School Shootings: The Truth of the Matter

We see too often stories of a person shooting up a school and killing people. Once is too many in my opinion. What we also witness is the usual reaction from the media and those that want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms- make the gun out to be the culprit. This idea could not be further from the truth or reality.

Let me start by saying that there is NO way that all school shootings can be prevented. We have crazy and just plain evil people in this world who have no regard for the sanctity of life and will sacrifice life for a myriad of twisted reasons. There is no way known to stop all of these people before they kill someone. Anybody who claims to have the “solution” is a peddler of lies. Freedom can be dangerous. But the alternative is invariably worse.

Let me also state, that while tragic, this is not an epidemic. There are plenty of ways a youth can die, a school shooting is near the bottom of the list. The only reason this has become headline news is the opportunity for gun grabbers to push their un-American agenda of gun control. The high majority of those in the media are anti-gun and will use any story to push their agenda. These stories also invariably involve children which is a ratings booster. I am not minimizing the tragedy here by any means. Just putting them in perspective.

Let me further state that this is just a symptom of a bigger problem- Government malfeasance. Our government at all levels on a daily basis breaks the law. Anyone who has studied the Constitution realizes this fact. Anyone who understands the founding principles of this country also understands this simple truth. These lawless acts have been so persistent in recent history that they have become the norm for most Americans.

The truth of the matter- There is no way to eliminate these shootings, but there is a way to minimize both the frequency and impact of these shootings:

Eliminate Gun Free Zones!!!

The idea of gun free zones is a very recent event in our country. This legislation was championed by Joe Biden and signed into law by George Bush in 1990. Since then we have seen school shootings on a too regular basis. This experiment in unconstitutional government is a big failure. The idea, and the legislation, must be eliminated.

We have created hunting grounds for the mentally and morally deranged. These crazies know that if they enter a school with a gun, only they and any police that may be there are armed. They have superior power to do with what they want. This is conducive for the cowards who want to shoot up a school. It creates a soft target that will attract these loonies. Eliminating gun free zones will stop some from entering school grounds because they are cowards and do not want to face opposition in their evil acts.

Allowing teachers, administrators or anyone else who works on school property to carry a gun will most likely minimize the severity of the attacks when they do occur. Allowing people who work in these areas to defend their lives and the lives of children is only common sense. If their is a shooter in a school ask yourself this question- would you rather be have a gun or not? When seconds count. police are minutes away. Not a criticism of police but a fact of the matter.

I am not saying to arm these people. No one gets a gun bought for them or special training. There are already plenty of people proficient with guns who work in schools. If gun free zones were eliminated and school employees were allowed to carry, we would see the free market provide all that is needed for employees to be effective. There are already gun trainers offering reduced cost or free lessons for people to take. We MUST keep government out of this activity. They do nothing but make things more expensive and less efficient. This must and will be supported by the people.

I am also not espousing that teachers acting like Rambo are the norm either. A teacher in a classroom that has a bead on the door of the room will be very effective is a shooter decides to come through that door. Most of us are aware of the teachers who used their bodies and actions to protect children. How much more effective could they have been if they were armed? Imagine a janitor that is armed. They know all the nooks and crannies of their school. They could position themselves in a place where the shooter is and under cover offer resistance. How about the multitude of military veterans that work in schools and have experience in warfare? Their are a uncounted ways that armed school personnel could be effective. Not so if they are unarmed.

Lastly, we all have a right to defend our life, liberty and property. The federal government has overstepped its authority in its creation of this steaming pile of legislation. The idea that a person who works in a school has any less of a right to life than others is a ludicrous idea.

These hunting grounds for the morally and mentally challenged must be eliminated. If you really care for the children then let’s get past the rhetoric and make some good happen:

Eliminate Gun Free Zones!!!

I have started a group, The Coalition to End Gun Free Zones (which can be found at cegfz.org), to make a positive change in our country. This era of unconstitutional government must be attacked and eliminated. The children must be able to grow up in a free society. We were bequeathed liberty by our ancestors. it is incumbent on us to pass that gift on to future generations. Their is no greater legacy we can give to the billions that will follow.

Join me at Constitutional Cappuccino to get plugged into a website that is all about the education Americans need to move our country back to its proper trajectory. My new book “Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag” is also available and teaches of our founding documents and principles. The book would make a great present for anybody 16 and up.

Advertisements

The 2nd Amendment: Barrels, Bolts and the Bottom Line

There are few if any rights that have been as successfully defended as the right to keep and bear arms. Though under almost constant attack, there has been more done to not only protect but expand gun rights in America in the last couple decades. As we witness NSA spying, EPA tyranny, and BLM criminality, we also witness more states signing on to the idea of constitutional carry and open carry. I am here to bolster the debate by discussing the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is based off of the right to life. You have a right to live. It is unalienable. Life is the most fundamental right you possess, without it free speech or trial by jury or any other right you enjoy is moot. The obligation to defend that life is yours and yours alone. No one else is responsible for your life. Along the same lines and because of their relation to life, the idea of protecting one’s liberty and property is also important to acknowledge.

