A bad name for a Constitutional presentation? Of course. But upon further review, it is clear that gun control issues are prevalent in the Constitution – and not only in the 2nd amendment. We look at the God-given right of self-defense through the eyes of the founders and through the perspective of history to gain a greater understanding and appreciation for the idea that he who has the gun has the control. We then identify keys to ensuring that this right is protected and not infringed.
Hi, well, welcome to Gun Control in the Constitution. This is number five in the series, in the constitution lecture series that I do. And some of you might be bugged by the title. You should be. Gun Control in the Constitution, there’s no such thing as gun control in the constitution. What we’ll try to do is talk a lot of the principals and concepts that are in the constitution and help us realize that gun control is anti-freedom and it’s not part of the constitution at all, whatsoever. Would we ever have our guns taken from us? Yeah, we could if we are led to believe that’s the only way to provide protection and security and peace in our nation. And that only occur under two conditions: one is an uneducated, uninformed people and the second one is the gunman capitalizes it on school shootings or some (1:00) armed rebellion or some legitimate excuse to make it look like boy the only way is to take guns from irresponsible citizens and they take guns from all citizens. That’s the only way to ensure peace. And so yeah it could happen. We have to get in our toes. We have to understand what gun control is all about and what the principle of self-defense and how it’s critical to our freedom.
So, let’s get started. Okay, the obvious place to start when talking about gun control is to talk some classic literature, right? A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens. Here’s how it starts out: “It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom. It was the age of foolishness. It was the epoch of belief. It was the epoch of incredulity. It was the season of light. It was the season of darkness. It was the spring of hope. It was the winter of despair.” What’s that have to do with gun control? Well, in some ways it’s where we’re at right now, isn’t it? It really is the best of times. Think about the communication and the transportation, all the great things that are happening in the world. There’s so many good things happening; a great time to be alive. And yet on the other side of the coin it’s the worst of times, isn’t it? A lot of our freedom is getting strip away and a lot of us don’t even realize. (2:00) We’re apathetic or ignorant to the fact that that’s occurring. And so it is the best of times; it is the worst of times.
Another reason I used that, this intro to a classic piece of literature is a play of words because I’m going to tell you today two tales of one city, okay. Charles Dickens had a tale of two cities. I’m going to tell you two tales of one city. Here’s the first tale. The location is Aurora, Colorado. By the time I get just a few slides into this you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. The location is a theater full of people attending the premiere of the latest Batman movie. The time is 12:38 AM, July 20th, 2012, okay. You know this already, the perpetrator is James Eagan Holmes. The victims are 12 dead, at least 50 injured and wounded. The tragedy is known as armed to defend themselves, okay. My understanding is that Aurora, Colorado has about seven movie theaters and only two of them are gun-free zones. And James Eagan Holmes chose one of the gun-free zone theaters. Why? He won’t have competition. He (3:00) has a clipped jam and he needed to change guns which is exactly what happened. He won’t have any competition would he? He’d be able to do what he really wanted to, his evil acts, because no one is armed to defend themselves. The impact, well, millions mourned. This is a huge international event wasn’t it? They grieved and the shed. Government leaders thought advocate gun control as a solution to this on all other future tragedies. We’re going to make sure this doesn’t happen because guns kill people and we got to make sure we’re going to pull guns out of people’s hand. No one should have guns.
Now the second tale of one city happens to be the same city, Aurora, Colorado. The location is a local church building. The date is almost exactly to the day, three months prior to the Aurora the Aurora Theater shooting, April 22nd, 2012. The perpetrator is a 29 year old, Kiarron Parker, a recently released convict, just out of jail. The victim is one congregant and the shooter himself was killed by a congregant carrying a gun. So, (4:00) Mr. Parker went in and shot someone and was immediately shot by someone else who had a gun. The tragedy is two human lives: one innocent, right? The shooter wasn’t an innocent human life but it was a human life that is lost which is a tragedy. Now the impact, well, because the perpetrator was able to claim only one life before being killed himself by someone carrying a gun and acting as self-defense it garnered relatively little publicity.
I go around the state doing this presentation. I’ve done this presentation probably 30 times. So, I’ve probably visited, I don’t know, maybe 700 people. And I could probably count on two hands the number of people who have heard about this tragedy in Aurora, Colorado relative to the church, relative to the shooting at the church there. Now why is that? How many here have heard about the shooting in the Aurora theater? Everyone. You had to be asleep not to hear that. Why is it that so few of us know about the Aurora shooting at the church just three months prior? Well, the obvious answer doesn’t fit the story, does it? The story that the media tries to promulgate and (5:00) say is that guns kill people. The second tale of one city doesn’t teach that. It teaches that guns save lives. If all the congregants in the church had been unarmed this Mr. Parker could have carried out his evil acts and would have killed dozens of people as well. But he couldn’t because people were armed and a gun saved lives. It doesn’t fit the story line.
