Make your own free website on Tripod.com

U.S. Flag U.S. Const. Fla. Flag

Support Your Right To Keep And Bear Arms.
It Is Your Constitutionally Protected Right,
Don't Lose It!


Unlike England, Australia, France, Canada, Japan and so many other countries, which have passed oppressively restrictive gun ownership laws, or have even outright banned gun ownership, we here in America have the Constitutionally protected RIGHT to own and use firearms. Please note that the Second Amendment does not state the right to keep arms is for hunting purposes. This amendment is for the self preservation of the citizens, and the whole of the republic.

The law abiding citizens are not the ones who should be held accountable for the criminal use of firearms, it is the criminal who should be held accountable. We need to do something right now to hold criminals accountable for their actions through the unlawful possession and/or use of a firearm. We need to demand our criminal justice system to keep these felons in prison, and away from our communities - no more plea barganing, no more time off for "good behavior" - if they do the crime, they should serve the time.

photo of an ordinary hunting rifle

To further refute the anti-rights/anti-gun types attack against our Constitutionally Protected Right, I offer the following. When "they" claim the idea that the "Right" deals with the "States' Right" for arms, and not "The People" they are asking you to accept the following absurd conclusion(s):

    1) When James Madison wrote the Second Amendment, he mistakenly used the phrase "right of the people" when he actually meant "right of the states"

    2) When Congress enacted Madison's Bill of Rights, after review and revision, it failed to correct this "error"

    3) Eventhough Madison used "right of the people" in the First Amendment to mean and individual right (to assemble, and petition Congress), just 16 words later, in the Second Amendment, he [mis]used "right of the people" when he meant to describe the right as a right of the states. However - just 26 words later, in the Fourth Amendment, he again used "right of the people" to describe an individual right, (the right against unreasonable searches and seizures).

      AMENDMENT I
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      AMENDMENT II
      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.

      AMENDMENT IV
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .

No logical, thinking, intelligent individual could suspend reality for even this brief moment. The conclusion is, and will always be, the Citizens of the United States of America have a Constitutionally Protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Another tactic the anti-gun/anti-rights people tout is that the "Militia" of the colonial era is what our National Guard is today. This conclusion is flawed, to say the least. The "Militia" of the colonial era consisted of all law abiding citizens, (pretty much all males, between the ages of 16-65). Our present day National Guard did not even exist for roughly one century after the inclusion/adoption of the Second Amendment. Further, the Army National Guard, contrary to popular belief, is ultimately regulated by the United States Army; the Air National Guard is ultimately regualted by the United States Air Force, etc., not the State in which said body operates.

I will also refute the argument the anti-gun/anti-rights people tout about the Second Amendment only pertaining to single-shot, muzzle-loading weapons; and not the multi-round firing "semi-automatic" weapons, which have gained popularity over the past century. This is another flawed conclusion. There have been "semi-automatic" weapons long before the "modern era" of firearms. I offer the following (brief) historical piece of evidence:

antique long gun

    1620, a German company developed and patented a pistol with a revolving 7-shot cylinder;

    1661, an English manfacturer developed and patented a revolver holding seven 7-rounds;

    1685, the Lorenzoni company developed and patented a rifle capable of holding 25 rounds;

    1688, the Cookson company developed and patented a rifle capable of holding 40 rounds.

    1718, the Puckle company developed and patented a rifle capable of repeated fire.

Clearly, repeating (semi-automatic) firearms existed long before our Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights - and in particular, the Second Amendment. The men who drafted our Bill of Rights were among the best read, most intelligent of their day. To suggest they were ignorant of firearms technology is absurd. The Second Amendment not only applies to muzzleloaders, but to repeating firearms.

ordinary hunting rifle modified to look like an assault weapon

One very important point for all to remember... these (pro-gun) rights were guaranteed to the people long before our current government existed. The right is not granted by the amendment. It's existence is assumed. The point made in that sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia. With regard to the anti-rights/anti-gun types claim that gun ownership is conditioned upon "a well regulated militia", I would have to point out that no such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

Another tactic the anti-gun/anti-rights people are trying to sell the American pubic deals with "cheap" or "inferior" quality firearms, (also called Saturday Night Specials). The claim is that firearms, and in particular handguns, made from aluminum and/or other alloys, polymer (plastic), or other materials are a danger to the consumer. These anti-gun/anti-rights people claim they want to provide only quality firearms for our use, through the implementation of laws which regulate items like a melting point, or construction materials used in the firearm. This tactic is totally illogical, and is designed to take away even more guns from decent, law abiding citizens. There are Police departments, and elite military units, who utilize firearms constructed from materials which these anti-gun/anti-rights people claim are inferior.

