that number down, so that we know that 18,000 of those deaths are suicides.  Robin Williams didn’t need a gun.  They want it to sound as if there are 30,000 murders every year and that they could only occur if guns are involved.  Truthfully, there are closer to 12,000 murders in America each year and dropping, a country of 320,000,000 and 8,400 with guns.  This number has come down tremendously during the Obama Administration, but the left wing media doesn’t want you to know that.  You would think that should be something positive they could attribute to Obama, but not really.  It has to do with the fact that gun manufacturers have had to triple production to keep up with the demand for new gun purchases during Obama’s administration.  More guns equal less murders.

Another figure they don’t want broken down out of that 30,000 is how many gun related deaths are justifiable.  With an average of 2.5 million uses of guns in self defense every year, the vast majority of them never having to come to a point where a gun is fired, a few actually do end up in the deaths of a mugger, a rapist, a burglar, a robber, or an attempted murderer.  Good riddance.  Some gun deaths are good gun deaths.  When you lump all gun deaths into one number and scream it across every media platform as a fear mongering tactic, then you’re not only being dishonest, but you’re going so far off the deep end that you’re no longer credible.  This is the point the left has missed and why the gun control groups like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America have failed so miserably.  They jumped the shark on the gun control debate and revealed themselves for who they truly are: control freaks.

What about all the mass shootings?  Well, there aren’t that many to be honest and the rate of their occurrences is down too.  The media coverage of each one is off the charts, though!  With every mass shooting, comes a claim that it’s some crazy conservative shooting up a place, yet once the story gets fleshed out a little more we find out that almost every one is a lunatic liberal or jihadi muslim. We also find out that it happened in a gun free zone, where no one could shoot back.

Let’s take a look at the South Carolina church shooting by Dylann Roof for instance.  The media and the left still keep trying to call him a radical right winger, because in one picture he held a Northern Virginia Battle Flag (commonly misconstrued as The Confederate Flag).  Well, the tell tale sign that he was a lefty starts off with another picture showing him burning the American Flag.  If there is one thing that no conservative does, it’s burn the American Flag.  As a matter of fact, the pastor of the church and South Carolina State Senator who Roof shot and killed, Clementa Pinckney, voted to keep the Dixie Flag on capitol grounds and also voted to disarm the flocks of every church in the state without permission of the pastor of each church to carry a gun for self defense.  Pastor and Senator Pinckney, God rest his soul, did not give such permission in his church, so he laid the groundwork for his own and his flock’s inability to shoot back when fired upon by a raving lunatic.  No flag was to blame for the deaths of 9 people in this South Carolina church.  Dylann Roof is of course the most at fault, followed in second place by Pastor/Senator Climenta Pinckney, God rest his soul.  That’s right, I said it.  If you disarm yourself and others against those who would do you harm, harm may befall you.  It may not sound pretty, but there you have it.

Being politically correct won’t allow the cold hard truths to be told without people attacking you with comments such as “how dare you say such a thing?”  Truth is still there though for anyone with eyes opened to it.  Too many people are afraid to speak the truth, because of the ridicule from the left that it invites, which makes it so much easier for the left to get away with spreading their lies.

There are so many gun control laws and so many ways that they have gotten people hurt, killed, or unconstitutionally jailed.  They are all unconstitutional.  The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless…”  There is no reason to infringe.  Every time our rights are infringed, people get hurt.  Nothing good comes of it.

It’s been discovered that Dylann Roof should have failed a background check before buying a gun.  Why?  A person who is intent on shooting up a church will get a gun whether a background check passes or fails.  Bad guys do bad things.  The background check itself is the problem.  What are they checking for?  If the 2nd Amendment is clear that your right shall not be infringed, then nothing they check for can be used to infringe.  Why check?  Well, because they do infringe.  They violate the Constitution.  Background checks violate the 4th and 5th amendments as well.  Your background is being searched without a warrant and you are forced to incriminate yourself on the forms you fill out or face years in prison.  No right to remain silent.  You’re guilty until you prove your innocence.

The Unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968 doesn’t allow felons to own guns.  By creating this unconstitutional 2nd class citizen without rights, they have created the incentive to come up with more ways to put people into that class.  Its almost impossible to get through life without becoming a felon anymore.  If someone is so evil and violent, there are no guns in jail and that’s where they should be.  Don’t let them out, because if they truly intend to do harm, banning felons from owning firearms never stops them.  We only stop those who don’t intend to do harm, but who might want to get their life together again and have a desire to protect their family.  Only those felons who have decided to become law abiding citizens end up remaining disarmed.  Most of these felons have broken unconstitutional federal laws to earn that title in the first place, which is another discussion in and of itself.  Our country did just fine for two centuries before we decided to create a 2nd class citizen called felons.