He who has the gun has the control. Okay, that’s one of my favorite little idioms about gun control. He who has the gun has the control. Mao Tse Tung knew this. You know who’s Mao Tse Tung is? Mao Tse Tung went down to history infamously killing at least 50 to 60 million of his own people, murdering them. And here’s what he said, “Political power goes out of the barrel of a gun.” Is that true? It is. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. So, the question then becomes: if that political power goes out of the barrel of a gun, who’s holding the gun? (6:00) If the citizens are holding it then there’s political power with the citizenry. If they can’t hold their own gun and only the government holds the guns then there’s (6:00) oppression and there is austerity because political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Samuel Adams says, “The constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceful citizens from keeping their own arms.” Okay. Gun control said the opposite. Gun control says we need to take arms out of all citizens’ hands because bad things happen with guns. Samuel Adams says, “No.” The people said they need those guns to defend themselves, right? The stories that we’ve heard and just the simple concept of self-defense holds that to be true. Samuel Adams says, “The constitution shall not be construed.” And we’d say, well, unfortunately Samuel Adams if he came today and saw you you’d see it very much as being construed.
We’re going to talk about the constitution and talk about gun control. We are we going to start? The obvious place, the 2nd amendment, right? So, let’s start with the 2nd amendment. “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.” (7:00) It’s the 2nd amendment right? Correct? No, it’s not. And it may sound like semantics but it’s not our 2nd amendment right. It’s our God-given right to defend ourselves. And the 2nd amendment is written to prohibit government from infringing on our God-given right to self-defense. It’s important to understand that because if it was given to us in the 2nd amendment, it was given to us by government then government can take it away. But God gave it to us and he doesn’t take that away. He grants us the right to defend ourselves.
Let’s break this down a little bit. Thinking about it says the militia is necessary to the security a free state. Well, the term militia was written in the constitution just like any other term was written in the constitution, right? States, congress, do we have States today? Do we have congress today? Sure we still do. Do we have the militia today? No. Now words have meaning. The reason they’re put in to the constitution is because they have meaning and value. And if we just say, “Well, militia oh yeah, don’t worry about it that’s just something else.” (8:00) That’s just natural. We’ve already hear that a lot. We’ll talk about that a little later. You lose the value of what that thing is. Let’s talk a bit more about the term militia. George Mason who was the founding founder — not a very famous one but a great one – said, “I ask sir what is the militia?” And he answers the question. He said, “Well, it’s the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” So, who’s the militia? All the people. And when you take it away from the militia — their arms – that’s the best way to enslave them. It’s true isn’t it?
Now let’s look at the last part of the 2nd amendment. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Modern day argument I hear a lot is that the constitution only grant the militia members to keep and bear arms. Had a person asked me, “How do you answer that?” I said, “Well, I just go to the 2nd amendment. It says right there the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, who’s right is it? The people’s right to keep and bear arms. Now and if we understand George Mason, (9:00) understand the true intention of what militias are; every person is a member of that militia. Every person has the right to keep and bear arms. Now let’s look at these modern words. It would be a modern word that is similar to or equivalent to keep your own right, to own arms. What about to bear? To carry, correct? So, to keep and bear arms is the right to own and to carry arms; to protect ourselves. Gun control and gun restrictions, again free-zones restrict those rights for us to defend ourselves in the name of protecting us when really it’s our right to protect ourselves isn’t it? Okay.
This is how Patrick Henry puts it. He’s pretty eloquent. I love how he says things. He said, “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, (10:00) as in our own hands?” If having arms, keeping and bearing arms is to protect ourselves, are we really insisting we come to this debased state where, “Oh no only government can do that. We can’t do that for ourselves.” Although the purpose is for us to defend ourselves so why can’t we defend ourselves, right? That’s what he’s saying.
So, referring to this term militia, let’s look at this a little bit more. The term militia was not defined in the constitution. It was a commonly understood term which existed in state statutes and there are five principle features that are common in these statutes. So, here’s historically what a militia meant because they put the word in there and they didn’t define it. Here’s what it meant though. Number one is all able bodied men between 16 to 55 years of age are required to be in the militia. That would change obviously from state to state. It wasn’t always 16 to 55. It varies state to state. But all able bodied men were required to be in the militia. Why is that? Because if you have the right to defend yourself the other side of that coin is the duty. (11:00) You have the right to defend yourself; you also have the duty to defend yourself. So, you can be required to be in the militia to defend yourself and your community. That’s the proper role of government, to have you exercise that right and that duty.
Secondly it was a man’s duty to arm himself and have his firearm and ammunition available at a moment’s notice. Okay. That’s what I understood to be in the militia. It’s your duty to arm yourself and have ammunition ready’ be ready to go at a moment’s notice. Interestingly enough what happen when a man couldn’t afford his gun and his ammunition? The community provides it for him and opportunity to work for that. Not just give it to him but work for, right? Get what you work for. Earn what you get. Periodic training was required. Okay. That was part of the mastering, the field training to be part of the militia. Periodic inspections are made to find and assess if the firearm and ammunition are not in proper working condition and available for use. And that is interesting. The government official can knock and your door and make sure you have a gun and ammunition ready to go to work. (12:00) If it’s functional. Nowadays the government knocks on your doors and, “Hey we want to see your guns.” You freeze up, right? Back then it’s like, “Here’s my gun. You want to see it or yes I can prove it.” Okay. That’s part of your duty. It’s part of your natural right and responsibility as a member of the community.
