About weapons of war

In the early 1700’s each state had its own militia. Men of fighting age, each having his own weapon, joined together to fight off indian attacks or whatever threat could arise. When the Revolutionary War began these militias joined and fought alongside the regular army to defeat the British. State militia continued to be used in the War of 1812 and even in the American Civil War. It was expected that men in the militia would fight alongside men in the military using the same weapons as those in the military.

Afterward, in the early 1900’s the National Guard was formed. Now each state has a reserve-trained military force that could be used similarly to the militia except it is connected to US military forces and can be called up for regular duty at any time.

So in early America, men in the militia had to use their own personal weapons in case of war or insurrection. They had weapons of war at the time. There was nothing to restrict men to own whatever weapon they wanted. Even cannons. At the time the Constitution was written and the second amendment was adopted, citizens had weapons of war.

Now the argument is, because things have changed and we have the National Guard, ordinary citizens do not need to have so-called “weapons of war”. Yes, things have changed. Different needs for a different times. But what if things change again? What if the military and national guard cannot do their primary function? There are many "what if" scenarios where things could change. So "just in case" we need to leave the Constitution and the 2nd amendment alone.

The other problem is: the term “Weapons of war” cannot be or has not been defined. Depending on the situation a knife is a weapon of war. As is a spear. Shotguns were used in Vietnam. Are they weapons of war or hunting weapons? The military uses a weapon similar to the commonly used AR-15 but the military would not use an AR-15 itself. The military uses an M16 with "select fire" of three-round bursts and full auto. The AR-15 does not have those features, nor the endurance of a standard military weapon. It's a semiautomatic. So technically, it cannot be called a “Weapon of War”. It is a citizen's self-defense weapon and hunting rifle. There are approximately 15 million AR-15s in use. The rare instances where a crazed individual uses an AR-15 to kill multiple people shouldn't be used to make the other 15 million people defenseless.

Repealing the Second Amendment

With all the talk and actions about repealing the second amendment or banning various guns, one big factor is overlooked. The right to self-defense is a natural right. It is a given that your natural reaction to a threat is to defend and protect yourself and your family. The Supreme Court affirmed this right a few years ago. Per the second amendment, you have a right to be armed and defend yourself anywhere you are. There are a lot of municipalities that infringe on this right and they are wrong.

Picture this scenario: An enemy country hacks into our electrical grid (like the Russians did a short time ago) but this time they are able to completely shut down our electrical grid. Now we are without electricity for weeks or even months. Or perhaps an enemy detonates an EMP bomb in our atmosphere permanently taking out all our electronics and electrical grid. So now we have no phones, no electricity, no internet, and no 911.

With no access to 911, police, fire, or other emergency responders, gangs of thugs (they are out there) start roaming the street looking to rob, rape and kill anyone they desire. Now you are faced with a dilemma. Your natural rights say you need to protect yourself and your family, but you are an anti-gunner. You voted to eliminate the second amendment. You don’t believe in guns. You were depending on the government to protect you. (gag).

You have several choices: 1. You can become religious and pray that the thugs will ignore you. MAYBE they won’t rape your wife and daughter, kill you and take all your stuff. 2. Or, stand your ground and die for what you believe in, that no civilian should have a gun 

3. Run to your neighbor and hope he still has an AR-15 hiding in his closet.

If you think such a scenario cannot happen, well no one thought the 9/11 attacks could happen. Nor Columbine, or Parkland in South Florida, or the Las Vegas shooting could happen. The difference is we didn’t know in advance that the former would or could happen. We do know that our enemies are trying to destroy our electrical grid because it will destroy our civilization. Our only way to keep any sense of a civilized society is that good people to have enough guns and ammo to keep law and order

One of the rants is that “guns are for killing”, implying that guns can only kill good people. I agree that guns are designed to kill. The function of a gun is to kill. Big guns, and little guns are all designed to kill. They kill game for food. They kill game to reduce the overpopulation of various species. Guns are used to kill varmints. Varmints that kill farm animals, destroy crops, and attack humans. Law-abiding citizens buy guns to do all of the above. Most importantly, law-abiding citizens buy guns to defend themselves against bad guys who would do them harm. It is estimated that law-abiding citizens use guns about 1,600,000 times a year to defend themselves either by using the gun or often just showing a bad guy that he has a gun works. So, the possibility that up to 1,600,000 more people would be killed or harmed if you took away the ability to defend themselves by limiting or repealing the second amendment. And don’t forget, the police use guns to keep the law.

When you talk about the “common sense gun laws” that limit people’s right to defend themselves, there is no common sense in that discussion. Those “Common sense gun laws” are exampled in Chicago and they have one of the highest murder rates in the country. You can have your “common sense gun laws” as long as you are not one of the people getting shot. Me, I rather have my gun.

To fix the federal government and put it back to where it should be

To fix the federal government and put it back to where it should be we need:

First a Convention of States. A Convention of States bypasses all the existing corruption, elitist establishment, and all who resist the change to fix anything that benefits the American people.

Second: repeal the 16^th amendment and eliminate the IRS. The government can find more honest and fair ways to collect money. The Fair Tax is one.

Third: repeal the seventeenth amendment. The founding fathers understood that by each state appointing their senators then the senators would be beholden to the state’s best interest, not their individual parties as they are today. Parties will raise monies to give to individuals to get reelected. Favorite senators get more money. less favorite senators get less or none. This makes the candidates beholden to the party's wishes. What we have now is a corrupt system of using tax dollars to buy people's votes in both houses of Congress and it is impossible to break that power hold on the people.

Fourth: and most important: define the “General Welfare” clause to its original meaning. Originally it meant that government could only act for the general welfare of the people within the confines of its defined responsibilities and powers listed in the Constitution. So, the government was restricted in what it could do, per design. In 1933 the Supreme Court said that the “General Welfare” could mean whatever Congress decided it meant. This gave Congress the wildcard it needed to take over anything it wanted as long as it could say it was for the General Welfare of the people. Thus, we have all these different agencies and departments regulating the people and businesses with very few limits. If based on the original constitutional concept these agencies would have never existed in the first place. Remember, Obamacare’s constitutionality was based solely on the General Welfare Clause and even then it had to be called a tax. A 22,000-page tax? Right!

Fifth: Put limits on the spending and commerce clause. The government has no business being in business, picking winners and losers, and funding any business unless, of course, it has to do with national defense. Defense spending would and should be the only exception. And that should only be under strict supervision.

We could add term limits, limitations on salaries, and retirement. Remember, originally being in Congress was a part-time responsibility. They still had to earn their own living and retirement was just as we have now. Every man for himself. In fact, a number of the founders died broke. Congress was not meant to be a full-time job. If retirement is provided then it should be available only after they turn 65 and prorated on years of service with a maximum limit just like the rest of us. If term limits are set at twelve years and they serve six, they should only get half of the max retirement value. My social security has a limit, and so should their retirement.

Finally: every, and I mean every, regulation, tax, or bureaucrat proposal should come back to Congress and be voted on by elected officials. This way they cannot pass the responsibility by saying "I didn't vote for that". Or the teenage response: "Not my fault" or "I didn't do it".

When it comes to fixing the government we should look for the simplest and most straightforward ideas that wipe out most of the damage that the progressives have done over the last one hundred years. I think the five points listed above will do just that.