Liberty, the ability to live your life how you want, and private property ownership were ingrained in the thoughts of the people of early America. It was commonplace for people to carry pistols, rifles or even swords to protect themselves and their property. Most ships were armed. Crime has existed throughout human history. It is part of the human condition. Our ancestors acknowledged that people had to defend themselves from the depravity of others.

Protecting your life, liberty and property is your responsibility. Because of this the Founders put into words very specific restrictions on the government’s ability to infringe on that right. There are many ways that your life can be put in danger. There is equally a myriad of ways that you could be enslaved and your property damaged or stolen. Our Founders realized governments were on the top of the list of perpetrators. Long before Mao, Hitler and Stalin our Founders realized that government was the biggest abuser of human rights that had ever existed.

It was understood that a well armed populace would keep tyrannical government in check. It is difficult for tyrants to rise to power when citizens can defend themselves. The colonists were subject to arbitrary gun laws throughout their history as Englishmen and were experiencing the same treatment from King George. The British knew that an armed populace was dangerous to their plans, so they took measures to counter the threat.

Our Revolutionary War truly began after the British tried to confiscate gun powder and weapons. The British moved a force which had dispersed a militia in Lexington to Concord where a large supply of arms and powder was stored. This force was quickly routed and retreated because of the action of the militia at Concord. This incident is often referred to as “The Shot Heard ’round the World”. This event, though almost 15 years earlier, was fresh in the Founders minds when they crafted the Bill of Rights. It was also fresh in the minds of the legislators who ratified those 10 amendments.

So when you hear a person criticizing the “power” of a weapon, the amount of ammunition in a magazine or the wisdom of we the people having access to guns just think- How nice it is to be alive? If something threatens your life or the lives of the people you love, why wouldn’t any sane person want the most lethal of weapons to defend themselves? Having the ability to defend yourself and those around you if you so choose infringes on no one else’s rights. It does just the opposite. It strengthens them. The best way to stop an evil person intent on violence is by a good person with a gun. A gun is a great equalizer.

Constant application of the above principle gives criminals a new perspective on life. Most criminals look for victims not people willing to fight back. When there are more armed people the amount of criminals willing to take their own life into their hands go down. The same ideal applies to government. More guns in the hands of citizens equals a safer society. This ideal has been proven throughout our history much to the chagrin of the gun grabbers out there.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is a sentinel to warn us when government is becoming tyrannical. Our rights are unalienable and not given to us by the Constitution or by government. Government exists to secure our rights and when they begin to infringe on them people should realize our life and liberty are being threatened. It would be a better country if the rest of the Bill of Rights was as well defended as the 2nd. ‘Nuff said.

One last thought. Whether we have the 2nd Amendment or we don’t, the right to keep and bear arms is still an inalienable right. The Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution and yet we still possessed our rights. I have written about the creation of the Bill of Rights. The important message- the legacy of the United States of America is that we realized that our rights are inalienable and created our federal government around that idea. There is nothing more important than that thought in our founding documents. Everything we have accomplished as a nation originates with that belief.

I give kudos to those people and organizations out there that have fought to preserve our 2nd Amendment protected rights. Their success in this area should be a blueprint for the rest of the conservative movement battling other inroads into our rights. This is one of the few areas where we have been proactive. Attacking the problem allows movement forward and keeps the opposition in a vulnerable position. Action beats reaction. The continued preservation of gun rights is critical to our continued liberty. Patriots Awake!

Join me at Constitutional Cappuccino to get plugged into a website that is all about the education Americans need to move our country back to its proper trajectory. My new book “Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag” is also available and teaches of our founding documents and principles. The book would make a great present for anybody 16 and up.

The Commerce Clause Explained

The misuse of the “Commerce Clause” is one of the most frequent attacks on the Constitution of the United States of America that our federal government utilizes. It has been used to justify car regulations, gun free zones, and Obamacare among other things. This simple clause has been perverted to push an agenda of big government corruption, control, and cronyism. What originated as a simple idea has morphed into one of the most intrusive excuses government uses for its unconstitutional activities.

The Commerce Clause is part of Article 1 Section 8 and reads: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

This has a clear and simple meaning. Commerce is defined as “an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals, either by barter or by purchase and sale.” It is trade. Any commerce between the states is subject to the federal government, and if a state has an issue with another state, it is the proper place for the federal government to decide the issue. That is it. The free flow of goods and services across state lines is important to the health and vitality of this country.