And number five, militias are organized from the bottom up, from the top down which is interesting because nowadays we tend to [inaudible] [0:12:24] that the higher the better, right? If it’s federalized that must means it’s more powerful. If it’s centralized then that means more powerful. And if we are to say, “Gosh, I have an idea for our local militia. Let’s get someone from Washington to see, to be our local militia leader.” Well, who would that person answer to? To DC. Who would that person’s loyalty and accountability be to? To DC. Militias are always organized at the bottom up, okay? We chose our militia leader at the local level and that’s how we organized from the bottom up, not from the top down. So, those are the five principles of what the militia meant. When they use that term that’s what it meant.
(13:00) So, getting back to the 2nd amendment, a well regulated militia, it’s not just a militia that’s necessary for our security. It’s a well regulated militia. There’s a difference, isn’t there? Many times it’s my right to defend myself. I have a right to have a gun and that’s true and that’s important. But if we just have a bunch of people who have guns whether a nice, well-organized army comes in and attacks us and we all run outside our house and starts shooting how long are we going to last? Not very, right? What if it’s well-regulated? What if part of militia has been training once a month for years, understands our duties, how to defend and attack, you have a lot better chance of standing against any army don’t we? A well regulated militia is important. The point that it’s well regulated, that’s it right there, that condition that it understand how to operate.
Another interesting point to be made about militias is that in our government it seems to me like when I think I directly affect my government is when I vote and when I pay taxes. (14:00) That’s how I’m directly involved. But what if I was directly involved through a militia? What if on a monthly basis every individual was required to be in the militia, to be well-organize, to be trained? When you have a little bit more pride in your country, involvement in the politics, in the government of your state, of your community? Yeah, you bet because you’ve be involved, wouldn’t you? Thinking about today and this is just a side note but it feels like a lot of young men have a hard time wanting to accept responsibility. They’d rather play games, et cetera. What happens if at 16 they get enlisted in militia and required to be a man? Stand true and firm to principles of self-defense, et cetera. That might solve the problem. There’s a nice positive consequence just standing for principles of liberty. Anyway, what do militias do as well? They’re not just involved in shooting. They’re involved in protecting and helping us during storms or natural disasters. The militia is already well-organize. They can respond quickly to solve those issues.
(15:00) The last part of the 2nd amendment we’re going to break down is this word security. The only place in the entire constitution where the word security shows up is in the 2nd amendment. And it’s interesting to understand that that’s the purpose. If you read the founding fathers it’s very, very clear. The founding fathers say, “Look, the purpose of having a militia is for security.” It’s to defend ourselves against who? Against our own government. Some people say the right to have [inaudible] [0:15:34] or go hunting or for sports. But that’s not the purpose of it. The purpose of it is to defend ourselves against the tyrannical government. So, Thomas Jefferson said this. He said, “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.”
Okay, so, if the purpose of the militia, the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government which is why the founders put that in. (16:00) It’d be interesting if you say, “Okay, the government says we can have this level of arms and the people can only have this level.” Wait a second, if the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to be able to protect yourselves against the government, shouldn’t we have the same level? I have one person asking me and telling me, “Are you one of those extremist that says you have to own your F16 and your own armored tank?” I said, “No, no, no. I’m not. I am one of those who believes that in order to defend myself against the government that has those things then I should belong to a militia that has those same things otherwise you can’t protect yourself against the government if it becomes tyrannical.” So, if the government will say, “You can’t have this. You can’t have that,” but we can misapply the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment in the first place. They need to be the same.
Alright, so, let’s piggyback the side of security, those two words, security and defense. They sound like the same word but they’re a little bit different aren’t they? What if I further distinguish the term if I say in security is a proactive measure? You hire a security guard before someone breaks in, right? Not afterwards. And defense (17:00) is a more but reactive measure. You’re reacting to an offensive act. Security is in anticipation of an offensive act and defense is in reaction to an offensive event, act. Also security is a standing force; defense is a raised forced. The constitution calls for a standing security force. What is that? It’s the militia. The constitution also calls for a raised defensive reactive force and that’s called the army. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 says this, “Congress shall have power to raise and support armies but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.”
So, Congress can call armies up; raise them up for defensive purposes. And how long can Congress appropriate money for that purpose? For two years. What happens every two years? That’s just random. Every two years well that sounds like the right time. No, every two years the people get to choose their new representatives. So, they feel like the Congress is using this army or just (18:00) rubber stamping the funding or just sending them all over the world in crazy endeavors to try to please the world. The people can pull back their representatives who are funding them and say, “No, we don’t want that to happen, to put new people in.” They’d say, “No. I’m only going to raise this army for a constitutionally defined purpose.” Instead of just having the perpetually go and go and go, this provision allows for that to not occur because we already have a standing defensive unit. And the purpose of war is to defend ourselves. Okay, we already have a standing defensive unit. It’s called the militia. If congress declares a war and we need to go fight a war then we can raise an army. But who knows, we have an army always there because we already have that function with the militia who is always there. Or we should; the constitution always has that function. Right now we don’t. That’s the point. We have a militia who is standing and ready to defend themselves at a moment’s notice.
