A SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA IS INEVITABLE IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITHERS AND DIES

A SEDITIOUS PRESS AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT DEMOCRATS SEEK TO UNDERMINE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

“If the media were honest, they would say, Look, here are the interests we represent and this is the framework within which we look at things. This is our set of beliefs and commitments. That’s what they would say, very much as their critics say. For example, I don’t try to hide my commitments, and the Washington Post and New York Times shouldn’t do it either. However, they must do it, because this mask of balance and objectivity is a crucial part of the propaganda function. In fact, they actually go beyond that. They try to present themselves as adversarial to power, as subversive, digging away at powerful institutions and undermining them. The academic profession plays along with this game.” Quotation one, ~Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist, from Lecture titled, “Media, Knowledge, and Objectivity,” June 16, 1993“Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business . . . the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products.” Quotation two, ~Noam Chomsky, from article, titled, “Force and Opinion,” in Z MagazineThe picture of the world that’s presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality. The truth of the matter is buried under edifice after edifice of lies upon lies. It’s all been a marvelous success from the point of view in deterring the threat of democracy, achieved under conditions of freedom, which is extremely interesting.” Quotation three, ~Noam Chomsky, from his book, “Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda”

PART ONE

With this latest “mass” shooting, in Odessa, Texas, the antigun zealots and their fellow travelers in the Press lost little time in exploiting the tragedy. The antigun seditious Press, always protective of its fundamental right  of freedom of the Press  under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, misuses that fundamental right to launch a vicious assault on another but equally, sacred, fundamental right—a sacred, inviolate right that tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, and rational citizens exercise every day, as is their prerogative: the sacred, inviolate, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right as fundamental, immutable, unalienable as is the freedom of the Press that our seemingly Free Press seems exclusively concerned about securing, perhaps well aware that the seditious dogma it propagates can and should be constrained.In that regard it should be mentioned that President Trump can certainly take action to choke the Press for the malicious, bald-faced lies elicited from it, if he had the mind to do so; but he hasn’t done so, which speaks to his restraint, something that can’t be said for Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, who, as the Baltimore Examiner reported, prosecuted and spied on reporters to constrain the Press, and he did so several times. Obama’s actions amounted to an abuse of power that Obama never had to answer for. President Trump’s actions unlike those of Obama have amounted to amounted to mere rebukes against the Press. But Trump, unlike Obama, did have and does have every reason to clamp down on the Press for having orchestrating a comprehensive attack on him, an attack that goes well beyond criticism, amounting to vicious defamation of character and a fusillade of malicious lies. The Press sneers at the President, castigates him, ridicules him; derides, mocks, and taunts him viciously, constantly, relentlessly. The Press refers to Trump as an autocrat, and a danger to our Nation. Honestly? Which President is it who has really demonstrated autocratic tendencies? The answer is obvious, isn’t it? And, if, God forbid, any of the current crop of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President is elected President in 2020, it will be that person that ushers in a totalitarian regime.Yet, the seditious Press, ever protective of and jealous of its own inviolate right and prerogatives codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, perverts that right and has done so, since the earliest days of Donald Trump’s Presidency, launching endless scurrilous, pernicious, bombastic, inflammatory ad hominem attacks on Trump and on his Administration’s policies; trying to frustrate him at every turn, in every manner; intent on accomplishing that detestable aim; deliberately, seditiously making it difficult for the President to perform his duties in accordance with his Oath of Office set forth in Article 2, Section One, Clause 8 of the Constitution—doing everything it can to wear the President down, sabotage his efforts, and blind to the fact that harming the President means harming the Nation, the Constitution, and the American people. Trump has persevered through all of this, weathered the storm of noxious, incessant verbal and written assaults on his character and his policies and that speaks volumes to his fortitude, stamina, strength of will, to overcome adversity—adversity that, unfortunately and disturbingly, emanates from within the Nation, than outside it.

AN ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN ATTACK ON THE NATION, ON THE CONSTITUTION, ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ON THE FOUNDERS AND ON THE FOUNDERS’ VISION FOR THIS NATION

The attack by the Press is pervasive, vigorous, vicious, vile, and all-consuming: a constant barrage of invective directed against President Trump, against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, against guns and gun owners, against NRA; even against the founders of our Republic, and their vision for our Country of which the Constitution is the Nation’s blueprint. The Press has conspired with others who are intent on undermining all of it. This virulent, seditious, antigun Press is intent on denying to Americans their sacred, inviolate, unalienable right to defend their life, safety, and well-being, with the best means available, a firearm. Through its incessant assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and through its never-ending, attack on the President who has, for the most part, defended that right, and against NRA that tirelessly protects it, the Press would also, not surprisingly, place obstacles in the path of Americans who recognize that the most effective way to guard against the insinuation of tyranny into our Nation is by dint of an armed citizenry.Obviously, a seditious Press knows this, and, as that same seditious, incorrigible Press, is in league with Left-wing extremists—who some people refer to as the New Progressive Left—whose sick and bizarre vision for America mandates the establishment of a Marxist/Socialist dictatorship, a dictatorship our Nation is inexorably chugging along toward. The public should well take note of what a Marxist/Socialist Dictatorship shall bring: misery, oppression, hopelessness for and in the lives of every American. And, don’t think that such a hell-world cannot come to pass. For, if the New Progressive Left actually succeeds, in the forthcoming General Election, in taking control of both chambers of Congress, and of the U.S. Presidency, as well, autocracy will manifest itself, and it will manifest quickly. Tyranny of Government—the very fear of the founders of the Republic—will be inevitable.A vision of our Country grounded on the tenets of Collectivism, rather than on the tenets of Individualism, as it presently is, is now a stark possibility, as extremist Left-wing elements have high-jacked the Democratic Party. That is plain. And the Press knows this too; welcomes it; nurtures it. And why not? After all, the seditious Press has been high-jacked by extremist Left-wing elements, too, using its First Amendment freedom, ironically and disturbingly, not to defend, safeguard, preserve, and strengthen our Constitutional Republic—but to undermine and destroy it, commencing with an unending parade of indictments against the Second Amendment and vicious and unparalleled attacks on the President and, indeed, on the very institution of the Presidency that this Nation has never before seen.But, to condemn one fundamental right is to condemn them all, including the Freedom of the Press—a singular right that Mark Levin, an attorney, author, and true Patriot, has perceptively referred to as the "Unfreedom of the Press," and has so titled his recent best-selling non-fiction book on the subject of the Press; as the Press, today, has corrupted the very right it disingenuously defends and extols, but misuses to undercut the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, in fact, undermines the very right, the Freedom of the Press, that it seemingly fervently defends; for all ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights go together to form a single coherent, comprehensive whole. The Bill of Rights is a unique testament to the importance the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, placed in the American people; for it is American people in whom sovereign power over the Nation rests, not the federal Government.The Government the framers constructed is a Government divided into three separate but co-equal Branches, each with its own set of limited powers, as meticulously set out in the Articles of the Constitution. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people as set forth in and made abundantly clear in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. And, if those who exert power and authority in Government ever forget where it is that true lawful, sovereign power resides, then the right codified in the Second Amendment exists to remind them that Government was created to serve the American people, and not the other way around; nor does Government exist to serve itself.The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, would be absolutely appalled to witness the Press’ perversion of its sacred freedom. These extremist Left-wing elements that have taken over a substantial part of our news media and news commentary are a deadly contagion, spouting vile venom and filth, dispersing it with pomposity and sanctimony, on radio, on television, in printed media, and over the internet—indeed, everywhere throughout the Country and the world.And this so-called New Progressive Left plague is firmly planted in and dispersed throughout our institutions of Government—federal, State, and local—and it is a prominent fixture in the entertainment business. The New Progressive Left is pervasive in the Press and in media. It has permeated the major technology companies. But all this spawn of the New Progressive Left know full well it cannot dismantle a free, Constitutional Republic so easily. The New Progressive Left brood cannot long survive as long as there exists an armed citizenry. The root system of the New Progressive Left will wither and die as long as there exists an armed citizenry in the U.S. But an armed citizenry will only continue to exist if the American public manifests and maintains its strength of will and an indefatigable faith in our founders’ vision for our Nation and does not fall prey to the specious emotional laden nonsense constantly flowing through and out of the radical Left’s echo chamber: the Unfree Press.__________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST NOT BUCKLE UNDER TO THE PRESS AND TO DEMOCRATS WHO EXPLOIT TRAGEDY TO UNDERCUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART TWO

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, "1984"

ENGAGING IN COMPROMISE WITH THOSE WHO ABHOR FIREARMS AND WHO DETEST THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR SACRED RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WILL SERVE ONLY TO COMPROMISE THAT RIGHT, DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution. The New Progressive Left demands the surrender of all firearms from the hands of the citizenry. Government control over an armed citizenry is impossible. Those Leftist radical elements know this and it infuriates them. The need for an armed citizenry, as the framers of the Constitution planned for, intended, and made eminently clear in the words of the Second Amendment, is indisputable, inescapable; and, as we see more so, today, than ever before, their vision for this Country cannot remain true and pure without an armed citizenry. The Leftist extremists come up against an impenetrable roadblock in the very existence of the Second Amendment. They realize their vision of a Marxist/Socialist Country, where America is merely a small cog in a mammoth Marxist/Socialist new world order, cannot come to fruition as long as the American people possess firearms, and they find this state of affairs intolerable.But, as long as the founders’ vision for our Nation remains fixed in the psyche of the American citizenry, and as long as the American public remains mindful, vigilant, and  undeterred by the dire threat the New Progressive Left poses to our Nation, and as long as the American public, the silent majority, is resolved to prevent the Left’s replacing the founders' vision for our Country with that of their own, will the American public be able to effectively resist and forestall the establishment here of a Marxist, Socialist dictatorship--a dictatorship in which the betrayers of our Nation, consisting of the New Progressive Left itself, but also comprising crass opportunists, stand willing to sell their very souls to secure for themselves nothing but personal aggrandizement—bootlickers and lemmings all—ready to abase themselves, obediently taking their marching orders from their overlords holed up in Brussels.If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party, and more in the growing possibility that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article title, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.Our Nation already has more than enough restrictive gun laws. We don’t need more; for more gun laws will not make this Nation safer. More restrictive gun laws, targeting the tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizen, which is the aim of the New Progressive Left Congressional Democrats will only make this Nation less safe--will leave those Americans without the means of adequate defense against the psychopathic criminals and dangerous psychotic lunatics who prey on innocent Americans. And, be well aware of this: The gun control proposals of Democratic Party candidates policy goals is specifically designed to target the millions of average, law-abiding gun owners, not the common criminal, the vicious drug cartels, or the occasional lunatic. We know that; and Democrats know that too. And, they don't deny it. The Press doesn't ask these candidates for U.S. President what their gun measures are really designed to do, whom it is they are really targeting. But, then, they are of one mind with antigun New Progressive Left. And, apparently, the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans aren't asking either. These “muscular new gun control measures” various Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President are calling for are directed squarely at the millions of law-abiding gun owners, not common criminals, not psychopathic gang members, not psychotic lunatics, all of whom are not permitted to own and possess firearms under current federal law, anyway—federal law that in many instances isn’t enforced. And this indisputable truth compels one unmistakable, disturbing conclusion: That further gun control laws the New Progressive Left Democratic Presidential candidates are vociferously and blatantly arguing for are not directed to reducing gun violence; nor, for that matter, are they directed toward the reduction of violence of any kind. The appeal for more restrictive gun measures is a makeweight, a platitude, for on close inspection, the logic behind the appeal falls apart, and one realizes the scam for what it is and that those demanding comprehensive gun control are really calling for comprehensive population control. The expression 'muscular, ' in muscular new gun measures' even sounds ominous. It alludes to something a criminal psychopath would utter, as the Progressive New Left intends to "muscle" the  average, honest, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizen out of  their firearms--in other words, force average Americans to surrender their firearms on pain of serious repercussions for an American citizen who fails to do so. But, even taking the implausible platitude of ending gun violence for what it is, namely a ruse to compel the American citizenry to surrender its firearms—a ruse that has become ever clearer in the assertion, and severe in the contemplation of it—what we need to do is to understand what the core issue really is and drill down to that core issue and resolve that core issue. The question that we need to ask is this: how do we best contain violence directed toward innocent people? Focusing on guns merely serves to obscure the core issue and resolution of it, if we assume, for purpose of argument that containing violence is what the New Progressive Left has in mind and what they really want to resolve as well. But, to cut to the chase: they really don't. The New Progressive Left isn't interested in curtailing gun violence against innocent Americans. For, if they did, they would be approaching the issue sensibly, reasonably. Their objective would be to to curtail violence, whatever the mechanism employed. But they don't do that. And even apropos of guns, the New Progressive Left isn't really interested in curtailing violence committed by criminals and the occasional lunatic. Their interest is simply banning as many firearms as they can and that means targeting as many people as they can who happen to possess guns, namely tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens. And, even on that score, they aren't honest. For, while it may seem superficially plausible to target as many gun as possible, the reason for doing so has little to do with preventing violence, for if the New Progressive Left were successful in that endeavor all that they would accomplish would be to leave tens of millions of average, law-abiding Americans defenseless, at the mercy of criminal predators and dangerous lunatics who will be able to get their hands on firearms anyway. So, it isn't curtailing violence against innocent people that the New Progressive Left is interested in protecting from "gun" violence. It is those very people that the New Progressive Left fears because tens of millions of armed Americans is a formidable force that can oppose a tyrannical Government, and it is just that sort of Government that the New Progressive Left is intent on creating. Guns themselves are merely an implement. Bad actors, the agents of violence will always be able to obtain firearms as most now do anyway, not in gun stores, or over the internet, or at gun shows, but on the Black Market. So, if it is containing societal violence, then Congress should address that. And, if not, then President Trump and Congressional Republicans should call Democrats out for their ruse. For gun control only increases the risk of societal violence, as gun control that Democrats have in mind is not a surgical strike targeting the criminal and the dangerous lunatic; it is a sledge hammer targeting the law-abiding citizenry.President Trump and  Republicans must not be hesitant in calling these Democrats out. They should ask the question directly, first of themselves and then of the radical Left Democrats: What is the goal of the New Progressive Left Congressional Democrats in calling for gun control? Is their goal to reduce societal violence or is it to disarm the American citizenry? Congressional legislation is a function of the matter to be addressed, and that is where attention ought to be focused. Taking Democrats at their word, if, then, Democrats truly desire to curtail violence in society, thereby promoting public safety, attention should be directed to answering that question, but attention is never directed to that question; not really, for that is not what Democrats want. That is not what they are after. What they seek is comprehensive citizen disarmament, and withal, removing the incipient threat to the unconstitutional usurpation of Government power and authority. In so doing the New Progressive Left turns the paramount concern of the founders of our free Republic, on its head. For an armed citizenry was precisely what the founders prescribed; for their aim was to deter the rise of tyranny, not enable it.The Press, echoing the demands of Democratic Party Presidential Candidates, with whom the Press is in league, pretends to be interested in promoting public safety, failing to realize or even to consider that an armed citizenry is the best defense against armed assailants. The goal of the Progressive New Left isn’t really public safety at all. If it were, attention would be directed to incarcerating serial criminals in prison where they belong; placing the criminally insane in institutions where they can receive the care they need and the public can be spared the danger the criminally insane pose; and deporting illegal aliens who commit the serious crimes of rape, armed robbery, assault, and murder, instead of releasing them out into the public where they can commit crimes anew.But, many Democrats, including their leaders, aren’t concerned about any of that. If they were, then they would spend more time campaigning for toughened sentencing against hardened criminals, and institutionalizing dangerous psychotics who have demonstrated a predilection for violence, and deporting illegal aliens who have demonstrated a proclivity toward violence. But we see none of that happening. We see, instead, Democrats spending much of their time campaigning for more restrictive gun laws, directed to the law-abiding citizen, which, if enacted, would have the perverse result of leaving the law-abiding citizen defenseless. The need for further restrictive gun laws is, then, again, just a ruse—all directed to one ultimate goal: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, after which the amassing of Government power can take off, unconfined by the limitations imposed on Government in the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, and undeterred by, and no longer concerned with the threat an armed citizenry poses to Government's usurpation of power, which the New Progressive Left has sought all along. No longer would the need exist for the Government tyrants to go through the motions of complying with the Constitution, for the means to compel Government compliance with the limitations the Constitution imposes on Government. an armed citizenry, would no longer exist.____________________________________________________

NEW GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS ARE CITIZEN/POPULATION CONTROL PROPOSALS; THEY ARE BLATANT ATTEMPTS TO WEAKEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART THREE

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” ~Noah Webster, American lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English-language spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author; from his essay, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 1787

SO-CALLED COMMON-SENSE GUN MEASURES THAT RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL!