    As an added twist to this quality-materials based arguement, the anti-gun/anti-rights people claim that only the criminal eliment within our society uses firearms manufactured out of these inferior and cheap (sic) materials, (and thus used in cheap guns that only criminals use or have access to). Some of these materials include polymer, such as Glock, Kel-Tec, Sigarms, and other well respected companies use. While other materials include aluminum alloys, titanium alloys, and many other metal alloy combinations used by companies such as Smith & Wesson, Colt, Taurus, and many other manufacturers. How can these anti-Gun/anti-Rights people claim they only want "safe" products for us to use, by eliminating the very materials utilized in the manufacturing of firearms used by our very own Police and Military? Again, I need to point out, this sort of twisted logic doesn't make any sense, and it is only another in a long series of attempts by the anti-gun/anti-rights people to take away our Constitutionally Protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Now we have politicians who want to limit purchases to ONE PER MONTH ! Let's think about this for a moment... one pistol/rifle/shotgun per month, in 1999; then in the year 2000, the limit is one pistol/rifle/shotgun every two months; then in the year 2001, the limit is dropped to one pistol/rifle/shotgun every six months; finally, in the year 2002, the limit is further restricted to only one pistol/rifle/shotgun per year. The End Result Will Eventually Be NO GUNS PER PERSON - PERIOD ! This sort of legislation is only devised for one reason, and one reason only, to disarm the population of America. (why ? - do I really need to explain) The goal of our politicians should be to concentrate on helping our criminal justice system put criminals who are guilty of unlawful possession and/or use of a firearm, in prison, and kept in prison. No more plea bargaining, and no more early release given for "good behavior." It is the criminal element in our society who should be made to pay for the criminal misuse of firearms, not the honest citizens for lawful use of firearms.

One of the weaker attempts at "gun control" is the proposal of Safe Storage laws. Essentially, these politicians and other anti-rights/anti-gun types claim is that if all firearms are stored with gun locks or in gun safes, then "we" will be a safer society. Think about this... its 3:00 a.m., your house has just been broken into, and the burgler/rapist is chasing you through your home, with a knife - what good does that defensive firearm do when it is locked up ??!!! I urge you to purchase a copy of The Best Defense by Robert A. Waters, to learn about first hand accounts of the validity of gun ownership and some of the fundamental reasons why our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is of such importance. However, I would like to add, it is the responsibility of parents to keep all firearms and ammunition away from children. It is not the duty of government to dictate good parental storage policies. Only when parents take full responsibility, not only in storing their firearms, but in taking an active roll in the lives of their child(ren), will the horrible instances of child/teen violence in this Country decline.

In closing, I offer this... the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona stated: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation or rule making which would abrogate them." If we continue to allow our elected officials to pass laws eroding our rights, where will they end? Which rights will they decide "We the People" are allowed to have and which ones we no longer "need" ? For anyone to support laws restricting the legal and lawful ownership of firearms is not only morally reprehensible, it is anti-American.


Elect HARPER The Right Choice

Pro-RKBA Democrats ??!!!

First, a brief history: The Democratic Party began in 1792 as a national group of voters supporting Thomas Jefferson; they used the name "Democratic-Republican" to emphasize their anti-monarchic sentiments. The party was known by various designations until, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s, it adopted its present name. It was the party of the common man, as opposed to the party of the aristocracy.

The recent history of the Democratic Party must include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, the lifeline of the dispossessed and the desperate; followed by Harry Truman's Fair Deal, much of which was frustrated by an opposing conservative coalition. John F. Kennedy brought us sweeping civil rights legislation; and Lyndon Johnson the War on Poverty. History will remember Jimmy Carter's Habitat for Humanity long after the details of his presidency have fallen from public memory. In short, the Democratic Party has represented itself as the party of heart and the party of help, seeking to redress inequity and salvage the hopeless. But we have also become the party of relentless attack on the Second Amendment. To this day we refer to the "Jeffersonian ideal" embodying limited government, self-reliance, unfettered civil liberties, and true democracy: one man, one vote.

I will provide the following quotes from Thomas Jefferson, which are literally his views on the right to keep and bear arms and the responsibility of the people to protect their rights:

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. No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. (Proposal, Virginia Constitution, June 1776, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. (ibid. 6 p. 20)

A Strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (21 Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, p. 318, Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and the founder of the Democratic Party on the principle of popular government, would not recognize the hostility that certain people in this country have displayed toward the right of the people to self defense and the shooting sports.

Americans realize there will never be a politician whose views are supported by every voter. That is the beauty of our Democratic system of election. We can vote for the candidate who believes in and supports specific issues we hold dear. I hope that when it comes time for you to vote, you vote for only the candidates interested in protecting not only this Right, but all of our Rights. After all... if we lose the Right To Keep And Bear Arms, what will "they" come after next?

One last thing, before you leave my little site... when it comes to the "media" I urge you to remeber that not everything is as it appears. Can you imagine if our current "media" wrote a piece like this:

    TERRORIST ALERT: There is a terrorist group operating in the Northeastern section of America. They are stockpiling the most advanced weaponry known to man, including firearms, ammunition, explosives, as well as anti-government propaganda materials, and other contraband. These terrorists are highly DANGEROUS! They have committed high treason against the lawful government, refused to comply with current arms legislation, and have refused to pay lawful taxes. This paramilitary group is highly proficient in guerilla warfare, and is currently being led by a man who held the rank of lieutenant in the military, but is now referred to by his fanatical, (if not cult-like), followers as "General". This hate crazed group of anti-government extremists have been directly linked to an anti-government separatist movement. Anyone having any knowledge of the whereabouts of this so-called 'General' George Washington, is urged to contact the representative for His Majesty, the King of England, as soon as possible!"

This story seems a little slanted, doesn't it? All I am asking is for everyone to read between the headlines, and look for the REAL Truth behind the story; and remember, the candidate "loved" by the media might not always be the best choice. Like the old saying goes... Not everything is as it appears".

Return To Previous Page


Nedstat Counter (c)1999 All Rights Reserved, Anthony Harper
Any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at OcalaHeat@Hotmail.com