Noah Webster who is very much a founding father had a great quote. He said this, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. When the whole body of the people are armed they constitute a force superior to any (19:00) band of regular troops that be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” So, what he is saying is these armed people — part of this militia – they’re stronger than any army that can come against them. Think about what if we use the same standards back on the turn of the 18th century there, have all able bodied men be in the militia. How big will our militia be? At least 100 million strong, wouldn’t it? Does any army stand a chance against the militia of the United States 100 million people strong? No. And that’s his point isn’t it? If were organize and everyone is already part of that militia, we are free. We can defend ourselves against any attack or any internal domestic violence as well.
Madison makes this point, “A well regulated militia compose of the body of the people trained in arms is the best, most natural defense in a free country.” The point I want to make on this slide, I think what’s critical is the militia is a government entity. It’s a government mandated entity. (20:00) We’re going to get into the details behind that just a second here. A group, they just pulled themselves together and say, “Oh we’re going to be a vigilante group and we’re going to execute the laws because our Sheriff isn’t, et cetera.” No, no, no. That’s anarchy. That’s against the government. A militia is an organized unit of the government. It’s important to understand that huge difference. You hear this throughout the media. They’re very slanderous of the idea of the militia. “Oh that militia group.” But they’re really are the vigilante group. That’s not the militia. If it’s a militia they won’t mean anything to slander because it’s established by the States and it’s mandated by the Congress and organized at the local level. It’s a legitimate governmental entity. But just to have a vigilante group, that’s not a militia. It’s not the same thing.
So, let’s look at this. It’s like what the constitution says about the militia. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 says, “Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.” Now this is interesting because it looks right there, plain black and white, it says Congress is in charge of the militia, right? Wait a second, I thought we already said that militia is (21:00) organized from the bottom up? I thought that’s whole point of the local militia. Well, let’s understand what it says because the key word is “to provide for”, Congress shall have the power to provide for. So, another way that it could be written is “Congress shall have the power to guarantee that the militia be organized, armed and disciplined” or “Congress shall have the power to provide for the establishment of the militia at the local level” because if the militia was put together to defend itself against the tyrannical federal government then would it be more wise than the founding fathers putting in the provision in the constitution to make it illegal for them not to mandate that a militia is put together. It legally binds them to make sure that their worst enemy to their tyranny is organized at the local level. That makes more sense. That’s what’s it’s saying isn’t it?
Now the logic in that I think is clear. But we can also look at the historical record. In the Militia Act of 1792 which is one of the first acts of Congress — of the first Congress – they said this, (22:00) “Passed May 8, 1692 provided for the organization of state militias,” remember this is a federal act that was passed, it said, “It conscripted every free, able bodied white male citizen between the age of 18 and 45 into a local militia company.” So, the federal government forced, and used the force a lot, to make every able bodied men be part of a local militia company. Okay, that’s the wording in their act; this Militia Act. And it says, “Militia men should arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack.” So, it complies to this idea that Congress is providing force, making sure that there is a militia organized at the local level. That’s what the intent of this article 1 section 8 clause 16 is.
Now let’s keep going with this, “And for governing such part of them as maybe employed in the service of the United States.” We’re getting this more in detailed on the second. But it’s very clear that congress is in charge of governing the Militia when– the condition is – when they’re in the service of the United States. We’ll get to that in a second when we go to clause 15 and discuss from the next slide. (23:00)
And it concludes by saying, “Reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the offices and the authority of training the militia.” Now why would this be? Why would it be that the States are in charge of choosing their own officers and of training the militia? Because it complies to the principle of Federalism: Never do with a higher level government that which can be done in the lower level. Can the States choose their own officers? Yeah. Can the States train their own militia? Yes. Okay, so, allow them to do it. Only put it in the hands of Congress what they have the power to do and no other government institute can do. Lastly, according to the [inaudible] [0:23:35] prescribed by Congress. Now this little pesky Congress get’s in there and say, “Wait a second. Congress is setting the discipline? Setting the standards that the militia needs to follow?” Yes. Why is that? Well, because Wyoming chose to have a well organize, regulated, armed and disciplined militia. But let’s say Utah, and Montana, and South Dakota, and Colorado, they say, “No, we’re not going to,” will that affect our national security? You bet. It would affect our national security. And can we as a sovereign state tell the sovereign state of South Dakota, “You will implement a well regulated militia.” Can we tell them to do that? No, we as Wyoming can’t tell them—another sovereign state – what they shall do. And it is under Congress’ purview. They are in charge of the national defense and so it is their right and duty to make sure the States all have a well-regulated militias.
So, I don’t know. The way I look at Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 I marvel. It looks like it’s one long sentence. Look at the beauty; all the principles the founders captured in this one sentence” “Militias need to be congressionally mandated, state authorized and locally organized.” Being all the powerful concepts there—the Federalism, the checks and balances, the proper role of government, the lowest level possible – it’s a beautiful document. This one clause itself to me stands out as a very good clause. Let’s go to the clause before Clause 15. And it says this, (25:00) “Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the militia.” Now the militia is an entity of the state, right? State authorized. So, if congress – which is a federal government – wants to call forth the militia, who they call them forth from? From the state. And who’s the Chief Executive of the state? The governor. So, Congress is going to ask the governor, “Can we use their militia?” Then the governor has two options. His first option is to say yes and the second option is to say no which he has historically in the past. Governors had said, “No. They’re busy in my state,” or, “No, I’m not going to let you use them to tyrannize another neighboring state.” Governors are in charge of their militias.