THE ANTIGUN NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT DEMOCRATS BETRAY OUR NATION WITH FOUR EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE GUN PROPOSALS THEY ARE DEAD SET ON IMPLEMENTING AND WILL IN FACT IMPLEMENT IF DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, THE U.S. PRESIDENCY, IN THE UPCOMING GENERAL ELECTION

We hear the expression "common-sense gun measures" bandied about often enough; so often, in fact, that the average person doesn't bother to give it much thought, but takes the veracity of the expression as self-evident true. But, it it? On even cursory inspection such so-called "common-sense gun measures" that operate to restrict the average, law-abiding, responsible, and rational American's exercise of the natural, fundamental, and immutable, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms makes no sense at all. The expression is an oxymoron and nonsensical. That fact becomes painfully obvious when one takes a long hard look at particular measures these Antigun Progressive New Left politicians have in mind. When these politicians assert that this or that gun measure makes perfect common sense, you can rest assured that it does not. The problem is that, while these politicians will tell you that this or that gun policy or gun measure will reduce "gun violence," they don't provide you with sound evidence to support their statements; nor do they give the American public a good sense of how the restrictive gun measure is designed to work, and how it is expected to be implemented. They probably don't have a clue themselves. Still, once the public gets a handle on what these antigun radical Left-wing politicians are really up to--constraining the exercise of the Second Amendment to the point that the right codified in it becomes essentially nugatory and not, contrary to what they insist, reducing "gun violence," and promoting public safety--it becomes abundantly evident that these gun control measures, when utilized together, are directed to do three things very, very well: all of them directed to disarming the citizenry and, hence, destroying the Second Amendment; and none of them directed to reducing "gun violence" and promoting "public safety"The New Progressive Left politicians' goal of disarming the citizenry through legislation, through Administrative rule-making, and through executive order--operating as a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment--has essentially three components:First, the New Progressive Left politicians seek to expand exponentially the kinds of guns and components of firearms the average law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen will no longer be permitted lawfully to possess, and, for those individuals who are permitted to lawfully possess firearms, these antigun politicians seek to control the number of firearms a person may own and possess and to strictly control the amount of ammunition and the kinds of ammunition that a gun owner is permitted to have. Second, The New Progressive Left politicians seek to expand exponentially the domain of American citizens who are prohibited from lawfully owning and possessing firearms, components of firearms, and ammunition. Third, as for those Americans who are not immediately prohibited from exercising the sacred right that is codified in the Second Amendment, the New Progressive Left politicians' "common-sense" gun policies and  gun measures are designed to be oppressive, exceedingly so, in order to make ownership and possession of firearms, ammunition, and component parts of firearms, an expensive proposition and an administrative ordeal to maintain lawfully, if the gun owner is to avoid loss of his personalty and suffer civil or even criminal prosecution. Below, we discuss a few of the ramifications of the recent antigun proposals the New Progressive Left politicians have vociferously argued for, as echoed, incessantly, by a seditious Press.Note: three of the four restrictive gun measures have been around four decades. Every so often, when a lunatic goes off half-cocked, the gun grabbers bring these proposals out of the closet and try to push them, anew, on the public. These proposals include, one, bans on commonly owned firearms; two, expansive gun background checks; and, three, so-called "gun buybacks." The fourth restrictive gun measure"Red Flag" laws, is fairly new. But, any one of these four draconian gun measures clearly infringes on the Second Amendment and negatively impacts or directly infringes other Constitutional rights and liberties as well. If all of these antigun measures were to be implemented, the Second Amendment would become effectively nugatory. But, that is the point of them. And with the last few shooting incidents, hyped up, endlessly and vigorously, by a seditious Press, we see these politicians and the Press effectively manipulating public opinion to the point that even some Congressional Republicans and Republican State Government Officials are coming on board. The Second Amendment is again under dangerous siege. 

RADICAL AND PROGRESSIVE LEFT’S FOUR-PRONG STRATEGY FOR DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE EVENT DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE U.S. PRESIDENCY

FIRST PRONG: INSTITUTE NEW BANS ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS , AMMUNITION MAGAZINES, AND OTHER GUN COMPONENTS AND GUN ACCESSORIESIt isn't bans on some semiautomatic weapons that the New Progressive Left is gunning for: It’s a ban on all semiautomatic weapons and on all component parts of those weapons, and on all accessories for those weapons; The very fact that the Radical Left uses vague and scary expressions, 'assault weapon' and 'high capacity magazine' isn’t not by accident, and this point must be clearly pointed out, apart from the pejorative connotations of those expressions. The expressions are deliberately ‘scary’ to instill a feeling of repugnance in the minds of the target audience. And the expressions are vague and open-ended in meaning to allow Congress to place into these categories anything and everything they wish. The Arbalest Quarrel has previously and repeatedly pointed out that the goal of antigun proponents is to ban all semiautomatic weapons, not just some of them, and this has proved prescient as the Radical Left and New Progressive Left antigun crowd is beginning to use the expressions, ‘semiautomatic weapon’ and ‘semiautomatic weapon’ interchangeably. More so than revolvers, semiautomatic firearms have become the weapons of choice for personal defense. They are weapons in common use by millions of Americans, and, they are the weapons that the antigun Progressive New Left is most desirous of banning outright, along with their ammunition magazines. If these radical antigun Leftists are successful, then exercise of the Second Amendment will become increasingly more difficult, and that is the real aim of antigun zealots. Their goal is to destroy the Second Amendment because the citizenry's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment, operates as an existential threat to the ultimate goal they wish to achieve: absolute control of the population and subjugation of the citizenry. To achieve the ultimate goal of expanding Government exponentially and controlling all thought and behavior of the American public through absolute control of the police, the military, the intelligence apparatuses, the media, and control of the policy-making arms of Government, the New Progressive Left antigun zealots realize they must disarm the citizenry. De facto repeal of the right of the Second Amendment is, then, their penultimate goal. The New Progressive Left must accomplish destruction of the Second Amendment if they are to be able to subjugate the citizenry, and, in so doing, they will begin to bring to fruition, their ultimate goal: a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship that will emerge from the tattered remains of our Republic. But, the New Progressive Left politicians must first curry public support for their unconstitutional, unconscionable antigun policy objectives and measures. In that effort we find antigun groups, the Press, and antigun politicians of the New Progressive Left unfailingly and endlessly utilizing the fictions their public relations firms create for the specific purpose of manipulating the public into supporting policies antithetical to preservation of the Second Amendment. These fictions include loaded, emotionally charged terminology: ‘assault weapon,’ ‘military styled assault rifle,’ ‘weapon of war,’ and “high capacity magazine.” The public usually doesn’t even bother to ask for explication of these expressions, and in the few instances when it does ask for an explication, we see the antigun spokesperson often saying that the targeted weapons look like and operate like military weapons. This, of course is a nonsensical response, first, because the military isn't interested in the appearance of firearms merely for the sake of appearance, anyway, and, second, because the antigun pronouncement that civilian “assault weapons” operate like military “assault rifles” is simply wrong.In weapons’ design and fabrication for military application, form follows function, not the other way around, and the critical importance of function of a weapon is that of operation and handling. The military, ‘assault rifle,’ by definition, is a selective fire, intermediate caliber weapon. The civilian version of an assault rifle, if the notion of a ‘civilian version’ of military assault rifle is even meaningful, is hardly an adequate descriptor for weapons found in the non-military marketplace since such weapons are not capable of full auto or short burst auto fire.Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know? They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know? They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Second, even assuming, for purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim were true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. , even assuming, for purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim were true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. Those are all legitimate purposes. Further, suppose, an American simply wants a fully functional ‘assault weapon’ as a collectible. Why shouldn’t a law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen be able to own and possess that weapon? It is no answer to say no American needs one. But, that is the answer often given. In fact, why should the law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen even have to proffer a reason for owning and possessing a so-called 'assault weapon' at all. The antigun New Progressive Left activist simply presumes that a person must explain why he wishes to own and possess this or that firearm. No he doesn't. Where in the Constitution, in the Second Amendment, or in any other provision of the Constitution, does it say that an American citizen must demonstrate a purpose for or need for owning and possessing a particular firearm? Nowhere. The implicit understanding of the text of the Second Amendment is that a weapon be a personnel weapon, that, in fact, is expected to be used for, inter alia, military use. So, contrary, to the antigun New Progressive Left’s assertion that civilians are not permitted to own and possess a 'weapon of war,'—a shibboleth that is accepted as true and obviously so—the import of the Second Amendment points to the falsity of the New Progressive Left’s claim. A salient, and, indeed, the salient import of the Second Amendment is that the Nation is to be protected by a citizen army, no less so than by the Government's own standing army to help thwart a foreign aggressor; but also, and more particularly today, to protect the sovereignty, the integrity, and the autonomy of the American people from the visible and perverse threat posed by seditious insurgents within the Nation. The threat that the antigun New Progressive Left poses to the American citizenry is manifest in the desire of the New Progressive Left’s intent on creating a massive, omnipotent, onmniscent, and omnipresent federal Government: the antigun New Progressive Left’s God! To that end, the antigun New Progressive Left has demonstrated an overt proclivity and, indeed, a marked, staunch, and, in their own words, 'muscular' desire to disarm the public, for the unmistakeable, albeit unstated, purpose of controlling it. No better reason, then, for the civilian citizenry of the Nation to be well-armed, and well-armed, to the hilt, and with actual selective-fire assault rifles and submachine guns, not merely armed, then, with what the antigun Progressive New Left refers, inaccurately and pejoratively, as 'weapons of war' and 'as military style assault weapons.’ For rhe real threat posed to the preservation of our Nation to as a free, Constitutional Republic and a free people, comes from those within the Nation, as subsidized by seditious billionaires both within and outside the Country, who desire to destroy the very framework of our Nation, as designed and created by our founders. No better evidence is there of their seditious intent, than their desire to disarm the citizenry; and no better reason, then, for the citizenry to be well-armed. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller, the seminal Second Amendment case, has made abundantly clear that firearms in common use, which includes those antigun Leftists refer to under the pejorative ‘assault weapons,’ and ‘military styled assault rifles,’ and ‘weapons of war,’ are a protected category of firearms under the Heller standard. One would wonder whether, given the dire threat posed by insurgents in our midst would not had led the late Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, to conclude that, as consistent with the import and purport of our Second Amendment, a citizen army should be armed with military personnel weapons to best thwart a takeover of our Nation's Government by those hell-bent in instituting a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship—a form of Government altogether inconsistent with the framework that the founders of our free Republic had heretofore established for it, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution that the States had ratified—a Constitution that includes a well-stocked set of elemental,fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties that are not to be modified, abrogated, ignored, or perfunctorily dismissed. As for ammunition magazines, the retort to the perfunctory exclamation of the antigun New Progressive Left that no one needs high capacity magazines is threefold. First, we begin with the obvious: ammunition magazines are a necessary component of semiautomatic weapons. And, as for what constitutes an acceptable number of cartridges, and what might, to the antigun radical Left activist constitute an unacceptable, “high capacity,” ammunition magazine, no one can reasonably define what ‘high capacity’ means; any attempt to do so reduces to arbitrary absurdity. Second, an ammunition magazine holding several rounds, for home defense, makes simple common-sense, whether an innocent individual faces one assailant or several assailants. The imposition of limitations on the number of cartridges a given ammunition magazine is, for a particular firearms, under law, permitted to hold, are ultimately arbitrary senseless and pointless. Third, going back to the initial antigun pronouncement that the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible civilian citizen simply doesn’t need a ‘high capacity’ ammunition magazines, whatever that expression, ‘high capacity’ means, simply begs the question whether one does need such high capacity ammunition magazines to adequately thwart a potential threat. "Need," in and of itself, namely "need per se," is defined by purpose. But, the antigun proponent’s pronouncement that a person doesn’t need a ‘high capacity magazine’ is logically faulty on other grounds. There are many things a person possesses that a person may not need. There are wants as well. Suppose I just happen to want a so-called ‘assault weapon’ and so-called high capacity ammunition magazine, as a component of that weapon. Why shouldn’t I, as an average, law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen, be able to have one? It is no answer to say society will be safer if I don’t have certain weapons and certain ammunition magazines. Extrapolating from misuse of any firearm by a dangerous lunatic and psychopathic criminal to me and tens of millions of other Americans who desire to exercise their natural right to own and possess these firearms and ammunition magazines and who are not lunatics or psychopathic criminals is to constrain, unconstitutionally and unconscionably, tens of millions of Americans due to the actions of a few undesirables. Again, the idea promulgated by antigun proponents that society, the Collective, the Hive, will be better off if those tens of millions of law-abiding, rational, responsible citizens don’t have access to these weapons and components even if they themselves are not a danger to society and never would be is to accept an ethical position, utilitarian consequentialist, that most Americans don’t ascribe to: the idea that it is better to lose a few innocent lives for the apparent benefit of a larger group. But, that is an alien concept, abhorrent to most Americans, and certainly abhorrent to those who founded our Nation. People are not ants or bees, even as these New Progressive Leftists believe them to be so, and would treat people as such.And, as 'need' is defined by purpose, no greater need exists, today, than for a citizen army to be well-armed against the real threat of a Marxist-Socialist takeover of the Government and the enslavement of the American citizenry that such a takeover would entail. It is just this dire need that exists and more so now than ever before in light of those who argue that no need exists for so-called ‘weapons of war.’ The American citizenry must be well-armed to thwart a possible takeover of our Government by this antigun New Progressive Left that is intent on destroying our Nation's Constitution; that is intent on erasing our Nation's history; and that is intent on endowing the federal Government with the means necessary to do so: to subjugate the American citizenry, and thoroughly control all thought and action. The American citizenry must never be taken in by the duplicitous, claim made by this insurgent antigun New Progressive Left that its motive for disarming Americans is simply a desire to protect the life, well-being, and safety of Americans and that society, the Collective, is best served if Americans are disarmed, even if that means that the lives of individuals in that society will be placed in danger therewith. What in fact does it even mean to say that it is okay to lose a few innocent lives through the disarming the citizenry if the greater society, the greater Collective, the greater Hive, is secure? If a Left-wing extremist argues that the well-being of ten lives are worth more than the well-being of one, what is the sanctity in numbers if not for the individual? And, how, for that matter, is one better served to have lost his or her life for having not had the effective means a firearm provides to secure it, to be told that his sacrifice is an acceptable loss because the Collective, the Hive has been better served thereby? Really. If the antigun New Progressive Left proponent doesn’t give a damn about the sanctity of the individual, where is the sanctity found in numbers alone? And, why should that Collective, that Hive even bother to exist at all, that the multitude is nothing more than expendable fodder anyway? Who, then, or what, then, is better served? And, is everyone truly in the same boat, abjectly defenseless? What about those policy maker and billionaire elites who live behind gated communities, and who travel in armored vehicles, with a contingency of armed guards? “Oh,” the hoi poloi is told, “they are the queen bees!” “Their lives are worth so much more than yours!” How so? That the New Progressive Left so decrees THAT to be so? But, how does that idea square with the notion that the antigun New Progressive and Radical Left and cares about securing the life, safety, and well-being of Americans, when their Collectivist and Utilitiarian Consequentialist precepts dictates quite clearly that they don’t give a damn at all? It is all just empty words! In fact, the ethical, political, and social position of the New Progressive Left is bankrupt. We see that in the fact that the New Progressive Left supports late term abortion. They don’t care about the most innocent of human life, so it is highly doubtful that they vouchsafe care about ten or twenty, or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand or a hundred thousand lives. Reducing life to mere numbers reduces to absurdity the New Progressive Left’s concern about the value of human life at all. These people are simply masters of emotional rhetoric. Phrases like, military styled assault rifle,’ and ‘weapon of war,’ and ‘high capacity magazine,’ are emotionally charged, deliberately deceptive phrases, intended to and calculated to spark a feeling of unease in the target audience: the American public, thereby making the public receptive to bans on any firearms and any gun components that fall into the named categories. But, the fact that they really don’t care about the life of individuals is reflected in their policy stances on immigration and abortion, as well as on the matter of firearms ownership and possession. Hence, any argument they make even if superficially plausible is vacuous, because the basis for it concern for human life, really doesn’t exist at all. It is just a platitude, a makeweight, a sad, disturbing ruse.