Take my advice.  Arm yourself and your family.  Stand up and fight unconstitutional gun control laws.  If you don’t know which ones are the unconstitutional ones, they all are.  If you’re proud of your concealed weapons permit, you’ve already been brainwashed.  You should need no permit to exercise a right.  Many states are starting to move toward Constitutional Carry, where permits are no longer required.  Sometimes only in baby steps.  Missouri and Maine are two of the latest.  Texas finally allows open carry of modern pistols, but only with a permit.  Next step: repeal the law requiring a permit.  Keep up the good work, because truthfully, we have been having a 2nd Amendment awakening and have made a lot of positive progress.  It’s not time to start hitting the brakes though, it’s time to push harder on the gas.


If you enjoyed this blog post, please share on Facebook, Twitter or one of the other choices below!  Thank you!


  1. You stated “They shall have the power to, which does not mean they [Congress] are obligated to.”

    You: “Shall”—”does not mean obligated to” (your direct quote)

    Merriam Webster Dictionary: “Shall”— “to say that something is expected to happen in the future”; “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory”.

    Your saying that the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong?


      • The dictionary clearly contradicts what you stated the word actually means. Both cannot be correct. You cannot accept being wrong. You can ad hominem all you like, its merely childish and diminishes credibility.


          • You claim that a word does not mean what the Merriam Webster Dictionary itself defines it to be. When questioned about the contradiction, the “questioner is a “whiner”. Have some self respect.


  2. If Article 1, section 8, 16 states that the United States is to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia… and the 2nd Amendment states A well regulated militia…the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It seems to me that the Militia is the People and the People have a right to keep and bear arms which is supposed to be provided by the United States government. So my question is: “President Obama, where is my gun? I have a Constitutionally protected right to my gun and you have a Constitutional mandate to provide me with one. So I ask again, where is my gun?”


    • Not supposed to be provided for. Can be provided for. The words, “To provide for” in this clause just like in every clause in Art 1 Sec 8 are preceded by Art1 Sec8 Clause 1, “shall have power to.” Nowhere does it say, “Must provide for.” You also have to keep reading, because they also have the power “for governing SUCH PART as of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” The militia can decide to be employed by the federal government and are only governed by Congress if they are. However, that said, yes, Congress could buy you a gun. They can’t give you a welfare check. Not constitutionally. But as long as you are part of the militia they may provide for your preparedness. Very few people realize this.


      • Well I am not going to hold my breath waiting on a gun to magically show up. But there have been a few cities to pass ordinance requiring every household to have a firearm. I wonder if that is Constitutional. Not a bad idea, but may not be strictly legal. Of course that would be a local or state issue, not sure if the federal government could get involved or not.


        • Yes, a city could pass a law requiring you to have a gun. It really doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment, because it doesn’t infringe on your right to bear arms, it encourages it. The federal government has no such authority. That said, a state should not tell you what you have to purchase, which is why none of those laws are enforced and are purely symbolic. If they were to start passing out the guns, it might be a different story.


      • You stated: “Not supposed to be provided for. Can be provided for. The words, “To provide for” in this clause just like in every clause in Art 1 Sec 8 are preceded by Art1 Sec8 Clause 1, “shall of the power to.” Nowhere does it say, “Must provide for.””

        From where does your understanding and legal analysis of “shall” and “provide” come from? This is what happens when someone applies their own arbitrary “meanings” to the Constitution rather than study how the laws were constructed, understood, and applied based upon the words that they used at that time and for generations before and must remain so today and into the indefinite future.

        The word “shall” meant then as it does today “to say that something is expected to happen in the future”; “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory”. (See Merriam Webster Dictionary) So every “shall” WE THE PEOPLE used in our Constitution was “regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory” as a matter of constitutional “law” that “is expected to happen in the future”. Also see the 2nd amendment where it does not say “must not be infringed”, but “shall not be infringed”, which has precisely the same legal application, as it does throughout the Constitution. “Shall” was common usage in law, with a precise meaning, as even the Merriam Webster Dictionary itself indicates.

        “Provide” meant in the Founding era as it means today, “to make preparation to meet a need; especially: to supply something for sustenance or support”. (See Merriam Webster Dictionary).

        The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 13, 1791. In light of the legal and therefore constitutional meaning of “shall provide for”, the first Militia Act of Congress was enacted on May 8, 1792. So in less than five months from the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Congress performed its constitutionally mandated duty to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States” ARTICLE I, SECTION 8. There were subsequent militia acts that updated the first militia act consistent with the constitutional mandate.

        Anyone who bothers to read any legal history, or in this case a dictionary, will not find a single instance of your misguided “interpretation” of “shall”.


        • “Shall have power to,” does not mean “must.” It’s asinine to assert that having powers means they must be used. I think you are off on a completely bizarre tangent, just wanting to argue something, but not really understanding why you want to argue about it. You should stop saying “shall provide for,” since the Constitution says no such thing. They shall have the power to, which does not mean they are obligated to. This has nothing to do with legalese as you seem to be saying, it’s all written in 6th grade English. The founders fully intended for all people to be able to understand the Constitution without the aid of an legal interpreter. I haven’t interpreted anything, I simply read it. Unlike you, I am not substituting words. There is nothing wrong with the use of the word “shall.” You are applying it against the wrong verb. It doesn’t say “Shall provide,” it says “Shall have.” They do have.


          • Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines “shall” as: “to say that something is expected to happen in the future”; “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory”. Your saying that the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong?


          • Yay! Congress’s existence was future tense to Madison writing the Constitution. Your comments are bizarre beyond belief. You are fabricating a belief that I have somehow misused the word “shall” and going full on OCD over trying to make a case of it. What is your point? If you are trying to insinuate that Congress must do something, what is you you are saying they must do?


          • Hi Anna! I’m a big fan. Loved your book 🙂 Miss you on Twitter 😦 Taking your advice that “words have meaning”, so I was very curious about this debate over the meaning of “shall” between you and “Constitutionalist” in this thread. So I did my homework. I also have an uncle who is a constitutional attorney that I put to work 🙂 The word “shall” in the law means “mandatory” and is a synonym for “must”. So you can replace “must” for “shall’. The 2nd Amendment (our favorite!) can be stated, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms must not be infringed’. And the same applies that “Congress shall [must exercise by law] have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States” ARTICLE I, SECTION 8. So Congress has to “provide” so that it can exercise its power to “govern such Part” of the Militia. That power of Congress would be impotent if it had not been provided for in advance. Therefore Congress would not be able to “call forth”, “govern”, and “employ” the Militia” in the service of the United States” if it had not already provided for doing so before hand. As my uncle stated,”You don’t wait for a fire to burn before providing for the means to put it out!”.

            The word “may” is discretionary in the law. For instance, Article 3, Section1 states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Notice it says “may from time to time ordain and establish”. So Congress “may from time to time” or it may not exercise this power, so it is left up to Congress’s discretion. So the Constitution distinguishes between mandatory (“shall”) and discretionary (“may from time to time”) powers.

            I love learning the Constitution and hope this helps! Take care 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          • Thank you very much! I agree. I have no idea what this guy was trying to argue. All I could tell is that he seemed to be placing the word “shall” where it isn’t within the Constitution. I didn’t get his point at all. It was like arguing with someone who had a lobotomy. His synapses weren’t all firing. It was akin to me saying that oranges grow in Florida and he started screaming about apples have seeds and getting all upset as if I said they didn’t.


  3. I was curious if you ever considered changing the page layout of your site?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you
    could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with
    it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two images.

    Maybe you could space it out better?


    • Hi! Thanks for the comment. I am brand new to this. So new, I just realized your comment was in a spam folder that I didn’t know was there, so I am just now getting to it. Sorry about that. I am not sure what other formats could be good, but I have added a few more articles and header pictures to go with them since you made your comment. I hope to improve.


    • Thank you very much! Sorry I only just saw your comment. I just found the spam folder and it was in there for some reason. I am very new to this and still learning. 😄


  4. We need more voices like yours. Our culture, our Republic are at risk. And now Obama with his Iran nuke deal, would put our security and the future of our children in the hands of the UNITED NATIONS!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks! I just wish Mitch McConnel had a spine. All he has to do is laugh at Obama and say, “We don’t need 2/3 of the Senate to override your veto on this deal, YOU need 2/3 of the Senate to approve it.” That would end it.


      • Thank you for another excellent commentary! I hope you will do one on the Iran “deal”. We can NOT leave this to chance. We are in trouble, as the occupant of the Oval Office is putting unbelievable pressure on the Democrats. We can not be silent and assume our reps will vote against this abomination. Our national security and the very future of America depend on our taking action to prevent this administration from siding with Iran and literally fighting against Israel.
        “For this is what the LORD of the Heavenly Armies says: ‘In pursuit of glory I was sent to the nations who plundered you, because whoever injures you injures the pupil of my eye.'” Zechariah 2:8
        Very important info here:


        • Thanks! I never know what I will write next, because I can’t force it. I just write what pops into my head. The Iran deal is as unconstitutional as it gets and I can’t believe Congress hasn’t put a stop to it. They don’t have to vote on it. Obama needs the Senate to vote on it and pass it with 67 votes for it to be a deal at all.


  5. As usual, you cut through the clutter and get right to the heart of the issue. I’ve followed your crusade to inform the low info reader about the Constitution. I’d like to hear more about your take on politics. Good luck w/ the blog.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. It’s easy to say “Yes” but I understand that it take time to keep a regular blog active and interesting. I appreciate most of your thoughts and comments daily. Hope you decide to keep this going.

    The 2nd Amendment fight is extremely important to keep in front of the public’s conscious. Too often I feel we are only “preaching the choir” on social media. However it’s a great tool to stoke the fires of awareness and eliminate the feeling of we’re not alone. I do strongly believe that The 2nd Amendment is critical to our American Freedoms but the biggest issue before us is getting the Americans to see the overall plan of the socialist Progressive movement.

    Good Luck with this new project. You have great talent and we need voices like yours.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s