Going on to say, “To execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” So, there’s clearly three reasons for which congress can ask the governor to use their militia. It’s through these three things: execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Now those things will sound like external, foreign duties of—it sound like internal domestic duties. What about executing laws of the union? That’s internal. That’s domestic. What about suppressing insurrections? (26:00) Laws and insurrection is an internal uprising. And it’s last one, repelling invasions. A lot of times we get confused about this and say, “Oh, that’s external.” Repelling an invasion means you’re already in your country and someone is invading your country. That’s an internal domestic affair as well.
So, the militia can only be used from one of these three purposes and Congress can call them forth, asking the governor for their formation and then can only use them once they do have them for one of these three purposes, not just for whatever they want them to be used for. Now the point to be made, I believe, is with these militias and nowadays the modern day militia they say is the National Guard. We’ll get to that in a few slides. If we’re sending our militia or National Guard out to fight external foreign battles, is that using militia for what’s it intended for? No, that’s in violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15. It says there are only three internal duties.
The militia has also talked about, I mean, Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1 which refers to the executive branch and talks about the commander in chief – the president. (27:00) It says this, “The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the militia of the several States.” Now from what we know there’s going to be a condition here, isn’t there? He is the Commander in Chief of the militia of several States when what? When they’re actually called into the actual service of the United States. And who calls them into the actual service? Congress. Who allows that? The governor. And for what purpose? One of those three internal domestic purposes. See, that’s pretty clear. When you read the actual words of the constitution you’ll say, “Oh this is clear. This idea about the militia is lined out very clearly; when it says to be used in for what purpose and by whom, et cetera, et cetera.”
Now, I like this. This should be a bumper sticker. Thomas Jefferson says, “When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty.” These principles, these concepts that were put in to our constitution are put there in order to preserve liberty. And when people are in charge, well-armed, well-informed and understand, then guess what, the government fears them. And if the people are, “Oh no. It’s alright. We don’t have to defend ourselves. The government defends us,” (28:00) and they don’t understand that the purpose of the militia is to defend themselves against the government then the government doesn’t fear them. The government tyrannizes them; controls them.
Let’s make this clear hopefully through this slide. I think it’s an important slide to understand. A lot of people, like I said, will say the militia and National Guard is the same thing. We’re going to ask some questions to see if they are the same thing. First of all, the first question: is the militia is made up of who? All able bodied adult males. National Guard is made up of who? The few who enlist. Militia is organized from the bottom up whereas the National Guard is organized from the top down. The militia arms are provided by who? By the people themselves. And the National Guard the arms are provided by the government. In the militia arms are stored at each person’s home. In the National Guard the arms are stored in the armory; by the government. (29:00) In the militia are they deployed abroad? According to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 no. What about the National Guard, are they deployed abroad? You bet. All the time. The militia, is it found in the constitution? Yes. Is the National Guard found in the constitution? No. The National Guard is first brought to pass in 1903. That’s the first time the National Guard was organized. Does the militia exist today? No. And does the National Guard exist today? Yes. It’s important to understand that 1903 Act and what it is talking about. They organize the militia. What they did is they said, “We have an organize militia and we’ll call it the National Guard. We have an unorganized militia called the just the people. They can have guns if they want to.” But is that what the 2nd amendment calls for? It calls for a well regulated militia, not for organized – which is the National Guard – and only has some people and the unorganized which is everybody but they’re not well-regulated. It somehow calls for and it violates the 2nd amendment.
So, let’s look at this chart and look at it for a second. (30:00) Look, if the militia really is the true enemy to the federal government tyrannizing their own people, then wouldn’t it be in every best interest of the federal government to convince us that the National Guard is the militia? Because the National Guard is responsive to who and organized by who and armed by who; by the very government that they’re supposed to be defending us against. And then we can look back and are we going to sit back and say, “Oh man we’re fine. The government is protecting us from our government.” It doesn’t make sense though. That’s why the militia is every able bodied adult defending themselves against their government. And for tricking the idea that militia and the National Guard is the same thing we’re tricked into giving up our right to self-defense from our own government.
Now, what else is the constitution had to say about gun control? Article 6 is the Supremacy Clause. And it says, “All the treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.” Why is that important? What’s that to do with gun control? Well, treaties have everything to do with gun control (31:00) because who perpetually has always been trying to take our guns from us? United Nations, right? The United Nations is always stepping and saying, “The only path to a peaceful world is to take guns from people. That’s how we initiate peace.”
So, if anything, it’s important to look at the actual words of Article 6. It says, “Under the authority of the United States treaties have to be made under the authority of the United States.” What about the treaties that are made outside the authority of the United States? Are they the supreme law of the land? No. Only treaties that are made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land. And what’s the authority of the United States? We’ll answer that with a quote here by James Madison. “The federal powers should be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern of the lives, liberties and prosperities of the people in the internal order improvement and prosperity of the state.”