SECOND PRONG: ENCOURAGE EVERY STATE TO ENACT “RED FLAG” LAWS

This restrictive gun policy objective entails expanding the list of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess firearms. New Progressive Left Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President—namely, the front runners—all support across the board State enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Several States have already enacted such laws, and all of them either directly infringe the Second Amendment or otherwise come dangerously close to doing so and certainly impinge upon one's exercise of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Although the text of these laws as they presently exist in those jurisdictions that presently have them, or that are otherwise in the process of enacting Red Flag laws or considering enacting Red Flag laws, do vary from State to State. But, all of these Red Flag laws have one defining characteristic: they all operate ex parte. What does that mean? It means that Courts conduct hearings  where only one party to the action is present at the hearing, namely the party who is attempting to obtain a Court order against another party who is not initially present at the Court hearing to defend his interests. The interest at stake here is retention of one's personal property, namely, one's firearms. In an ex parte hearing, under Red Flag laws, one party, or side, at the hearing seeks a Court order requiring the other party, who isn't present at the hearing, an American citizen who has  committed no crime but whom the accuser is claiming is nonetheless dangerous because that person has firearms in his or her possession,. to surrender those firearms to Governmental authority. Thus, the accuser is seeking the removal of that person’s personal property, that person’s firearms— prior to the affected party’s ability to present a case in his or her defense, who would obviously wish to keep his personal property but cannot do so because the affected party has no opportunity to confront the accuser until some point subsequent to the actual removal of the person’s personalty, their firearms, assuming the Court issues an order requiring the surrendering of weapons to Governmental authority. It is only after the fact, the removal of the firearms--the personal property--takes place, that a hearing is conducted where both sides are present and the party, against whom the action was taken, attempts to make a case for restoration of his personal property. All of these “Red Flag” laws, play on some variation of this theme and all of them impinge upon or are in danger of impinging upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, all of these "Red Flag" laws are Constitutionally suspect and they all should be scrutinized before enactment to see if they pass Constitutional muster. But, that never happens. The question is do we really need these laws to protect society from the possibility of danger. And that notion of 'possibility' is a red herring. We would ask: How “possible” is that possibility of danger, and how do we know that a person, whomever it is that may target a person’s firearms, is doing so with an honest motive. And even if the accuser has an ostensibly honest motive for bringing action against a gun owner, forcing a person to forsake his personal property by Court order, under a State’s “Red Flag” law, the machinery of justice is, for all that, moving against a person who has committed no crime. The Court is faced with the dubious task of rendering an adverse decision against a person without having actually met with the person and therefore has no opportunity to conduct and to preside over an adversary proceeding to which all American citizens are entitled. Ex parte proceedings are, not surprisingly, frowned on in the law, as they are by nature, contrary to our Nation's sacred jurisprudential principles. Generally, a full adversary proceeding can and should be conducted. Likely, we would see that the person who is making a claim against individual without having to confront that person in open Court, would think twice about the danger presented, if a full adversary hearing were conducted. But, suppose the danger is imminent or appears to be truly imminent. In that event, every State has mechanisms by which a person can request a Court to order a personal protection order against that person who is deemed a threat. That too is handled ex parte, and a Court if convinced that a threat is imminent could certainly issue an ex parte order requiring of the person who is deemed a threat, to relinquish his or her firearms if they have any. Thus, Red Flag laws don’t do anything that personal protection orders don’t already accomplish except they make it easier for more people to make spurious, specious claims against people, often for ulterior motives, and yet avoid having to face the consequences for making those false claims, as Red Flag laws do not generally, if not invariably, provide a mechanism through which a person wrongly targeted can bring action against his or her accuser.Secondly, under federal law, 18 U.S.C § 922(g) and (n), individuals, including those convicted of felonies and those who had been institutionalized for mental illness, are not permitted to own and possess firearms anyway unless they obtain a certificate of relief from disability. Red Flag laws operate as a backdoor for expanding the domain of individuals not permitted to own or possess a firearm. Since antigun proponents denounce out-of-hand the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it should not come as a surprise that they would look for seemingly plausible ways to expand the domain of people considered unfit to own and possess firearms beyond those categories that already exist in federal law, claiming as they always do, that what motivates them is the desire to protect society when that is patently untrue. What really motivates these people is a desire to reduce the Second Amendment to a nullity, under the pretext that they give a damn about the life, safety, and well being of others. But they don’t because they don’t recognize that a person has a right of self-defense and don’t care that a firearm is the best means by which a person can effectively defend themselves against attack; and as they place their faith in Government to control the masses, and don’t trust the citizenry, their entire view of man and man’s relationship to Government and to each other is the obverse of that of the founders of our Nation. The Second Amendment isn’t consistent with the tenets of Collectivism.

THIRD PRONG: "EXPAND" GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS

Expanding background checks, delaying the purchase of, trade, or resale of guns and gun paraphernalia is merely another 'muscular' attempt to slowly whittle away at the true efficacy of the right codified in the Second Amendment. It is merely another mechanism to reduce the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a nullity. It need hardly be said that most criminals don’t obtain their firearms lawfully. They either steal firearms or obtain them on the black market or through straw purchases all of which are illegal, If the stated purpose is to close what antigun proponents point to as loopholes, then let’s take a look at those purported loopholes. One concern mentioned is that people don’t have to go to the holder of an FFL to obtain a firearm if one purchases a firearm directly or if a person purchases a firearm from another person at a gun show, where laws are not enforced. Well, actually they are. No one is permitted to sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of firearms without complying with federal law and applicable State law. Purchases through the internet have to be made through the intermediary of a person holding an FFL. Purchases at gun shows are usually made through a holder of an FFL directly as are purchases made at a retail gun store where the sellers would be required to have an FFL, and possibly a State gun license as well. What about private sales at gun shows? Well, sellers of firearms are still required to comply with the law. No one is permitted to dispose of a firearm to an individual who is prohibited from federal law from possessing a firearm. Antigun groups like to argue that “gun” people are unscrupulous. Well, no they aren’t. Law-abiding gun owners are the most scrupulous of American citizens. See NRA discussion on thisThe antigun New Progressive Left, viewing gun ownership as evil, doesn’t draw a tenable distinction between law-abiding gun owners and criminals. But, this should come as no surprise. The Progressive New Left conflates the two groups, illegal aliens and legal immigrants, to make the spurious argument that President Trump is against immigration. No he isn’t, and never was. During his campaign he pointed out over and over again that what he does oppose is “illegal immigration.” The Progressive New Left seems to have amnesia about this. The President’s immigration policies since holding Office are systematize and streamline legal immigration, and to get a handle on illegal movement of people and drugs across our Nation’s borders that, for decades Congress has failed to deal with. And, so, the problem has worsened through the years, becoming virtually impossible to manage now. And President Trump is receiving no more assistance from Congress now, than had any President before him. He is not suggesting anything unusual. Other Countries control their Nation’s borders. Consider Canada for example. Why should our Nation be different?While blasé about controlling illegal traffic across our Nation’s Southern Border, it is wondrous strange that the antigun Progressive New Left is so particular about clamping down on the law-abiding citizen’s wish merely to exercise his right to keep and bear arms without being plagued by hundreds of extraneous laws drawn up merely to frustrate and oppressive the gun owner. The instant gun background check program has worked fine. Instances of so-called “mass shootings” are few in number and pale into insignificance when compared to the daily shootings due to criminal misuse of firearms. The Progressive New Left seems to be little bothered by that, only drawing attention to, and with great fanfare, the use of a firearm by the occasional lunatic who goes off half-cocked. And their answers are directed not to dealing effectively with those sorry souls, but for tens of millions of innocent, average, law-abiding, rational, responsible individuals.

FOURTH PRONG: IMPLEMENT GUN "BUYBACK"  MEASURES 

Gun buybacks fall into two categories. One category utilized by various Cities in the past is “gun buybacks” as voluntary program that antigun politicians draw out of the closet now and again merely as a political stunt. These buybacks are directed, of course, not to the psychopathic killer, common criminal, or to those few individuals who suffer from psychoses that truly represent a danger both to themselves and others abd then goes off half-cocked. No! These gun buybacks are directed to the average, law-abiding, responsible gun owner. But, not surprisingly, gun owners who take part in these programs do not surrender expensive firearms, but, rather, old, probably inoperable firearms. Even the liberal weblog, Trace, admits that the truly voluntary “buybacks” don’t work to lower crime rates, as criminals don’t take part in these programs. Why should they? And, those individuals who do surrender firearms to police authorities for a few bucks aren’t people who misuse firearms anyway. So, then, what seemingly plausible basis is there for these buyback programs? The implicit, but false, assumption, is that by reducing the number of guns in the public domain that will, ipso facto, reduce “gun” violence. Yet, that idea, on its face, is ridiculous, and not simply due to the volume of firearms in the public domain, if that is a sound factor for accounting for “gun violence” anyway because, again, the people who take part in the program are not those who commit crimes with guns—or with any other implement for that matter. So, this category of gun buybacks is at best, a poor solution to resolving the problem of criminal violence and, at worst, it is a cruel hoax, designed to give some ignorant Americans the feeling that Government is doing something effective about crime rates in some urban areas when it really isn’t and is simply a “smoke and mirrors” scheme to create the false impression that Government truly cares about providing a safe and secure City environment for the public, when Government doesn’t really give a damn at all. Antigun groups and antigun politicians are aware of this, of course, but in rebuttal, simply assert that gun buyback programs do work, especially those that are structured properly. The website gunxgun.org, an antigun site, that, curiously, says virtually nothing about itself and, we surmise, is likely a vehicle of large well-funded antigun groups seeking to jump start grassroots efforts to assist them in their agenda, undermining the Second Amendment, to acknowledges that, on a macro level, namely, in the public domain, these gun buyback programs, to date, don’t make communities any safer. What the site does say is that, homes are safer, once firearms are removed from the home: no guns in the home means no gun violence. Well, that point is true, but only trivially so. For, this doesn’t mean people prone to violence in the home won’t or can’t find the means to injure or kill another human being whether a gun is the implement of harm or some other implement. But, what is really interesting about the comment is the implicit point made that is a running theme through all attempts to impose on the public more and more draconian gun schemes. The running theme is that the citizenry cannot be trusted; that all people are potentially a danger both to themselves and to others, and that society as a whole is safer and more secure if firearms are removed from the homes. But, what of the obverse? Aren’t particular individuals in the community thereby made less safe  having lost the most suitable means available to secure both their life and that of their family, namely that a  firearm provides? The fact of the matter is that the antigun New Progressive Left cares little, if at all, for the well-being and safety of individuals in society. They are only interested in protecting the wealthy, and well-connected and powerful. For these people—people who ascribe to the tenets of Collectivism—perceive our Country, our society, as an ant colony or bee hive. As long as the greater Collective, the Hive, is secure—meaning that as long as they, “the elite” of society are safe and secure—that is all that truly matters. They view the mass of society, the Hoi Poloi, as expendable. That is the inference to be drawn from their policy goals. For all their talk about concern for the masses, including illegal aliens—even those who are acutely dangerous to the life, health, safety, and well-being of the citizenry—the New Progressive Left cares little for the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. They seek to control all thought, and all conduct, to treat everyone equally—that is to say, subjugated, submissive to the will of the State, the Government, a Government they control. The New Progressive Left’s vision for  our Nation is the antithesis of that of our founders. It is little wonder then that these people attack their memory, demolish our monuments, and seek to erase our history. The Second category of gun “buyback” programs and one championed by Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Eric Swalwell, and a signature component of his campaign before that campaign came to an abrupt end, isn’t a gun buyback program at all. It’s a confiscation scheme, similar to the infamous gun confiscation schemes employed by the Australian and New Zealand Governments, neither Government of which recognizes the fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of its citizens—really subjects—to keep and bear arms. What Eric Swalwell championed, and what Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, has taken up is a antigun policy measure mandating that the American public surrender any and all firearms that the Government deems unsuitable for public ownership and possession and which it places under the banned category of ‘assault weapons,’ which means, as we, at the Arbalest Quarrel, have known all along and as we have heretofore so stated on our website: the eventual confiscation of all semiautomatic firearms. The expression, ‘buyback,’ always a misnomer, is, as conceived by and mentioned by Joe Biden and, in fact, as understood and desired by the Democratic Party Progressive New Left, not a buyback at all, under any reasonable interpretation. It is a blatant gun confiscation scheme scarcely cloaked as a “gun buyback.” The program as envisioned isn’t voluntary. It’s mandatory. As conceived, and as it would likely be implemented either by any Democratic Party New Progressive Left—if that Candidate is elected U.S. President—any firearm designated by the New Progressive Left to be an ‘assault weapon,’ would be illegal. Any American citizen who presently has one or more such weapons would be required to surrender them to Governmental authority. If the Democratic Party controls both Houses of Congress we can expect Congress to enact mandatory gun confiscation, along with other draconian “muscular” laws. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, mandatory confiscation is unlikely to be enacted. But, if a Democrat secures the U.S. Presidency, the American public may very well see a flurry of executive orders operating as law, and accomplishing, then, the same thing as a Congressional enactment. Kamala Harris has threatened to issue just such an executive order were she to secure her Party’s nomination and then secure the Presidency. Such law or executive order would be immediately challenged. A mandatory gun confiscation scheme amounts to an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment’s ‘just compensation’ clause as semiautomatic weapons--essentially every weapon, now, that the New Progressive Left lumps under the fictions of 'assault weapons' or 'weapons of war'--manufactured by reputable companies like Smith and Wesson, Colt, Sturm Ruger, Beretta, Sig Sauer, Heckler and Koch, Remington, and many others, all of which produce extremely well-designed and engineered products. These firearms cost, on the retail market, several hundred and even several thousand dollars. A gun confiscation scheme would not provide just compensation for these firearms. A gun confiscation scheme would also, and obviously, infringe the Second Amendment. And such a gun confiscation scheme would infringe the Searches and Seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. The gun confiscation scheme targeting semiautomatic weapons would impinge on both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Even the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment would be implicated and violated as well. But, then, the New Progressive Left doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights, and never did. It is all sham for them to even suggest that they do. But, if it should come to pass the New Progressive Left does take control of Government--both Houses of Congress, and the U.S. Presidency-- the American citizenry will see Government imposing a flurry of unconstitutional, unconscionable gun restrictions on the American citizenry such as this Nation has never seen before. The New Progressive Left intends to force their new vision of America on the Nation, a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders, the framers of our Constitution. And the New Progressive Left will commence with an attempt at de facto destruction of the Second Amendment. The founders of our free Republic would not abide this; and those of us who believe in our Nation as a Constitutional Republic, where the American people, the citizenry, are the ultimate sovereign of their Nation, not Government, and where Government was created to serve the people and not the other way around, should not abide this occurrence either, and most likely, won't.When firearms are removed from average, law-abiding, rational citizens in violation of Due Process requirements, and when those American citizens, for whom draconian gun laws do not preclude gun ownership and possession, are oppressed by complex gun registration requirements making gun ownership and possession an increasingly difficult, time-consuming and expensive process, and when guns are treated less like personal property and more like State owned property that Americans can only rent for use at a particular time and at a particular place, after which guns must be returned to the State, to be secured and stored, then it should be clear to all Americans that the goal of gun control is not public safety and never was. The goal is population control and always has been.__________________________________________________________