What the state does within its boundaries is not rightfully subject to the Commerce Clause. By giving the federal government a say in the interstate commerce between the states, it eliminates most of the motive for one state to take advantage of fellow states because they know that these actions will not be tolerated. If this was left up to the individual states, then problems could arise. This was the case in early America.

Our federal government now says that it can now regulate any activity which has a substantial impact on the economy. This has come to include the regulation of anything that crosses state lines and the process which created the product or service. It has also come to include the means by which items are moved across state lines. Trains, buses, cars, and trucks are now regulated, and the justification is the commerce clause.

In a spectacular repudiation of common sense and the Constitution (not the first nor the last time), the Supreme Court in 1943 ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that a farmer who had grown too much wheat in violation of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 was guilty of interfering with interstate commerce. The original idea that farms could be limited in their production came from the commerce clause.

But, in this case, the farmer, Wickard, had grown an extra 12 acres of wheat, not for resale but to be used to feed his own livestock. It was the court’s decision that his growing of this wheat affected the market because it kept him from having to use the market to purchase the grain he needed. This was where the idea of Congress having power over any activity that has a substantive effect on the economy was born.

This decision was cited in the majority decision (not of Roberts, who wrote his opinion alone, but the rest of the court’s majority) authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the case of NFIB v. Sebelius where it upheld the individual mandate of The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  The “logic” used was that people not buying insurance detrimentally affected the market by their omission from it and could be fined to encourage them to participate. So, instead of regulating commerce, our government dictated how individual Americans are supposed to act and spend their money. This is a result of interpretations of interpretations by the courts giving new and unsupported powers to the federal government.

Another travesty that most do not know about is the relationship between gun free zones and the commerce clause.  In 1990, Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones Act citing the power of the commerce clause to do so.  This was found to be unconstitutional in the landmark Supreme Court decision, United States v. Lopez.

The government argued its case by citing that the power to regulate guns in a school zone was important because the possession of a firearm in a local school zone substantially affected interstate commerce because violent crime would raise insurance costs, and those insurance costs affect commerce. They also stated that violent crime reduces individual’s desire to travel to high-crime areas within the country, thus affecting commerce.

Finally, they stated that crime threatened the ability for children to learn, thus reducing national productivity and negatively affecting commerce. Thankfully the Supreme Court got this decision right, but it shows how pliable the commerce clause is now in the hands of the Congress, and it demonstrates how Congress manipulates the Commerce clause to have a much broader meaning than our founders or their words intended.

Back to the structure of the commerce clause and the use of “and.” Does it make sense to think that our government can limit the production of wheat from a foreign farmer because it affects commerce here in the United States? Is it logical to believe that our Congress can make laws governing the proclivity of guns in a foreign country because it will affect commerce here? That is the power of the “and” in the clause. Anything that is argued that gives Congress the power over the states through the commerce clause must be just as applicable to foreign nations.

The original intent of the commerce clause is plain to see for anyone who knows our history. During the time when the Articles of Confederation were in place, some states erected trade barriers to their fellow states. The purpose of the commerce clause was to eliminate these trade barriers and create free trade among the states. What it has morphed into in the interim is fully repulsive and not supported by the Constitution.

I previously mentioned Wickard v. Filburn. How did we get to the point in this nation that the federal government can tell farmers how much of a crop they can grow and also compensate them for not growing crops? How can the federal government get involved in the internal workings of an individual farm and tell the farmer what to grow and in what quantities?

Where is this found in the Constitution?

It is not found in the document. It is the use of case law and interpretations of interpretations which have led away from its clear and simple meaning.  A simple statement concerning the regulation of commerce among the several states has morphed into the federal government telling farmers how to farm. It has morphed into the federal government telling car manufacturers how to make cars. It has turned the federal government into the national toilet dictator. The federal government tells you what light bulbs you are ALLOWED to use and what kind of food you are ALLOWED to eat. The federal government now tells families how much of their lifetime earnings they are ALLOWED to give to their descendants through the inheritance taxes. Where is ANY of this found in Article 1 Section 8? None of it is found there.

This, and most of what Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court does nowadays is unconstitutional. Why do the American people allow this activity? The Declaration of Independence offers an answer:  ” All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

For a few, that threshold is already attained. For most others it has not yet been reached. Let us hope we can start to effectively address the challenges we face as a nation before extreme measures must be taken to protect our way of life.

Join me at Constitutional Cappuccino to get plugged into a website that is all about the education Americans need to move our country back to its proper trajectory. My new book “Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag” is also available for sale and educates the patriot in the ways to uphold and defend the Constitution from attack. The link takes you to a free preview of the first chapter of the book.

Remember: Education is the cornerstone of liberty.