So, Madison is saying is that all of that stuff (32:00) for the federal government is to do the external things. The state government does the internal things. So, it’s completely within the purview of the federal government to deal with treaties because treaties talk about how nations treat other nations. That’s external duties. But when the treaty tries to tell us how to act internally — for example, an international treaty of the UN saying, “Hey this is what you need to do as part of gun control. We need to come and take your guns because you signed into this treaty.” – well, that’s outside the authority of the United States. The authority of the United States is the external things, not the internal affairs of the States themselves. In short under the authority of the United States, what’s the authority of the United States? It’s the constitution. Very clear in the 2nd amendment it says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, they’re explicitly violating to have an international treaty tell us that, “No, no, no we will ignore the 2nd amendment because you signed the treaty.” If the treaty is done outside of authority of United States there’s no law at all. So, in such cases where an international treaty advocates gun control and we’re signatory to that treaty, that treaty is null (33:00) and void because it violates the authority of the United States. They don’t have that authority in the first place.
Now treaties are also talked about in Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2. And it says, “The President shall have power by and with the consent of the Senate to make treaties provided 2/3 of the senators present concur.” Now, let’s say the President signs in a big black market. Let’s say 100% of the senators concur. The restriction and the stipulation is still that it must be done under the authority of the United States. It’s still the same point, isn’t it? But it gives us another opportunity to focus on something, that the constitution is not changed by treaties. The constitution is changed by the amendment process. The amendment process clearly is articulated in Article 5. We talked about it in the previous presentation. But treaties don’t change the constitution. Thinking about the bar, all you need is 2/3 of the Senators present and the President to sign? That’s not how you change the constitution. The constitution said you need 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of Senate and ¾ of the States. That’s how you change the constitution. It’s a much higher bar. No wonder that people who wanted to violate the constitution or (34:00) change it advocate treaties as the best way to change because it’s such little that is involve in that. It can all be done by government officials. And who does it really cut out? It cuts out the people and the House of Representatives isn’t even included there and the States aren’t even included there; just the Senators and the President. And you see why that’s not legitimate. To change the law of the land is only done by an explicit and authentic act of the entire people as George Washington put it.
There is a woman named Jeanne Laskas. She’s an Eastern reporter. She went to Arizona and worked in a department store for a week. And she said, “It was crazy. People are walking all over with clips and ammo and talking about cartridges and diameter bullets. It’s just nuts.” Okay, well that’s how it is in the West. We tend to like our guns. She documented her experience in an article in GQ magazine that she entitled Guns Are Us. She asked this, “So, this is the people who stand at the front lines, guarding America against these lunatic mass murderers? Clerks at Wal-Mart? Clerks at Sporting Goods stores? Minimum wage cashiers?” And I’d say, “Yeah. Where was that Wal-Mart clerk (35:00) the night of the shooting at Aurora theater? Where was that minimum wage cashier that defended us at our church when the guy open fired? The fact of the matter is it is not their job to defend us. It’s our job to defend us. And no amount of bureaucratic red tape and paperwork and rules and regulations will change that.
If government says, “We’re in charge of defending you,” then they missed the boat entirely, haven’t they? We’re in charge of defending ourselves. So, I’ve heard her say, “Gosh, we can’t just trust this minimum wage cashier. They’re not going to be able to stop the murderers and lunatic killers.” Exactly, they’re not supposed to stop them. We’re supposed to stop them with a gun on our hip, not with some paperwork or some calling from a clerk to a National Registry, right? Washington said this, “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence.” The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrained evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” That’s our President, right? (36:00) Our President is saying such a wild and crazy idea that guns are good.
Jefferson said this – now there’s a little bit of a controversy whether he said this or someone else has said this but nonetheless it’s a great quote – “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” So, if you’re to take one lesson from this presentation please take home this idea. Gun control laws only work on those who obey the law. Someone who goes into a school and start killing doesn’t see on the outside fence that it’s a gun free-zone like, “Oh. Whoops never mind. I can’t do that here.” No, gun control laws only work on those who want to disrespect the law and break the law. Those who want to obey the law, if they’re forced to give up their guns– Do you think the lunatic mass murderers, the gangsters, they’re going to be giving up their guns? No. The other ones will retain their guns because they wanted to do evil with them. Gun control laws only work on those who obey the law.
(37:00) Thomas Paine said this, “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian, attracts the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world.” Why? Because they may have a gun. I’m not going to go attack them. “The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived of the use of them” There’s something about the fact that someone might have a gun on them that deters the ruffian from stealing or attacking or whatever because they don’t know and you have this equality because you have the ability to defend yourself against someone who has a gun. “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” A funny statement.
The dues for the preservation of firearm ownership. A really good gun rights group says – they wrote a book called Lethal Laws in 1994 — and they said this, “The downside of gun control is genocide. There had been at least seven major genocides in the 20th century involving (38:00) 50 to 60 million victims using conservative estimates.” And that is conservative. Some people say in China alone they killed 60 million people. In any case the gun control law was enforced before the genocide began. Genocide is bad. Genocide won’t happen until you get a gun control law in place first and then they can carry out the genocide. So, being curious I want to look at the stats. What are they talking about? What are these seven major genocidal events? Well, first of all the point to be made before this event in 1994. The last five or six years of the 20th century there was also another major genocide.