RADICAL LEFT FRAMES FALSE SMOKE AND MIRRORS ISSUES: “GUN VIOLENCE’ AND ‘GUN CONTROL’ TO ADVANCE ITS ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT AGENDA

PART FOUR

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” First quotation ~ Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany, 1933-1945“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly— it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Second quotation~ Joseph Goebbels“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” ~ Philip K. Dick, Twentieth Century American author; prolific writer of science fiction and winner of prestigious Hugo award for best novel: “The Man in the High Castle,” published in 1962It should be evident to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that all these calls for further gun restrictions, many of them coming from all of the leading Democratic Party Candidates for U.S. President—Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Pete Buttigieg—are evidence of a personal bias against guns generally, and against civilian gun ownership particularly; and all of them vying for a chance to impose their Marxist/Socialist agenda on the entire Nation.Every one of these people clamors for further gun background checks, enactment of “Red Flag laws,” and bans on so-called “assault weapons,”  and so-called "gun buybacks." Not one of these people has the least interest in securing, preserving, and strengthening the Second Amendment. To the contrary, they all wish to dispense with the Second Amendment altogether, and their gun control measures are clear evidence of that, and their recent pronouncements on the subject make that fact abundantly clear. A slippery slope to Armageddon is not fallacy here. Prima facie evidence exists for this conclusion. De facto repeal of the Second Amendment is the goal of the New Progressive Left.The New Progressive Left seeks nothing less than a complete transformation of our Nation into a Marxist/Socialist State, and they have been appealing to the public to make that nightmare a reality.The present crop of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President know that the transformation sought isn’t tenable as long as the public does in fact keep and bear arms and they mean to change that; to change public attitude toward guns and toward self-defense by means of guns; and, with the Press, with whom these New Progressive Left candidates have an incestuous relationship and with whom they are constantly collaborating, in an attempt to control the running narrative of solving “gun violence” with a new wave of “gun control measures,” we see the New Progressive Act employing a massive Psy-Ops campaign against Americans, inserting memes into the psyche of the citizenry: ‘guns are evil,’ ‘guns cause crime,’ ‘civilized people don’t need guns and don’t want them,’ ‘guns turn good people into bad people,’ and so on and so forth.But, the issue of ‘gun violence’ is nothing more than a fiction, a straw man devised and concocted out of whole cloth by public relations firms for their client, the antigun New Progressive Left. This straw man created is diabolical in the conception, cunningly employed in practice. The New Progressive Left uses this straw man to deliberately draw attention of the public and Congress away from the two truly legitimate issues: the causes of ‘societal violence’ and the perpetrators of it. By framing the issues in the way it does--on implements of violence, rather than on the root causes of violence and on the perpetrators of violence, the New Progressive Left forces Congress and the public to focus attention on a false issue, ‘guns' per se--'gun violence'--as if the gun itself was the perpetrator of violence. But, there is method to the New Progressive Left's madness: An all-consuming obsession with  undermining the Second Amendment; wasting tax dollars pursuing a bugaboo that the radical Left itself had evoked; and deliberately fomenting anger and resentment in the public, in furtherance of its own misbegotten and loathsome agenda. The New Progressive Left, by sleight of hand, conveys the impression that the true threats to society are guns, gun owners, the Second Amendment, the NRA, and firearms manufacturers, notwithstanding that the true threats to societal equanimity and serenity fall squarely on the New Progressive Left itself and on those who sympathize with their agenda: the Hollywood producers who create films that glorify killers and their misuse of firearms, and the radical political Left-wing Hollywood actors who portray these killers, even as they bemoan guns and demean law-abiding gun owners and the NRA off camera; the software programmers, creators of thousands of gruesome video games; and the technology industry whose new and ever evolving products serve, increasingly, to induce human beings to spend more time in the world of virtual reality rather than in the real reality, cultivating real relationships and real human interaction. In fact the New Progressive Left, is directly responsible for creating the environment in which societal violence is nurtured and in which that violence is allowed to grow and flourish. The New Progressive Left does this through the constant vitriol it spouts and the false dichotomy it has conceived--a society of victims and victimizers. It has created a false dichotomy in attempt to foment the very violence it disingenuously tells us it seeks to curtail and that, it claims, deceitfully, would be curtailed, if only the citizenry would surrender its firearms--all of them, as if "the gun" is the root of problem of society, when the root problem, rests, of course, in the disease that is the New Progressive Left itself and in those radical, anarchist elements in society who desire to tear down the very framework of a free Republic that the founders lovingly gave to us. The radical Left elements and anarchists are the rot and cancer that must be cut out, but the New Progressive Left diabolically focuses the public's attention away from itself and  directs the public's attention on the healthy tissue of society, our Nation's Constitution,  urging excision of great portions of the Constitution, commencing, not unsurprisingly, with the Second Amendment--suggesting major changes, involving a general weakening of the other natural, fundamental, and immutable rights; and these unspeakably evil, ruthless elements, are calling for, nay, demanding a major reworking of the Articles of the Constitution. And, many members of the polity have, unfortunately, been seduced by the sanctimonious bellowing of these radical Left elements, and many members of the polity have bought into this dangerous nonsense. How is it that many members of the polity have been seduced?Through use of military techniques of psychological conditioning and brainwashing, the New Progressive Left controls public opinion, and seeks to force Congress to bend to its will. The New Progressive Left has deliberately created a toxic environment throughout the Country, creating division among the polity, fomenting violence, all in an attempt to exert pressure on Congress; to extort concessions from Congress that serve the interests of the Progressive New Left, and not the interests of the public. Through deliberate deception, the New Progressive Left eggs the public on in a naked attempt to cajole both the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans to enact further gun control laws that the President and Congressional Republicans know full well are not in the best interests of the public; are antithetical to the import and purport of the Second Amendment; and are detrimental to the preservation of a free Republic. But how many citizens have fallen prey to the constant, pounding of the deceptive messaging of the Radical Left elements and the Radical Left Press? How many Americans have really jumped on the antigun bandwagon? How many of them have been unconsciously and unconscionably manipulated into fully accepting such ludicrous, outlandish antigun, Anti-Second Amendment policy proposals? How many Americans have been reduced to raging, uncontrollable beasts, the acolytes of the New Progressive and Radical Left politicians, those laughing hyenas and  jackals, sitting in their lofty perches, spurring the doting lemmings on and over the cliff. Apparently, all too many Americans have been seduced. Radical shock therapy may be necessary to draw these Americans out of their brain-induced stupor.___________________________________________

DEMOCRATS AND THE PRESS URGE CONGRESS TO ENACT NEW RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS TO FURTHER RADICAL LEFT AGENDA

PART FIVE

In an article posted in The New York Times, on September 2, 2019, titled, “Congress Faces Fresh Urgency On Gun Laws,” the Times is pressing Congress to cave to the frenetic urging of the Leftist antigun crowd, hell-bent on further weakening the Second Amendment, having found an opening in the recent spate of random shootings that occurred in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and, now, Odessa, Texas; exploiting these tragedies, appealing to emotion, rather than to reason, employing the informal logical fallacy of ad misericordium, a fallacy well known to the ancient Greeks: the fallacy of appealing cunningly to pity, misery, and sympathy--playing on the public's emotions, rather than appealing to the public's reason, to obtain the goal, an unarmed citizenry that, if that should come to pass, will not secure public safety, but will endanger the life and safety of the citizenry and will be an open invitation to tyranny. Where will appeals to pity and sympathy for Americans rest, then?Extremist elements are hammering Congress to enact, first and foremost more gun background checks, even as the New York Times acknowledges in its own story that: “In fact, whether a background check would have prevented the West Texas gunman from acquiring his weapon is not known. Chief Michael Gerke of the Odessa Police Department said the gunman, who had been fired from a trucking job, had used an AR-15-style rifle, but had a criminal record. It was not clear on Sunday whether the gun had been acquired legally, and the authorities stressed that they had not established a motive.”What is deeply disturbing, perplexing and distressing is that President Trump seems to be allowing himself to be caught up in the frenzied emotion of the moment, seeming to give in to moronic emotional, irrational rhetoric, spawned by another convenient shooting incident. We say this because President Trump has himself resorted to using the same language of the antigun zealots, such as “common-sense” gun laws; and “really common-sense sensible, important background checks” as he appears to be considering the proposals coming from U.S. Presidential Democratic Party candidates. The New York Times details all of this in its typical tabloid fashion, using colorful adjectives and inapt language, like, ‘gruesome,’ and ‘ massacre,’ and ‘assault weapon,’ and ‘powerful gun rights lobbying group’—which emphasizes the NY Times own personal distaste for guns generally; its abhorrence of civilian ownership of guns particularly; and its hatred of the NRA, singularly and emphatically. The article, appearing in the national news section of the paper, reads more like an Op-Ed piece than a news story. But, then, from the content of New York “news” reporting today it is clear that no efficacious distinction exists any longer between the reporting of news and opining about it. The use of Section Headings in the newspaper are superfluous, and need no longer exist, but the paper keeps up the pretense, obviously to confuse its readers into believing that what they take for fact is merely personal value judgment, and what they take for personal value judgment is fact and, as between the two, the way the world is and a normative account of the way the world ought to be is, ultimately, the same; that there is no appreciable difference--as fact and value judgment are one and the same so, that, as what is reported as news and expounded upon in the same news story is, in fact, all news, an exposition of and on reality, on the way things are. And, so the seditious Press tries to make its case against guns and civilian gun ownership, as it always, does as the following purported story illustrates. The NY Times “reports/opines”:“The deadly shooting spree in West Texas this weekend — the latest in an especially gruesome summer of massacres — has intensified pressure on congressional Republicans to take up gun safety legislation, giving fresh urgency to a debate that was already expected to be at the top of lawmakers’ agenda when they return to the Capitol next week.The attack in Midland and Odessa, Tex., which left seven dead and 22 wounded, comes weeks after a 24-year-old gunman with an assault weapon killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, in early August. That massacre, hours after one that killed 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, thrust gun violence into the Washington debate just as Congress left town for its annual August recess.President Trump expressed new openness to gun safety laws — including, he said then, “really common-sense sensible, important background checks” for gun buyers — and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, promised a Senate debate. But in the weeks since, with lawmakers scattered across the country in their home districts, the issue seemed to drift from public view.Now it has come roaring back, with Congress set to return on Sept. 9. At a briefing about Hurricane Dorian at Federal Emergency Management Agency headquarters on Sunday, Mr. Trump, who has a record of flip-flopping on gun safety, pledged to find a way to “substantially reduce” mass shootings. But he earlier appeared to dismiss background checks, telling reporters that “they would not have stopped any of it.”Behind the scenes, in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings, White House officials have been quietly engaged in bipartisan talks with senators who support expanding background checks and so-called red flag laws. The laws make it easier for law enforcement to take guns from people deemed dangerous by a judge who issues a special type of order, called an “extreme risk protection order.”Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, said in an interview on Sunday that the two sides still seemed far apart. Mr. Blumenthal said much would depend on whether the president, who has been consulting with the National Rifle Association, was willing to stand up to the powerful gun rights lobbying group.‘I think there is a sense that the American people just desperately want something to be done, and they have to respond to that imperative,’ he said, ‘but are so far nowhere near crossing the Rubicon to stand up to the gun lobby and the N.R.A. as far as I can tell.’”________________________________________Thank you, New York Times, for working diligently and tirelessly on behalf of the Marxist/Socialist new world order. Profuse thanks for once again misleading the American people, spinning elaborate fairy tales about the horrors of guns and “gun violence,” and about that evil, “powerful gun rights lobbying group.” And what is this all for?” We know the answer; you don’t have tell us. You have written a collection of Grimm’s fairy tales—grim indeed—dedicated to the cause of bringing the United States into line that it may be included in the serried ranks of the EU. To accomplish that, you are doing your part to first achieve the penultimate goal.  So, kudos to you. And, what is that penultimate goal? It is to deny to the American people the ability to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms; of course it is!And, what is the ultimate goal of the Marxist/Socialist new world order? You don’t have to tell us because we know the answer to that question too. Once the American citizenry is effectively disarmed, the Marxist/Socialist dystopian dream—the dismantling of a free, Constitutional Republic—can proceed, unimpeded by a disaffected, unruly and restless, and rebellious American citizenry. Whatever is then left of our Nation can then be thrust into the framework of a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance. Quite an accomplishment, that!But, you might want to ask the founders of our Nation, those who risked their lives and well-being to realize their vision of a free sovereign people, living in a free Land, what they happen to think of your new world order you have planned for a new generation of Americans, existing subjugated and subservient to foreign taskmasters. We suspect they would be less than delighted; less than thrilled with the transformation of our Nation into a despotic wasteland. And, we suspect they would be less than overawed at seeing our Nation and the American people controlled with rein, and bridle, and whip by foreign overlords, riding roughshod over them.___________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST NOT BE PUSHED INTO COMPROMISING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART SIX