But these are the seven they’re referring to. In Turkey there are ½ million Armenians killed in the Soviet Union in a matter of what? 20 years or so. There are 20 million people killed, people that are very much in the low estimate, it could be more like 60 million. In Nazi, Germany just a period of 12 years there are at least 13 million Jews, gypsies and other anti-Nazi killed. In China just a period of 4 years Mao Tse Tung in his work 20 million people killed. Once again most of them say it’s more like 50 or 60 million. Guatemala, (39:00) in 20 years they killed 100,000 Mayans. In Uganda 300,000 Christians. In Cambodia a million of educated people. And when you think of Cambodia who’s the dictator, the [inaudible] [0:39:10] you think of? You think of Pol Pot don’t you? Okay, Pol Pot didn’t have any of these million ascribe to him. What happened is Pol Pot killed a bunch of people in Cambodia and then the Khmer rouge, the communist regime, came in and said, “Look we know Pol Pot has been bad to you. Give us your guns and we’ll protect you.” And what did they do? They killed a million more; the most educated citizens. Why the most educated? Because they understood their rights. They are the most dangerous to the regime. Okay, that was then and that was in other places. It doesn’t happen here in America, right?
Well, let’s look a little bit here. 1961, under JFK, the State department issued a book called Freedom from War. And look at the title and it says, “The United States program for general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world.” Complete disarmament, that’s what we need for a peaceful world, huh? Okay. Here’s objective number one of this Freedom from War: “The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than (40:00) those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force.” That sounds like Stalin saying, “Nobody gets guns except for my guys.” Or Pol Pot, “Nobody gets guns except for my guys.” Or Mao Tse Tsung, “Nobody gets guns except for my guys.” Or the United Nations, “Nobody gets guns except for my guys, the United Nations.” We should learn from history. Taking guns from people results in killing people. It doesn’t result in protecting them. Our history teaches us that.
This statue, a huge statue tall as a man, where is this statue showing up? A lot of people were surprised to know that this statue is actually at the United Nations building in New York City. It’s at the United Nations building. In 2001, so skipping forward 40 years and for 40 years the United Nations has been working to getting, taking our guns from us. But in 2001 the United Nations program of action and this is what it says and part of this program, “To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons.” Does that sound like a good little program? The UN is saying we’re going to try to destroy and collect or collect and destroy all small arms and light weapons. Does that sound like a freedom-loving measure, helping us to defend ourselves?
In 2012, July 2012, now this is just 10 years later after the program of action. The United Nations holds a conference on the Arms Trade Treaty. The Arms Trade Treaty is a big deal back in July of 2012. It’s just a few months before the Presidential election. It pulled together this Arms Trade Treaty and tried to work out the idea of starting to work on this – well, not starting – but continuing to implement the idea of small arms destruction and collection. Now what happened? Does this treaty ever fly? Do the small arms trade treaty worked? No, it didn’t because there were quite a few Senators who said, “We’re not going to put up with this.” And they sent a letter to President Obama. What did President Obama do? He (42:00) sent his delegates to the UN to vote against the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
Now why would the UN who is for taking our guns, why would they propose to have an Arms Trade Treaty right before the election? When they knew the President’s hand will be tied and they have to vote against it? You have to put on your cynical hats here, right? But because it gave him cover, it gave President Obama the opportunity to say, “Look, I’m against gun control. I can’t approve it. [inaudible] [0:42:28] now I have my UN delegates votes against this.” Now cynicism is at reality. Well, look at what happens here and you tell me. Just a month later, August 27th to September 7th of 2012, there’s another conference. This is the title of the conference. I’ll read it. “The 2nd United Nations Conference to review the progress made in the implementation of the Program of Action to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons and all its aspects.” That’s the title. You’re going to get lost with the title. Here’s what it’s saying, they’re going to review the progress made in their Program of Action. Remember the Program of Action (43:00) in 2001? It was to eradicate, to take care of all small arms and light weapons and then in all its aspects. And “all its aspects” is an interesting term. That showed up 38 times in the Arms Trade Treaty.
What about an aspect such as disarming insurgent, insurgence, armed and gang members, pirates and terrorist? That’s a good aspect, right? That’s a good reason for gun control unless they call you the terrorist because you have a Bible and you got to carry a constitution and you care about your liberties, right? What about these other aspects? They may not sound so good. For example, UN control of the “manufacture, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade as well as tracing finance collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.” What about that aspect of gun control? What about this, Section 3 Paragraph 7 and 8, “The Program of Action mandates that if a member state cannot dispose of privately owned small arms legislatively then the control of customs, police, intelligence and arms control will be placed under the power of the UN office for disarmament affairs.” (44:00) The UN has an entire office dedicated to disarmament affairs. And don’t worry if you as a nation can’t get rid of the arms legislatively because you’re a signatory on this Arms Trade treaty we’ll come in and get rid of them for you. Doesn’t that violate the idea of sovereignty? That we control ourselves and no one on the outside tells us what to do. Once again we already talked about this idea of this treaty. Those aspects don’t sound so good, do they?