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, political philosopher, and one of the founding fathers; from his letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779“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, as in our own hands?” ~Patrick Henry, American Attorney and a Founding Father; and famous Antifederalist; quotation from “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution” Note: the Antifederalists demanded that Man’s natural rights be codified in a Bill of Rights and that the Bill of Rights be formally incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists thought that a formal codification of natural rights, since preexistent in Man (both Federalists and Antifederalists took as self-evident the veracity of certain rights bestowed on man by the Divine Creator) was unnecessary, as the powers of a Federal Government were to be limited; all other rights and powers retained by the States and the people. The Antifederalists feared that Government would not be held properly in check unless those serving in Government were constantly reminded of the fact that the citizenry would be armed. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights serves as that reminder—a painful thorn in the side of the Radical Left elements today that are forced to deal with it. Circumstances of the present day aptly demonstrate the Antifederalists concern to be acutely and eerily prescient. Fortunately for us, the Antifederalists won the day, and the Constitution was ratified with a set of the quintessential natural rights etched in stone, an integral part and the most critical part of the U.S. Constitution.“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” ~St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803The Democratic Party Leadership, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, say they are willing to work with President Trump, as reported by The New York Times. Isn’t that nice! We would advise the President and Congressional Republicans to be extremely wary of the overture coming from those two.In the article published in The New York Times on September 16, 2019, titled, “Schumer and Pelosi, Talking to Trump, Try to Sweeten the deal.” The Times reports that,“The top two Democrats in Congress, seeking to ramp up pressure on Republicans to pass legislation extending background checks to all gun buyers, told President Trump on Sunday that they would join him at the White House for a “historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden” if he agreed to the measure.The offer, made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, during an 11-minute phone conversation with Mr. Trump, comes as the president is considering a package of measures to respond to the mass shootings that have terrorized the nation in recent months. The three spoke only about gun legislation, according to aides.Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, said in a statement that the conversation was cordial but that Mr. Trump “made no commitments” on a House-passed background checks bill that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer are urging him to support.Mr. Trump “instead indicated his interest in working to find a bipartisan legislative solution on appropriate responses to the issue of mass gun violence,” Mr. Deere said.Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer want Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to take up the bill, but the senator has refused to do so without knowing whether the president would sign it. ‘This morning, we made it clear to the president that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access,’ their statement said, adding, ‘We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the president must sign it.’Their pressure continued a campaign on an issue that has dominated the political debate in Washington and on the Democratic presidential campaign trail since a string of mass shootings over the summer.A White House official, speaking anonymously to discuss internal deliberations, said on Sunday that the president had instructed his advisers to continue to work to find a range of policies that would go after illegal gun sales while protecting the Second Amendment, and expand the role of mental health professionals.”The President needs to be very, very careful suggesting to Schumer and Pelosi that he is conducive to entertaining a gun measure that, on its face, may seem narrowly tailored to constraining the criminal or dangerous lunatic but that can, and most likely would, operate as a backdoor to restricting exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment, for the population at large. He may find himself entangled in their antigun mythos. And, if so, he will find it exceedingly difficult to extricate himself from it. Clearly, Left-wing extremists, of which Schumer and Pelosi must be counted among them are desirous of controlling the law-abiding gun owners’ exercise of their Second Amendment right even as they claim only to be concerned with, or suggest that they are only concerned with reducing “gun” violence. But we are talking here of a population consisting of the criminal sociopathic element or dangerous psychotic element of society. Or are we? The Democrats aren’t really saying, and we’ve seen where all of this is headed, before. We know how this plays out; as it always plays out. The Democratic Party Leadership, along with more and more radical Leftist members of the Party, all of whom are taking their cue from members of radical Left-wing Socialist and Communist groups active in this Country, lurking in the shadows, ingratiating themselves with radical Congressional Democrats, have an agenda with items to tick off. One of the items, a key item, is to whittle away at the Second Amendment. An armed citizenry is an abomination for the Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats and for those operating closely with them, orchestrating policy. As they all abhor the Second Amendment, and they are fearful of an armed citizenry, these Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats will use every opportunity they can to constrain law-abiding citizens from exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms. If they succeed, tyranny looms._____________________________________________________________

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS WHO DEMAND MORE GUN CONTROL

PART SEVEN

“Ladies and gentlemen, attention, please! Come in close where everyone can see! I got a tale to tell, it isn’t gonna cost a dime! (And if you believe that, we’re gonna get along just fine.)” ~ Stephen King, American author of horror, fantasy, and the supernatural; first quotation from his novel, “Needful Things,” published 1991“There were people who lied for gain, people who lied from pain, people who lied simply because the concept of telling the truth was utterly alien to them . . . and then there were people who lied because they were waiting for it to be time to tell the truth.” ~Stephen King, second quotation from his novel, “Needful Things,” published 1991

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS MUST NOT BE PUSHED INTO NEGOTIATING WITH DEMOCRATS ON TERMS THAT DEMOCRATS CREATE.

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE; TAKE A STRONG STAND AGAINST PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE; AND STRENGTHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

If Government seriously wishes to deal with violence in society, we have an answer for the President and for Congressional Republicans. To begin, the President, along with House and Senate Republicans, should keep uppermost in mind that the issue that they are confronted with involves “societal violence,” not “gun violence.” For, construing societal violence as gun violence tends to create the illusion that societal violence equates with and reduces merely to a consideration of the existence of guns in society. Get rid of guns, so these Democrats will tell the American public and the problem of violence in society will take care of itself. But, that notion is simply false, and somehow suggests that Congress need not concern itself with the motives of a psychopath or dangerous psychotic in committing a violent act, but only with the implement a person prone to violence might happen to use to harm an innocent human being. And, on that score the concern is not with just any implement—a knife, a bomb, a truck, a hammer, a rope, an axe, one’s own hands, or anything else an evil or sick person bent on doing harm to an innocent person might conceive of using and then put to use—but with a very specific implement that the psychopathic criminal or dangerous psychotic lunatic might happen to use to commit a horrific act of violence: namely a firearm. That, of course, is ridiculous. Yet, reducing the issue of societal violence to gun violence compels one, say a medical researcher or legislator, to focus on the implement of violence rather than on environmental factors at work, along with the genetic markers, that predispose a person to engage in violence in first place. Indeed, the very fact medical researchers working for the CDC would waste research dollars focusing on “gun violence” is, in itself, singularly bizarre, as it compels fascination in the implement of violence a psychopath or dangerous psychotic might happen to employ in wreaking havoc, rather than on the state of mind of the psychopathic killer and of the dangerous psychotic that predisposes that person to commit an act of horrific violence in the first place. Yet, this is precisely what the Radical Left focuses on and what it would have the CDC spend time and money on. This is wasted effort directing medical researchers and legislators to chase after ghosts, and bugbears, and bugaboos. But, that is their intent, predicated on a false premise: that guns somehow predispose a person, any person, to commit horrific acts of violence. For, if true—and for those who have a phobia of or personal abhorrence toward guns, they would presume truth where none exists—the conclusion they seek, which is embedded in the premise, is preordained: the citizenry must be divested of its firearms.So it is that Radical Left Congressional Legislators constantly rant and rave over the scourge of “gun violence,” rather than on the real scourge in this Nation: “societal violence.” In so doing, these reprobates in Congress castigate the gun as if the inanimate object were the perpetrator of the violence, rather than the sentient being who happened to use the gun to harm innocent people. It is all a lie. A tale that Radical Left Congressional Legislators weave. These radical Leftists focus their attention on guns as the means to drive the debate and to drive passage of legislation directed to curbing gun ownership among tens of millions of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding, notwithstanding that it is these American patriots who own and possess firearms who can best thwart societal violence. By keeping public attention focused essentially on guns, rather than on the psychopathic or psychotic human agent who misuses guns, Congressional Democrats make clear their desire to enact laws targeting guns themselves and, by extension, targeting the vast majority of those who own and possess guns: the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational gun owner. The argument oft made by Democrats, either tacitly or expressly, is that gun violence is a function of the sheer number of guns that exists in the Nation and that since the vast number of guns are owned by law-abiding Americans, and not by the criminal or the occasional lunatic who goes off half-cocked, it is necessary to attack the volume of guns outstanding and that means attacking the millions of law-abiding citizens who own and possess them. But, one could more sensibly argue that, since the law-abiding gun owner does not commit the crimes that take place, it is illogical to conclude that the volume of guns outstanding is a legitimate factor in accounting for violence that ensues as a result of misuse of firearms as it is the relatively small population of criminals and psychotic lunatics who misuse firearms. So, it is those individuals who should be the focus of attention; not “the gun” nor the law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owner. After all, guns are not sentient beings. Guns don’t commit violence in the absence of a human agent.Radical Left anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, aided by a sympathetic Press, drumming nonsense about guns, fanning the flames of anger toward guns and irrational fear about them, are trying to draw you into the narrative about guns they have constructed. The President and Congressional Republicans must not for this. For the narrative constructed is a fairy tale, the purpose of which is to destroy the Second Amendment. The President and Congressional Republicans must not lose sight of this fact for a moment.The real issue that Congress needs to confront is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence—in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances—the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once you focus your attention on the right issue, you won’t be led astray into the Leftist narrative and you won’t be drawn into a morass, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead Congressional Republicans astray. They intend to  encourage Republicans to enact laws that serve the Radical and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda, as dictated to them by American Socialists and Communists. What they all want to do is continually weaken the Second Amendment, until the right of the people to keep and bear arms is essentially nugatory, amounting to the disarming the tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. It should be manifestly clear to Congressional Republicans that the matter Congress should be addressing is how to minimize acts of violence in society and how to minimize such acts by those who seek to do violence, and that you should not be focusing attention on the mere tool that some of these dangerous elements in society use to effectuate that violence. The President and Congressional Republicans must make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats that the nature of the issue to be addressed is how to best deal with the dangerous criminal element in society and how best to deal with the dangerous psychotic element in society. These are the issues to be addressed; and these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues that the radical Left-wing Democrats seek to direct Congressional attention to, if only obliquely: disarming the law-abiding citizen, and oppressing the law-abiding citizen who seeks to exercise his natural right to keep and bear arms. If the President and Congressional Republicans allow Democrats to frame the issues and, thus, frame the debate, the result attained will do nothing to curb violence in society and will do everything to leave the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen defenseless, and, at once, invite tyranny. But, the most disturbing thing of all is that the President and Congressional Republicans will have had a hand in all of this, unaware that they have been manipulated and played for dupes all along.

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST CONTROL THE "GUN" NARRATIVE; TAKE A STRONG STAND AGAINST PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE AND NOT AGAINST GUNS; AND STRENGTHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The real issue to be confronted is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence, in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances, i.e., the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once the President and Congressional Republicans mist focus their attention on the right issue, to avoid being led astray into the Leftist narrative. Otherwise they will be drawn into a morass, playing the Democrats’ game, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead the President and Congressional Republicans astray. They intend to encourage the President and Republicans to enact laws that serve the Radical Left and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda: weakening the Second Amendment, disarming the tens of millions of average, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. The President and Congressional Republicans must make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats the issues to be addressed and not allow radical Left-wing Democrats to compel them to address issues they wish for the Trump Administration and for Republicans to address. For the goal of Democrats is not the President’s goal or that of Republicans. The Democratic Party leadership and other Radical Left Democrats have only one goal in mind, even if they talk only obliquely about it: eventual total citizen disarmament.________________________________________

DEMOCRATS TREAT GUNS AS SENTIENT BEINGS AND THAT LIE INFORMS THEIR ACTIONS

PART EIGHT

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ~Jeff Cooper, U.S. Marine, firearms instructor, and author of, “The Art of the Rifle”Guns are not sentient beings. They are no more the perpetrator of violence than a knife, bomb, or motor vehicle is the perpetrator of violence. The issue that Democrats want the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans to deal with does not and never did have anything to do with guns, regardless of what those radical Left Democrats have said. They are setting a trap for President Trump and for Republicans if they even begin to think about negotiating with them over new restrictive gun laws. The salient goal of the Democrat Party leadership and of other Radical Left Democrats is to weaken the Second Amendment, not to preserve and strengthen it; and that salient goal has nothing to do with curbing gun violence, or curbing, for that matter, any violence. A Funny thing about that, though: one would think that all members of Congress would be doing their damnedest to preserve and strengthen the Bill of Rights—all ten of them. But, not all of them do. The Radical Left politicians seek to constrain and weaken the Bill of Rights. They seek to weaken the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. They seek to constrain and weaken the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. They seek to weaken the due process, equal protection, and just compensation clauses of the Fifth Amendment. And, they seek to disembowel the Second Amendment. And, when the Bill of Rights is gutted, our Free Republic will fall. But, placing that hard fact aside, we must ask: What really motivates Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats? Do they really seek to promote public safety and public order? Hardly! But, assuming for sake of argument that these Democrats do have public safety and public order in mind as the impetus propelling them to attack the Bill of Rights and, especially, to viciously attack the Second Amendment. At what cost are public safety and public order thereby secured? We know the answer to these question. There’s no reason to guess. The citizenry must forego exercise of the sacred right to keep and bear arms codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But, then, shall Americans truly forsake their fundamental, natural, immutable, and unalienable rights for purported public safety and public order that Democrats promise to give them in return for the sacrifice of those sacred, inviolate rights and liberties—sacred, inviolate rights and liberties that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution had fought and bled for and gave their life to secure for Americans, thereafter and ever after, and that good, decent, patriotic Americans have since fought and bled for and gave their life to secure for each and every American? If the citizenry does forsake its God-given rights, then the citizenry forsakes the very mechanism by which and through which it holds a capacious and rapacious Government in check. This isn’t bare and base conjecture. This is hard fact. And, this is principal reason why the Second Amendment must always be robustly defended.President Trump and Congressional Republicans must not fall into the Democrats’ snare. For, Democrats view the issue of violence solely from the standpoint of a need to take guns away from citizens as they abhor guns and they abhor civilian gun ownership. And that fact has become more in evidence in recent weeks and months. Democrats don’t even pretend any longer to preface their remarks, as they once did, with the phrase: “of course we respect the Second Amendment.” Obviously, they don’t; and they never did. And, they have since doffed the mask to convey the illusion that they did care in preserving the Second Amendment. The Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans must not go down the path that Democrats are leading them. It’s a no-win situation for them if they do; it's a no-win situation for the Nation; it's a no-win situation for the people of our Nation; and it's a no-win situation for our Constitution.

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST GET BACK ON TRACK IF THEY ARE TO REIN IN DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADERSHIP AND OTHER RADICAL CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS

President Trump and Congressional Republicans must give no thought to the nonsense spouted by the Radical Left about the need for more restrictive, draconian gun laws: laws needlessly, mindlessly expanding background checks, and Congressional Republicans must give no thought to enacting unconstitutional national ‘red-flag’ laws, and laws that have, as their salient purpose, the removal of firearms—semiautomatic firearms, pejoratively and erroneously referred to as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’—that the anti-Second Amendment Left-wing extremists in Congress seek to confiscate from tens of millions of average, sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens. None of these restrictive gun proposals will work to protect innocent Americans. None of these proposals would ever work. And, here’s the kicker: none of these proposals was ever expected or truly intended to work! They are simply designed to whittle away the basic right, that is fundamental to the safeguarding of our Free, Constitutional Republic, and that is fundamental to what it means to be an American citizen. If President Trump and Congressional Republicans think that any one or more of these anti-Second Amendment gun measures would work to curb societal violence, and if they would even think of jumping on the bandwagon just to “play it safe,” politically, that would be one sure way to destroy their political futures. To play the game the radical Left Democrats want the President and Republicans to play means only that they have allowed yourselves to play into the hands of those forces in our Nation who seek nothing less than to destroy the very foundation of our Nation. They seek not to preserve the Nation, nor to preserve the life, safety, and well-being of Americans who reside in the Nation.

THE SUREST WAY TO DESTROY OUR FREE REPUBLIC IS TO UNDERMINE THE IMPORT AND PURPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

If someone wanted to destroy our Nation, the surest way to do so would be to undermine the Second Amendment. That, in fact, is what extremists in this Nation, seek to do; to reshape our Nation into something completely at odds with the vision of a free Republic that our founders sought to create and to preserve. Don’t Republicans see that? Can’t they see that? The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution saw the possibility that the foundation of our Nation could be threatened as much by dangerous, rabid forces within the Country, as well from threats arising outside the Country They knew this to be true. That is why they placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of our Nation’s Constitution, creating a citizen army. And, contrary to what some may Americans may believe, including some jurists, most prominently, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the Second Amendment, along with other rights, comprising our Bill of Rights, are fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights—rights that exist intrinsically in man, and, as such, they are rights that predate the creation of our Nation as a free Republic. The Second Amendment is as important today as it was at the time of the ratification of our Constitution. Indeed, the Second Amendment may be more important today. For, the Democrats, controlled now by the New Progressive Left and other radical Left elements within the Party seek to transform our society beyond anything the founders of our Nation could imagine or foresee, except, perhaps, in their worst nightmares. They would be absolutely appalled to envision our Nation moving in the direction the leading Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President seek to drive our Nation toward: a Marxist/Socialist nightmare, if any one of them were actually elected to that high Officee.____________________________________________________

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS  MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE ON GUN ISSUES, AND THAT MEANS STRENGTHENING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND DIRECTING ATTENTION ON THE PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE, NOT ON LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS WHO SEEK MERELY TO EXERCISE THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

PART NINE

LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS HAVE HIJACKED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” ~ First Quotation, Vladimir Lenin, Russian Revolutionary, Head of Soviet Russia from 1917 through 1924“The goal of socialism is communism.” ~ Second Quotation, Vladimir LeninUnfortunately for us, Left-wing extremists, Marxists, Socialists, and Communists have hijacked the Democrat Party. They did this so that they could use the Party—a well ensconced institution of Government—to their advantage; to work through their own agenda: an agenda antithetical to the best interests of our Nation as a free Republic and antithetical to preservation of our Constitution; antithetical to the best interests of the American citizenry; and antithetical to our rich cultural and historical heritage. They seek to subvert this Nation. They seek to transform our Nation into a Marxist/Socialist Dictatorship, and thence, to an out-and-out Communist State. But President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and the Americans citizenry know this or ought to know this. Left-wing extremists are unapologetic in their aims. They are inveterate liars and ruthless to the core. Given these facts, why would the President and Congressional Republicans even consider negotiating with these reprobates at all, as these extremists seek, as the first item on their agenda to enact more restrictive gun laws that do nothing to protect the citizenry but leave the American citizenry defenseless—prey to the lowest common denominator in society, the criminal, psychopathic and sociopathic elements and to dangerous psychotic elements; and susceptible to an overreaching, overarching, overbearing Government that is capable of harassing, subjugating, and controlling the unarmed American citizenry?‘These Left-wing extremists seek to disarm the American citizenry, making the citizenry decidedly and decisively less safe. Criminals and dangerous lunatics would have open season on the innocent human beings in our Nation; and the New Progressive Left and other radical Left-wing elements in Government would have open season on the Constitution; ripping it from its moor; thrusting the Nation into chaos; enabling radical elements in our Nation to exploit the chaos to institute revolution—a revolution that is not designed to create a stronger Nation, nor to preserve the autonomy and individuality of each American citizen in it, but to twist and contort the fundamental underpinnings of our Nation into something abhorrent and horrific, something completely antithetical to what the framers of our Constitution, envisioned, proposed, and successfully implemented—a Dystopian vision of our future, completely at odds with the vision of that of the framers of our Constitution, the founders of a free Constitutional Republic..The American people tolerate much and can forgive much. But, Americans are very attuned to duplicity, mendacity, hypocrisy, and outright stupidity. Neither the President nor Congressional Republicans will save their jobs by failing to stand up for the Nation, for the American people, and for our Constitution against the Leftist extremists who seek to destroy it all.To behave like the New Progressive Left and other Left-wing radicals in the Democrat Party will, in the eyes of Americans, would only serve to make the President and Congressional Republicans, one of them. The President and Congressional Republicans will be be dead wrong if they think they can play both sides against the middle.___________________________________________________________________

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS WHO DEMAND MORE GUN CONTROL

PART NINE

NINE POINTS  TO PONDERFirst, understand that the Radical Left Democrats focus their attention on guns as the means to drive the debate and to drive passage of legislation directed to curbing gun ownership among tens of millions of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding, when it is these American patriots who own and possess firearms who can best thwart societal violence. Radical Left anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, aided by a sympathetic Press, drumming nonsense about guns, fanning the flames of anger toward guns and irrational fear about them, are trying to draw you into the narrative about guns they have constructed. Don’t fall for it. For the narrative constructed is a fairy tale, the purpose of which is to destroy the Second Amendment. Don’t lose sight of that fact for a moment. Second, so, then what is the real issue? The real issue you need to confront is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence—in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances—the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once you focus your attention on the right issue, you won’t be led astray into the Leftist narrative and you won’t be drawn into a morass, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead you astray. Don't let them, for they intend to encourage you to enact laws that serve the Radical and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda: weakening the Second Amendment, disarming the tens of millions of average, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. It should be manifestly clear to you that the matter Congress should be addressing is how to minimize acts of violence in society and how to minimize such acts by those who seek to do violence, and that you should not be focusing attention on the mere tool that some of these dangerous elements in society use to effectuate that violence. You should make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats the issues that you wish to address, and not allow radical Left-wing Democrats to compel you to address issues they wish for you to address, that they may attain their goal: eventual citizen disarmament.Third, so, then, make clear to all Congressional Democrats that you want to address societal violence. To do that, you must gain control of the narrative. Explain to the Democrat Party Leadership and to other Radical Left Democrats that if they truly wish to curb societal violence, then discussion and debate must be directed to the issue of societal violence and the perpetrators of that violence. The issue before you is not about guns or gun violence. The issue of societal violence never was about guns and gun violence. Redirect discussion in the direction it belongs: on the causes of societal violence and the measures to be taken against those that threaten innocent lives, regardless of the implements they use. You must create the narrative, and make Congressional Democrats follow your lead.Fourth if Democrats continue to scream for more gun restrictions, targeting tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, tell them that those laws that target misuse of firearms should be vigorously enforced. The Nation does not need more restrictive gun laws, targeting the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational gun owner, when the laws already enacted are not enforced against perpetrators of violence: the common criminal, the psychopathic gang member, and the dangerous lunatic.Fifth, if Democrats insist on enacting restrictive gun laws infringing the Second Amendment, then force these antigun elements in the Democrat Party to explain how further gun restrictions, targeting tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners will curb or curtail societal violence. These radical Left Democrats can’t, of course, offer a sound logical explanation because their goal is to disarm the civilian population. That was always their goal. A rash of “mass” shootings is, for these Democrats, simply a pretext to accomplish that end. But, they will never admit that. So, hit these Democrats with the truth. Tell them that their attack on firearms is and always was a fairy tale concocted by public relations firms at the direction of the extremist Left-wing elements who seek to wrest Government control from the hands of the citizenry, where power truly belongs, and that you will not assist them in delivering that power to those who seek to bring to fruition a new vision of our Country, a vision inconsistent with that of our founders. Tell these Democrats that you will not assist them in tearing down the U.S. Constitution. Sixth, tell these Democrats that you are well aware that their gun policies are not designed to safeguard of our Nation; tell them that enactment into law of the gun policies they seek won’t preserve our Nation, that the gun proposed gun policies they seek to enact into law would only endanger the very foundation of the Nation. Tell these Democrats that you are sick and tired of hearing the same “song” over and over again. Tell them that you have heard well enough from these anti-Second Amendment elements in the Democrat Party, in the seditious Press, and in the Nation at large, once again and ever again, as bring out of the attic the same old tired firearms proposals—and occasionally, as with “Red Flag” laws, concoct new ones—and that all of these proposals are designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to weaken and ultimately to destroy the Second Amendment in order to undercut the entire Constitution, the very foundation and framework of our free Republic, and a free, autonomous citizenry. Tell them you will not tolerate the constant unconstitutional and unconscionable battering of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Seventh, make plain to the reprobates in the Democratic Party that the best way to protect innocent lives is by enforcing those numerous laws against criminals and the criminally insane that we already have on the books, and make clear that Congress must aggressively enforce those laws before considering adding more restrictive gun laws into the mix. Ask those who seek to disarm the citizenry to explain why they think we need more restrictive gun laws, targeting the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, anyway. Make these reprobates produce sound evidence to support their position. Eighth, force Democrats to acknowledge that they are simply exploiting tragic incidents to bring their ultimate goal into fruition: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Force them to acknowledge that what it is they really seek, what it is they really want is not “gun control” but “citizen/population control” and what they truly seek to control is not the common criminal or the occasional lunatic, but the average, law-abiding citizen. Force these New Progressive Left and radical Left-wing Democrats to acknowledge that they see an armed citizenry as the real threat to the kind of Country they envision, and that the kind of Country they want to erect is abhorrent to the Nation the founders sought to give Americans and which they did give to Americans: a free Republic.Nine, tell Democrats that the gun policies they seek to enact into law, including, inter alia, unnecessary gun background checks and extended gun transfer waiting periods, bans on semiautomatic firearms, ‘red flag’ laws, and universal gun confiscation measures disguised as voluntary ‘gun buybacks,’ are inconsistent with the present framework of our Nation, and that, if Democrats are unhappy with that framework and seek to dismantle it in order to create another one to their liking, then you are not interested in talking with them; that the gun measures they seek to implement are beyond the pale, and that you are at an impasse.__________________________________________

IF GUN MEASURES ARE WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT, THEN CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD GIVE THEM ONE AND IT IS ONE REPUBLICANS HAVE PROMULGATED BEFORE

PART NINE

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of a noble spirit, the most corrupt congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny. ~Reverend Nicholas Collin, writing under the pseudonym,” ‘Foreign Spectator,’ taken from an article he penned, appearing in a newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette,  November 7, 1788“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” ~Joseph Story, early Jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 19th Century; quotation from Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” 1833“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.” ~Alan Dershowitz, Contemporary American lawyer and academic; Professor Emeritus, Harvard University; and scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law; well-noted, self-ascribed Civil Libertarian; now apparently loathed by the Left-wing “power elite” for having the audacity to assail the ACLU, and for defending President Trump; often a guest on Fox News; but shunned by the mainstream networks, CNN, MSNBC, et.al.

A GUN MEASURE THAT WOULD WORK TO CURB SOCIETAL VIOLENCE

Democrats have recently proposed a flurry of restrictive gun laws targeting tens of millions of law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners. Those antigun measures are not carefully constructed to target the criminal and occasional lunatic. The American public knows this. Hopefully, the President and Congressional Republicans know this, too. Such draconian gun measures will not make our Nation safer, and are not designed to make our Nation safer. They are only designed to weaken the Second Amendment. But, if any federal legislation would tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the Second Amendment, what would that legislation look like? There is such a gun law, and it is one that would enable the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owner to carry a gun for self-defense wherever that person travels in this Nation and in the territories of our Nation. Such a gun law would deal effectively with societal violence. And such Congressional bills had been introduced to realize the goal of reducing societal violence.Perhaps Congressional Republicans need to be reminded that they had a bill once to deal effectively with societal violence. In fact they had several such bills, when they controlled both Houses of Congress when the 115th Congress was in session. These sets of bills involved National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity.* What happened to those bills? One that had actually passed the House, 115 H.R. 38, was allowed to die in Senate Committee. Well, it is high time to resurrect that bill. The best way to deal with Democrats’ concern over so-called “gun violence” is, after all, to enact a bill that deals effectively with all societal violence perpetrated by both the criminal psychopath and the dangerous psychotic lunatic. Looking at the issue of societal violence as “gun violence” in order to deny to the average American citizen the best means available to defend their life and safety, namely through that which a firearm provides, is a blind, nothing more; a media creation, hyped up by Democrats as if it were a real issue. It isn’t. And, media concocted phrases such as ‘assault weapon’ and ‘weapon of war’ are mere pejoratives and erroneous fictions at that. Such firearms are semiautomatic weapons specifically designed for civilian use, for legitimate purposes. Congressional Republicans should tell antigun Left-wing Democrats that Republicans will henceforth refrain from using glib terminology, a fiction, created merely to inflame the public, nothing more. Republicans should not encourage use of fictions that are created merely for their emotional impact and that enable Democrats to control the running narrative against guns and civilian gun ownership in order to promote an agenda designed to weaken the Second Amendment. What Should Congressional Republicans Do?Congressional Republicans should draft a new bill calling for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. The answer to “gun” violence—an effective answer to any violence, really—is found in firearms in the hands of those who are best equipped to deal with that violence immediately when violence occurs or is threatened, before police officers can respond to it. This means that a firearm in the hands of the average, responsible, rational law-abiding citizen is the best response to a threat of imminent violence. Congress should also enforce laws against perpetrators of violence, and really enforce those laws; not pretend to enforce them. This is absolutely necessary before Congress gets swept up into the maelstrom of enacting any new restrictive “gun” laws that invariably target tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen gun owners.A national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bill will certainly get the attention of Leftist extremists self-righteously exclaiming that it is either “their way or the highway.” Republicans might tell the antigun Radical Leftists to take the highway and leave the Nation alone, in peace, for the tens of millions of Americans who believe our Nation is doing just fine as a free Constitutional Republic, with the Bill of Rights intact. Republicans should tell these radical Leftist Democrats that our Nation’s Constitution does not need more tweaking. It is time for Republicans to control the narrative on guns and on other major issues confronting our Nation, including illegal border crossings and at-will abortion.Republicans can present a reasoned and cogent argument for national handgun carry reciprocity as that law strengthens and preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Sure, the New Progressive Left and other radical Left-wing Democrats will scoff, or laugh, or walk off in a huff, but the fact remains that their attempts to create more and more restrictive gun laws only serves to make a mockery of our Bill of Rights.Did not President Trump make crystal clear in his State of the Union address that this Nation will never become a Socialist State? Did Republicans not notice that most Democrats did not applaud the President when Trump asserted the Nation will never become a Socialist State, but sat sullenly in silence at his remark?Republicans must remain true to the vision that the founders had for this Country, a vision that has allowed our Nation and its people to prosper for over two hundred years; a vision that has made our Nation the most powerful on Earth. Republicans might remind Left-wing Democrats and those who support them that this Nation has succeeded admirably and completely in defeating outside threats; and Republicans should tell these Left-wing Democrats that Americans will succeed in defeating threats emanating from within the Nation as well. President Trump and Congressional Republicans should explain to these reprobates on the other side of the aisle that, despite Left-wing Democrats’ intense distaste for the very existence of the fundamental, indelible, unalienable, immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and despite their singular intent and reprehensible desire to destroy the exercise of that primordial, natural right bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, they will not succeed in their efforts to disarm the American citizenry—ever!__________________________________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about this. See, e.g., the Arbalest Quarrel article on House bill 115 H.R. 38 to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity, a bill that passed the House but died in Senate Committee. Of Course, a federal law authorizing what already exists intrinsically in man, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, should not be necessary, as such law is at best redundant. But, there is another issue of more pressing concern with a federal mandate, or multi-State compact, permitting a law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun concealed throughout the Nation and throughout the Nation’s territories. There is the incipient danger in even countenancing that such Government action is necessary if the right exists implicitly in the American citizenry. For, asserting that Governmental action is necessary to secure the right, in effect, then, undermines, paradoxically, the very nature of the right secured—turning a fundamental right into something less than it is and what it was, as codified, meant to be—transforming it into a statutory right, which is, then, something less a fundamental right, something more akin to a privilege, which is what a Government-made right really is. For, if, truly, Government bestows a right, that can only mean that the right did not exist until Government created it. And, if Government creates a right that it bestows to this person or that person, then Government, as the creator of the right, may also, ipso facto, rescind one’s exercise of it or repeal it outright so that no one can exercise it. Thus, if Congress were to enact national handgun carry reciprocity legislation, there is a real danger in the public tacitly acknowledging that Government has created a right that had not hitherto existed before Congressional enabling legislation that created the right. This undermines the strength of the Second Amendment, essentially subordinating it to mere Statute; subjecting the Second Amendment to constant tinkering: modification, refinement, and loss of import and purport. But, we talk about the need for national handgun carry reciprocity anyway because of the many laws, through the decades that have whittled away at the efficacy of the Second Amendment; and we see this constant disturbing churning away of a God-given right, continuing through the recent flurry of restrictive gun proposals being actively bandied about now—another disheartening round of efforts to undercut the strength of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable right codified in the Second Amendment._________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ISSUE OF CURBING VIOLENCE IN OUR SCHOOLS DOES NOT DEVOLVE TO SIMPLY BANNING GUNS. IT IS MORE COMPLEX, ELUSIVE, NUANCED.