So, remember November 7th of 2012? Okay, this is the day that President Obama won his second re-election. So, this is where we’re going to prove the point this wasn’t just cynicism, this idea I had before. But it’s actually reality because on the very day, before 24 hours had even passed, the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157 to zero in favor of resolution L11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty in March of 2013. So, in July of 2012 President Obama is against the Arms Trade Treaty. Within 24 hours of getting re-elected all of a sudden we’re for the Arms Trade Treaty and we’re going to finalize this thing, (50:00) we’re going to move towards it in March of 2013. Came March of 2013 they already have the Arms Trade Treaty. They already had delegates’ meet. But it was still an unpopular bill or an unpopular treaty. Luckily Senators still said, “No way. We’re not going to do this.” So, what did President Obama do? He threatened to say, “Because we’re a responsible world citizen I’m just going to issue an Executive Order.” We’re waiting to see if he does that. But he had his Secretary of State, John Kerry, sign the Arms Trade Treaty as a, I don’t know, a measure of good will, that we’re good, responsible citizens. We want to get rid of guns as well in order to protect the world from people who kill other people. So, you see it’s not just cynicism. There’s some reality behind that and the facts proved that.
So, let me point out a few things in the constitution that support and defend our right to keep and bear arms and then resolutions too are problems when it comes to gun control. Internationally the United Nations has always been trying to get our guns from us. At the National level you now have the President who is trying to do it or Congress or the Supreme Court who is also trying to rob us of a right to self-defense. (46:00) At the local or the State level, sorry, the legislature could be involved with allowing our guns to be taken from us or standing up for our right to self-defense. At the local level you have the Sheriff who’s the last line of defense and he’s the executive, he’s the supreme executive in his county to defend us. Let me show you the provisions that are in the constitution to help us with this.
In United Nations Article 6, we’ve already talked about this, right? The treaty has to be made under the authority of the United States. If it’s not then no UN treaty can take from us our guns. Understand what’s in the constitution and you’re free. The words of the constitution help us understand that gun control and international level because of a treaty is not legitimate. So, what do we need to do? We need to get us out of the United Nations. We need to get us out of the United Nations. So, some people say it’s dreaming to get the US out of the United Nations, right? But really in February of 2011, quite recently, our representative Paul Brown introduced a bill. It said we’re not going to pay a single penny to the United Nations induced to them. (47:00) So, they’re saying common man laughably failed, right? Well, guess what it did fail. But 177 representatives voted for it. That was awesome news. That means only 41 more representatives need to vote for that and we can get our nation pulled out of the United Nations.
If the United States doesn’t pay dues to the United Nations, what happens to the United Nations? They’ll crumble. It’s gone. So, working on that, identifying those representatives, helping them understand how the United Nations is not our friend. It’s not for us. They’re against us. Like that to happen. So, Article 6, that’s how you combat the international gun control. International gun control, the President, Article 1 Section 1 Clause 1, it says, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress.” The President can’t issue Executive Orders. He can’t use the popularity of the mainstream media and then the excitement of it to say, “Oh we needed to do this. We will do this. I’m making these rules.” He can’t. Article Section 1 Clause 1 says all legislative power is reserved for or all legislative powers is vested in Congress. Only they make that.
(48:00) Now the slash here of the Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6, if you choose and try to do that Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6 says that we should impeach him. Some people will say, “That’s crazy talking. Impeachment is just crazy.” Impeachment is not crazy. Impeachment is a very peaceful way of removing problems. In other countries they have to organize a military coup and have thousands of people get killed. In our country it’s simply impeach the President for not following the constitution, for trying to impose gun control edicts as an Executive Order which he has no power to do. So, that’s how you control that. Congressional level, Congress is restricted by the 2nd amendment, right? The right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed. Congress can’t write any law that will infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The constitution provides that solution. It’s there.
The Supreme Court, Article 3 Section 2 Clause 2, we talked about this often. It has become one of my favorite, right? Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They can’t just decide and make rules and judgment and set case President that allows gun control. (49:00) The Congress has to be on top of in disallowing them from ruling on issues regarding gun control when they rule wrong. That only happens if you have an educated and active electorate who elect a good people to Congress and hold their fire to follow the constitution.
At the State level of course the 10th amendment should empower the legislature to say if the Federal government tries to come in and take our guns from us either through compliance with an international treaty or because of Federal statute. They shall not do that. If they try to we will write a law of nullification. It says you cannot do so. Coming into our state to take our guns from us and to tyrannize us, you’ll be treated like the enemy that you are, right? There is no question that nullification isn’t just, “Oh well we’re not going to do that.” Nullification is an opportunity to simply state, “As a state we uphold the constitution. We’re not allowing that to happen in our State.” The 10th amendment empowers legislature to do that on their own. Each individual legislature can stop that for happening in their State.
At the local level (50:00), the Sheriff. According to Article 6 Clause 3 this is the Oath of Office. This could be applied to all the National and State levels as well. The Oath of Office that each one is required to take. And it says that they’re going to uphold and defend the constitution. The Sheriff is the supreme executive in his county. It’s his job to uphold the constitution. So, even if all the other levels fail – the National, the State fail – and they’re trying to tyrannize us, the Sherriff can stand on his Oath of Office which is to the constitution; to defend us; to defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Now all these stuff revolves around the constitution. You understand what’s in the constitution. You understand you have the right to defend yourself and the gun control violates a very basic right that has been given to you by God. So, once again the solutions are found in the constitution. And once again the solution is found really in you. What are you going to do about it? How are you going to understand and stand up for it? Educate yourself, share information to others and get involved in the action plan to stand (51:00) up for your right to self-defense.