PART FIVE

STUDENTS MUST BECOME CRITICAL THINKERS, NOT “PARROTS” OF THOSE WHO HARBOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

Peaceful protest isn’t a bad thing. The youth of our Nation, as citizens of the United States, have a Constitutional right to do so as the right of the people to peaceably assemble is a fundamental right, specifically codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the right to the free exercise of religion. These rights are broad in scope and critical to the maintenance of a free Republic. The danger of protest rests when there exists a hidden agenda behind the protest, unbeknownst to those that take to protest.On March 24, 2018, hundreds of thousands of young people, including adults, turned out to protest violence in our Nation’s schools. The horror that took place in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School served as the impetus for the protest. Last February 2018, a deranged young man, Nikolas Cruz, whom School Officials had expelled for multiple serious disciplinary violations, walked unimpeded into the School, and proceeded to murder 17 students, including teachers, using a semiautomatic long gun, modeled on the “AR-15” platform.Organizers of the March 24 protest on our Nation’s Capital on Saturday, March 24, 2018 called it, “March for Our Lives.” The New York Times banner headline on Sunday, March 25, 2018, says something different however: "With Passion and Fury, Students March on Guns."Students across the Country are furious—and rightfully so—at the failure of Government, to protect them, as students are vulnerable to violence when in school. How it is that a seriously disturbed individual, Nikolas Cruz, who was on the radar of both the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, and who, on several occasions, had openly expressed a desire to kill, could gain access to a firearm and ammunition, and who then could act on that desire, speaks of gross incompetence and glaring ineptitude, on multiple Governmental levels? Then there is the failure of an armed Broward County Deputy Sheriff—a Resource Officer, assigned to the School, and of other Broward County Deputy Sheriffs, who shortly arrived on the scene—whose actions or, rather, inactions, must be   singled out. Broward County Deputy Sheriff, Scott Peterson, and other Broward County Deputy County Sheriffs failed to confront and stop Nikolas Cruz. They all consciously, intentionally, refrained from entering the School building to confront Nikolas Cruz, even though they heard gunshots in the School, and knew or had every reason to conclude that, every time they heard a gunshot, an innocent person had died. Bald-faced cowardice, cannot be ruled out.Students have a right to ask of Government, that is charged to protect them, why Government failed them. This failure must be addressed and then redressed. Action must be taken to protect our schools with appropriate security. Competent, armed individuals, both physically capable of action and psychologically predisposed to act in a life-threatening situation, must be a component of an effective school security program.

FIREARMS, OF THEMSELVES, DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE OBJECTS, NOT AGENTS.

As for the root cause(s) why more violence occurs in our schools, this is a complex issue, with no simple answer or remedy. Unfortunately, in the face of overwhelming horror and tragedy, there is a normal tendency to look for a “quick fix,” and there are those who jump at the chance to funnel through the mainstream media, to the public, a  simple answer—more stringent gun laws, commencing with an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic long guns, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ including a ban on large capacity ammunition magazines.Antigun advocacy groups have argued, for decades, for further restrictions on civilian access to semiautomatic firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons.’ Of course, the definition of ‘assault weapon,’ is amorphous, as the phrase is a political invention, not an industry or military term of art. Those jurisdictions that generally ban possession of “assault weapons” in the hands of the American civilian citizenry, have defined the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ in different ways. In fact, under New York law at least one category of weapon, the revolving cylinder shotgun, is defined in law, an ‘assault weapon,’ even though, given the revolving cylinder shotgun’s method of operation, as the name makes plain, the revolving cylinder shotgun isn’t a semiautomatic weapon at all.Antigun advocacy groups have an agenda and that agenda does not necessarily equate with ensuring a safe school environment. In pursuit of that agenda, these groups have successfully harnessed the anger, hurt, frustration, and legitimate concern of students. The “March for Our Lives” didn’t just happen. It happened for a reason: Antigun advocacy groups and other liberal advocacy groups quietly, behind the scenes, harnessed student anger and redirected it. They redirected student anger, hurt, and frustration away from an attack on the failure of some State and local governmental authorities to provide students with a safe and secure environment, where student anger, frustration and hurt should have been focused, or should rightfully have remained, to an attack on "the gun" qua "assault weapon." Thus, instead of encouraging young people to take part in an open, frank, and intelligent discussion on the root causes of violence in our society and how it is and why it is some people erupt into an orgy of horrific violence and how State and local governments, in the interim, may implement reasonable security measures in schools, to protect students, we see antigun advocacy groups, and other advocacy groups in agreement with them, ratcheting up student anger to the point where that anger explodes into a paroxysm of rage launched specifically and solely against an inanimate object.An undertaking of this magnitude requires, money, organization, and coordination well beyond the capacity of young people to engineer. The billionaire Michael Bloomberg, through his antigun advocacy group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” organized, funded, and coordinated the rally. This isn’t supposition, it is fact, as reported by CNN, and as Bloomberg’s group itself readily admits.

WOULD A WHOLESALE BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC LONG GUNS, MODELED ON THE ORIGINAL AR-15 ARMALITE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE, PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR NATION’S SCHOOLS?

An outright ban on an entire category of weapons in common use would not prevent further gun violence. A federal ban on so-called ‘assault weapons,’ implemented in 1994, was tried. That ban failed to prevent many mass shootings. The ban expired in 2004 through a sunset provision, and Congress did not reauthorize it. We have seen, since, violent acts committed, not only with so-called “assault weapons,” but with other objects, including, knives, bombs, and even trucks.“Everytown for Gun Safety,” and like-minded antigun advocacy groups argue that violence in our schools, and in public spaces generally, can be prevented or significantly reduced if Government, local, State, and Federal, would simply prohibit civilian access to firearms. Whether these antigun activist groups truly believe that, is unlikely. Their goal, if achieved, would not eliminate or even reduce violence in schools or in the greater society. They must know this. Their goal, if achieved, would have the negative effect of leaving the civilian population of this Country essentially defenseless. The tacit but obvious impetus of these antigun advocacy groups is to effectuate Government control over the citizenry. The goal of these groups is not to promote public safety, express claims to the contrary, notwithstanding.The fact of the matter is that, even if antigun advocates were successful in removing every firearm presently in the possession of honest, law-abiding, average, rational American citizens who desire to exercise their fundamental, inalienable, natural right to keep and bear arms who comprise the vast civilian citizenry of firearms’ owners in this County, that would do nothing to curb violent acts. A simplistic fix that happens, not unsurprisingly, to cohere with the personal agenda of antigun advocacy groups—destruction of the Second Amendment—isn’t the panacea for effectively dealing with a culture of violence endemic in our Nation, contrary to the supposition of antigun activists and contrary to their rhetoric. It is a recipe for disaster. First, the antigun activists’ simplistic fix leaves the American citizenry defenseless. Second, the abridgement of the American citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties—reflected, first and foremost in an armed citizenry—is inconsistent with the continued conservation and preservation of a free Republic, rooted in our Nation’s history. Third, such abridgement of our fundamental rights and liberties is inconsistent with the basic principle upon which those sacred rights and liberties rests: the sanctity, autonomy, and inviolability of the American citizen.Until Americans, including the youth of our Nation, are willing to look deeply and seriously at the true root causes of violence that infects and infests our Country, rather than excoriating guns as the salient cause of violence and mischief in our Nation in accordance with the dictate of antigun advocacy groups, violence will not appreciably be forestalled or constrained; for violence, ultimately, exists in the heart of individuals, not in such inanimate objects they happen to wield. Any object—a gun, a knife, a vehicle, a chainsaw, or any other tool—can be used by a sentient being for good or ill.Young people, especially, must learn to think through an issue calmly, not rashly. Unfortunately, those individuals and groups that have a personal agenda to serve, have irresponsibly coopted the rightful anger and hurt of young people to assist them in pursuit of a singular goal: divesting the civilian population of this Country of their firearms. The young people must resist the urge to serve antigun groups as their servants or proxies. Antigun groups are very good at coaxing young people to join them in service to a personal agenda: gun control, culminating in gun confiscation. Instead, the young people of our Nation might more effectively use intellectual rigor to explore the root causes of violence in our society. In the interim Government at the federal, State, and local levels, can and must design and implement plans to secure our schools from threats of harm. Violence is, unfortunately, persistent in our Nation. But, violence is endemic in many other Western nations, too, even as those other Western nations have rigidly suppressed individual ownership and possession of firearms.A viable security plan to protect students from harm never existed in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. But other Schools across the Nation that have implemented effective security, have been free from deadly threats to students and to teachers. That means all schools must embrace a proactive, not reactive, stance to threats of violence of any kind. A sound plan to protect students is doable and helpful. Going after guns is not._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S ORDER, BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS, LIKELY VIOLATES FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

CAN A STATE OR ANY JURISDICTION WITHIN A STATE BAN PUBLIC GUN SHOWS OUTRIGHT, WITHOUT ILLEGALY TRAMPLING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

“And, now, come to this spot Where the spotlight is hot And you’ll see in the spotlight A Juggling Jott Who can juggle some stuff You might think he could not. . . Such as twenty-two question marks, Which is a lot. Also forty-four commas And, also, one dot! That’s the kind of Circus McGurkus I’ve got!” ~ From the Children’s Book, “If I Ran the Circus," by Dr. Seuss (published by Random House 1956) 

We see with disturbing regularity, Governments, be they the federal Government, a State Government, or Government of a County, township, or municipality, blindly, indiscriminately, with stunning alacrity, and feverish abandon, enacting laws, codes, regulations, ordinances, or, as in the case, recently, in the County of Westchester, in the State of New York, an Executive Order that negatively impacts substantive, fundamental Constitutional Rights. Those in power, like the Westchester County Executive, George Latimer, seek, in the fiefdom, they "rule," a fanciful, but nightmarish world, a personal circus, that mirrors a conception of reality acceptable to them--a conception of reality consistent with their personal philosophy and ethical system but one at once inconsistent with the blueprint for a free Republic that the founders of our Nation designed and established for the American people, and one inconsistent with the rights and liberties that the framers of our Bill of Rights insisted on as a critical component of the Nation's Constitution, as a safeguard against the very actions that people such as George Latimer take. People, like the present Westchester County Executive, filled with their own smug certainty of what is right and proper, would dare to force the ordinary citizens, who reside in their domain of power, to live in the "circus" they create, compelled to obey and abide by the law they lay down, irrespective of natural law, codified as sacred rights and liberties comprising our Bill of Rights--rights existent intrinsically in each American citizen, as placed in each American soul, by the hand of the Divine Creator, that no man, acting as a demigod, may rationally and lawfully counteract or nullify.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER OVERTURNS THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR, ROB ASTORINO.

On January 2, 2018, George Latimer, a Democrat, took the oath of Office in his White Plains, New York Office, as the new County Executive of Westchester County, and wasted no time to attack the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “On his second day as Westchester County Executive, George Latimer delivered on a promise from in [sic] his campaign, and signed an Executive Order prohibiting the sale of guns on Westchester County property.” What precipitated this Executive Order? Apparently, George Latimer sought to reimpose on the American public that resides in Westchester County an earlier ban on public gun shows ordered by a prior Westchester County Executive, Andrew J. Spano, that had been lifted by George Latimer's immediate predecessor, Rob Astorino. As explained, further, on the Westchester Government website,“In 1999, gun shows were banned at the Westchester County Center by former County Executive Andrew J. Spano [a Democrat] in the wake of the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. That prohibition was later revoked by Latimer’s immediate predecessor [Rob Astorino, a Republican].‘Westchester County government should not be in the business of advancing the sale of weapons and other items often sold at gun shows – plain and simple,’ said Latimer. ‘This is not a restriction on gun shows in the entire county, but rather just on public land.’Text from the Executive Order states that 'WHEREAS, recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth. Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for.'"Several websites dryly report this event; several with approval, some not.The seesawing of actions, up and down, back and forth—where one Westchester County Executive bans public guns shows, another County Executive lifts the ban, and a third County Executive reimposes the public gun show ban—reflects a clash of philosophies pertaining to import and purport of the Second Amendment, and to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well, played out on a small scale. How this clash of philosophies ultimately pans out, when fought out on the broad national scale, in Congress and in the U.S. Supreme Court, though, will have, for the American citizenry, vast implications and ramifications, for good or ill, for generations of Americans to come.

THE INDEFATIGABLE OBSTINANCE OF THOSE FORCES THAT DENIGRATE AND REFUSE TO TOLERATE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS KNOWS NO BOUNDS.

George Latimer's Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, represents the latest effort of antigun forces to place obstacles in the path of those American citizens who, as Latimer and his fellow travelers see it, have the audacity to exercise the natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms that the framers codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The framers, for their part, with clarity of foresight, provided to them with guidance from Divine Providence, saw abundant need for this sacred right to be codified in the Bill of Rights. The framers of the Bill of Rights, the founders of our free Republic, knew full well that nothing but force of arms serves to check tyranny and nothing but force of arms best protects the life, well-being, and sanctity of the individual. Thus, as Latimer and his cohorts in the antigun conspiracy take exception with those American citizens who wish merely to exercise, unimpeded, the right to own and possess firearms for their protection and to safeguard the continued existence of a free Republic, George Latimer and his antigun cohorts must also take exception with the framers of the Bill of Rights, for it is they, who made clear enough, beyond the power of anyone to ignore, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist, that the right is sacred and indelible, and that this right, more than any other, defines our Nation and defines what it means to be an American citizen.

GEORGE LATIMER LAYS OUT FOR THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA PRESS THE PREDICATE BASIS FOR HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, SIGNALING HIS VEHEMENT DISAPPROVAL OF FIREARMS AND HIS STRONG DISAPPROVAL OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Where George Latimer’s sympathies lie on matters pertaining to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, one can readily ascertain. Talking to the Press, Latimer resorts to use of simplistic, superficial, banal political oratory, eschewing erudite, logical discourse—treating the public with condescension and contempt, as politicians customarily and most sadly do—punctuating his well-rehearsed talking points with the confident self-assurance and moral certitude of a televangelist delivering a weekly sermon to his TV audience. “Latimer said Tuesday that gun shows do not represent the family values reflected in the other events held at the county facilities. The ban is not a restriction on gun shows in the entire county, but just on public land, he said. ‘The County Center hosts basketball, Westchester Knicks play there in the developmental league, we have had the Harlem Globetrotters come in for performances, we have a bridal show coming up, we have a model train show that normally comes into the arena, we have job fairs and high school graduations and concerts, all very friendly family fare,’ he said.”The County Executive, George Latimer, also proclaims: “I believe the majority of the Board of Legislators, and myself as executive, believe very strongly that this is the wrong venue for a gun show. . . .” Well, who would dare oppose George Latimer; for, after all, as stated in County Code: “The County Executive shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the county and the official head of the county government.” Westchester County Code of Ordinances, Part I, Charter, Article 110, County Executive.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S BAN ON PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY SIGNALS HIS SUPPORT OF GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD GUNS AND THE GOVERNOR'S ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

As George Latimer, County Executive, sets his imprimatur on the County level, one would do well to recall Governor Andrew Cuomo’s own actions, negatively infringing the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the State level. After all, it was Governor Cuomo who signed into law, on January 15, 2013, and who exclaims with visible pride, enactment of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (NY Safe Act), one of the most restrictive and draconian set of firearms laws ever to be enacted in the United States—and a direct and clear repudiation of and affront to the fundamental right, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Other anti-Second Amendment Governors have used the NY Safe Act as a model for enactment of their own restrictive firearms laws. And, on the national stage, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein had envisioned and had hopes of engineering similar NY Safe Act legislation for the entire Nation—a direct and cold and calculated and audacious challenge to any American citizen who might wish to exercise his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Fortunately, she did not succeed in that endeavor. But, like a true fanatic, she employs indefatigable resolve, constantly introducing anti-Second Amendment bills in the U.S. Senate, and forever scheming behind closed doors.Antigun Politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo and Westchester County Executive, George Latimer, and Senator Dianne Feinstein know they can always rely on the mainstream news media to trumpet, with great fanfare, their antigun message.

THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA “PRESS” SERVES IS OWN ENDS, AND THOSE OF ITS BENEFACTORS—THE WEALTHY, POWERFUL, RUTHLESS INTERNATIONALIST, TRANS-NATIONALIST GLOBAL “ELITE” THAT IT OBSEQUIOUSLY SERVES—TO DENIGRATE, INCESSANTLY, UNCEASINGLY, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Arguably, one of the most unforgiveable actions of the ‘mainstream news media’—where the expression, ‘mainstream news media,’ is generally equated with the term, 'Press,' as the word, ‘Press,’ appears prominently in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution —is that the Press, id est, “this mainstream news media Press,” fails to defend the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment. That is bad enough. Worse, the mainstream news media Press caustically, audaciously, and emphatically attacks those who defend the right codified in the Second Amendment. This mainstream news media Press, scurrilously abets the actions of those governmental leaders, who, with the power they wield through the Legislative Office they hold, do their utmost to undermine, rather than defend the right.Mainstream news media organization newspaper publishers like The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, The Guardian, and USA Today, and mainstream news media broadcast outlets like ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, and BBC all provide a quick and ready and willing forum for those Congressional and State legislators and for those antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs and for those obstreperous left-wing agitators that allows them to malign those American citizens who hold to traditional American values and who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. With customary malicious and malevolent bravado, and self-assured smugness, these mainstream news media newspapers and other mainstream media news organizations and their affiliates denigrate the Second Amendment and denigrate those who support it and denigrate those who support the framers' conception of the other Nine Amendments as well. Through their commentary and  Op-Eds, and through their news reporting, too--where mainstream media news coverage is seen less as hard, so-called "straight" news and more as editorial slants posing as news stories--these mainstream media news organizations deliberately and disingenuously concoct a central theme, a story-line, a story narrative, that, day-by-day, builds upon the story of the day before, not unlike what one sees when reading a work of fiction,that, chapter by chapter, builds sequentially on what came before, to a pre-ordained conclusion that the author mandates in the template for the work of fiction that the author creates.This same mainstream news media Press malevolently assails, with sanctimonious conviction and obvious glee, anyone who might dare challenge its pronouncements; for, the Press quickly reminds the American public that freedom of the Press is, after all, a fundamental right, even as that same Press insists that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t. The irony in the claim—selectively and vehemently defending one fundamental right while viciously attacking another—is, apparently, lost on those who work for the mainstream news media Press, even if that irony isn’t lost on any other American.So, it should not be surprising that some Governmental leaders operate with characteristic aplomb and abandon to enact laws and take actions that undercut the right of the people to keep and bear arms as they have a powerful ally in the mainstream news media Press on their side. George Latimer evidently knows he has the backing of this mainstream news media Press, and with this Press on his side, he acts with impunity. Together, with a compliant County Government he leads, he obviously feels confident that his bold, legally dubious Executive Order, banning public gun shows, will go essentially unchallenged. For, who would dare confront him?Well, the Arbalest Quarrel does challenge Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County. And, we do proclaim loudly, assertively and confidently: Meaningful, compelling, deserving and discerning bases exist, in law, to challenge County Executive George Latimer’s Executive Order, on that portion of the Executive Order we have seen, as posted on the County Government website.Why do we say this? We have the weight of legal authority on our side.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S ACTION, BANNING PUBLIC SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY IS LIKELY UNLAWFUL, AND A COGENT LEGAL BASIS EXISTS FOR CHALLENGING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN COURT.

Granted, the Arbalest Quarrel hasn’t had an opportunity to review the full text of George Latimer’s Executive Order. The reason is that the full text of the Executive Order has not been published on the Westchester County website. In time, perhaps, the full text of the Executive Order will be posted on the County Government website. There is, apparently, more to it.But, what we do see, from that portion of the Executive Order that has been published, namely that “recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth [because] Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for,” says enough for purpose of challenging the lawfulness of the Order. For, consistent with and supportive of George Latimer’s sentiments about firearms and about gun shows, as expressed to the mainstream news media Press, along with the language of the Executive Order itself, we conclude the language of the Order, as buttressed by the Westchester County Executive’s statements to the mainstream news media Press, demonstrate not only the County Executive’s open and visceral abhorrence of firearms, and not only his distaste for the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and not only his contempt for American citizens who wish to exercise that right, but constitute, too, unconscionable violations of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.That portion of the Westchester County Executive Order we have read, be it coupled with the Westchester County Executive’s statements to mainstream media newspapers and broadcast outlets, or not, amounts to an open admission of violation of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.The Arbalest Quarrel will provide an in-depth analysis in a future article. Suffice it to say, here, that George Latimer’s Executive Order, through its very language, contravenes United States Supreme Court law.In critical part, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, in the 1994 case, Turner Broadcasting System vs. FCC, 512 U.S. 622; 114 S. Ct. 2445; 129 L. Ed. 2d 497; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4831; 62 U.S.L.W. 4647: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal. See Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. at 449 (citing Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971));West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, 640-642, 87 L. Ed. 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178 (1943). Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right. Laws of this sort pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion. These restrictions ‘raise the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.’ Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116, 116 L. Ed. 2d 476, 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991). For these reasons, the First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance governmental control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals. R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 393, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397,  414, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989). Our precedents thus apply the most exacting scrutiny to regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at; id., at (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment); Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794, 103 S. Ct. 948 (1983). Laws that compel speakers to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny. See Riley v. National Federation for Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. at 798; West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, supra. In contrast, regulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny, see Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221, 104 S. Ct. 3065 (1984), because in most cases they pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Let’s deconstruct a portion of this high Court opinion: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal.” There is a marked tension between the words of the U.S. Supreme Court and the words expressed in Westchester County Executive’s Order; for the language of the Executive Order stands in clear, categorical defiance to the well-reasoned opinion of the high Court in Turner. Again, the specific language of the Westchester County Executive Order of George Latimer reads: “WHEREAS, recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth [because] Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for [emphasis our own].” This is a presumptuous, arrogant assertion. Latimer predicates this Executive Order on, and attempts to support an unlawful and despicable Governmental act on, false moral piety. It is a ruse; no less so, if George Latimer truly believes that his Executive Order is justified because, in his mind, he has generated it from a sense of superior moral conviction, and sees it as an act of beneficence toward the residents of Westchester rather than, for what it really is, an act of defiance toward the supreme authority, establishing, in no uncertain words, the fundamental rights and liberties etched in stone in the Bill of Rights. Yet, Latimer's Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, is nothing less than illegal gag order on free expression, posing as a righteous moral edict. For George Latimer is doing no less than thrusting his personal beliefs into the public sphere concerning what he sees, or what he would like to see, as the appropriate use of public County land and what he perceives as not constituting appropriate use of public land. Latimer obviously detests  guns, and he obviously abhors a citizen's exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. By banning public gun shows, George Latimer uses his Office to make manifest in law, to actualize in Westchester County, his personal opinions and pompous high-minded moral judgments of what he deems to constitute appropriate behavior and what he signals as inappropriate behavior, informing residents of Westchester County, in no uncertain terms, as to what constitutes appropriate behavior in the County and what does not. Obviously, for George Latimer, those who wish to promote and hold public gun shows and those who wish to attend public gun shows are both engaging in inappropriate, immoral or amoral behavior, and he has signaled his clear disapproval of that behavior through the Executive Order he has issued on the matter. Undoubtedly, we will see more such Executive Orders emanating from his Office in White Plains, New York.George Latimer takes upon himself the role of guardian of public morality, and he has, through issuance of his Executive Order, given himself, albeit tacitly, the title of High Priest of Moral Order and Rectitude. It is George Latimer who determines what behavior is worthy of free speech protection under the First Amendment and what speech is not worthy of such protection, in Westchester County. Through his actions George Latimer demonstrates the height of arrogance and presumption. He uses a heavy hand to constrain the right of free speech that Westchester County residents might, one would think, reasonably expect is theirs to enjoy, as such right is codified in the First Amendment; and he uses a heavy hand to constrain, as well, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment--another fundamental right that Westchester County  residents might, one would think, also reasonably expect is theirs to enjoy. Not so, according to George Latimer. But, the Courts may think differently. Latimer's Executive Order is not likely to stand up to rigorous legal scrutiny. For, contrary to George Latimer’s assertions as manifested in his actions, the Bill of Rights doesn’t stop at the border of Westchester County. Moreover, that the County Executive would deign, at least for a time, to allow gun shows to proceed unimpeded on “private” land within the County, for those Westchester residents who would wish to attend them, the fact that private gun shows may be permitted in Westchester County, when public gun shows cannot, under Latimer's Executive Order, does not suffice to circumvent a charge of Constitutional violations impacting public gun shows, whether private gun shows are a feasible, practical alternative or not.Under our system of laws, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, George Latimer, in his official capacity as the Westchester County Executive, but also as an American citizen, thrusts a personal view toward firearms on others which sees expression as a ban on public gun shows. But, it is one thing for an American citizen to dislike guns, to dislike gun shows, and to dislike the Second Amendment and to hold personal views on what should, in that person's mind constitute limits on free expression under the First Amendment, and, thereupon, to express views consistent with those preferences. That is permitted. That itself reflects a sacred right that an American citizen shall, as he or she wishes, exercise, freely, without constraint. That entails, as well, the sanctity and inviolability of each individual American citizen to be individual--a basic precept that underlies the entirety of the Nation's Bill of Rights. But where, as here, an American citizen—who wields power as a Government official—would dare impose, indeed, inflict, his belief systems on others, by erecting barriers to another American citizen’s fundamental and substantive Constitutional rights, that cannot and must not be borne. Governmental officers are, after all, in this Nation, under our Constitution and under our system of laws, public servants. Their duty is to serve the people, not to command subservience of the people, to bend the will of the American citizenry to that official's will. The Bill of Rights operates as an absolute constraint on the authority of any Governmental official, whether serving at the Federal, State, County, or local level. The Bill of Rights cannot lawfully be overridden, either by Statute or by Executive fiat. The Bill of Rights sets the parameters beyond which no Governmental official is permitted lawfully to enter.The U.S. Supreme Court further stated, in Turner,“As a general rule, laws that by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content-based. See, e.g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 197, 119 L. Ed. 2d 5, 112 S. Ct. 1846 (1992) (‘Whether individuals may exercise their free-speech rights near polling places  depends entirely on whether their speech is related to a political campaign’); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318-319, 99 L. Ed. 2d 333, 108 S. Ct. 1157 (1988) (plurality opinion) (whether municipal ordinance permits individuals to ‘picket in front of a foreign embassy depends entirely upon whether their picket signs are critical of the foreign government or not’). By contrast, laws that confer benefits or impose burdens on speech without reference to the ideas or views expressed are in most instances content-neutral. See, e.g.  City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772, 104 S. Ct. 2118 (1984) (ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public property ‘is neutral—indeed it is silent—concerning any speaker's point of view’); Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649, 69 L. Ed. 2d 298, 101 S. Ct. 2559 (1981) (State Fair regulation requiring that sales and solicitations take place at designated locations ‘applies evenhandedly to all who wish to distribute and sell written materials or to solicit funds’).”The language of Latimer’s Executive Order is, on its face, content-based, not merely neutral-based. The Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, would, therefore, in our estimate, not withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES DO NOT EXIST IN AN ACADEMIC VACUUM. THEY AFFECT THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS IN A TANGIBLE WAY; AND TWO OR MORE RIGHTS, SUCH AS THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS OF THE SECOND, OFTEN COHERE. THEY OFTEN, AS HERE, IN THE CASE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS, GO HAND-IN-HAND.

Much of restrictive gun law legislation, apart from expressly conflicting with the Second Amendment, casts a bright light on the views of those who support such draconian legislation. It is demonstrative evidence for inferring that the proponents of such legislation seek not only to curb exercise of the fundamental, substantive right codified in the Second Amendment, but to curb the American citizen's First Amendment expression of that Second Amendment right. These two Rights go hand-in-hand. When antigun proponents talk disparagingly of a so-called "gun culture" or "culture of guns," that they seek to curb, they really mean to contravene, to place unconstitutional constraints on the free speech clause of the First Amendment too. George Latimer’s Executive Order, unlike many restrictive gun measures, overtly—not merely impliedly—infringes the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, afforded all American citizens and would, if challenged, likely be struck down as an unlawful overt and absolute attempt to control content of speech, well beyond the regulation of time, place, and manner of speech. George Latimer seeks to control expression of what to some constitutes an unpopular view as much as he seeks to contain gun shows in Westchester County. He sees public gun shows as unwanted displays of "gun culture" and of the "culture of guns" that he, along with other like-minded antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs denigrate, They thereupon attempt to contain, constrain and constrict and, eventually, to eradicate gun ownership and gun possession in this Nation, in the tangible, physical sense, But, they go beyond that. They seek much, much more. They seek no less than to eradicate, to excise from the memory of man, from the mind of the American citizenry, the very desire for, the very wish to exercise the right of the people to keep and bear arms--to erase, then, from the mind of each American citizen that anything sacred exists in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They seek for a day to arrive when people here perceive the Second Amendment as not merely archaic, anachronistic, and obsolete, but incongruent, bizarre, meaningless. To that end the mainstream news media Press and our Nation's Educational system is hard at work--hard at work to disrupt and destroy the Second Amendment and hard at work to destroy the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment and hard at work to change the American public's perceptions toward and to severely constrain the notion of freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment

GEORGE LATIMER'S EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY RAISES OTHER LEGAL, AS WELL AS PERTINENT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS, APART FROM THE EXECUTIVE ORDER'S NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

George Latimer's Westchester ban on public gun shows in Westchester County--a ban that does not simply regulate time, place and manner of public gun shows but amounts to a total prohibition on gun shows--must be seen for what it really is: pernicious, discriminatory State regulation, operating to deny to a substantial class of American citizens use of a public forum for a legitimate Constitutional purpose. The question posed for review is this: Does not George Latimer's Executive order operate overtly, and unconscionably, and contemptuously to unconstitutionally discriminate against an entire class of citizenry, namely those American citizens who desire to own and possess firearms, by denying to these American citizens a vehicle, in the form of a public forum, through which an American citizen, not under disability, may seek to view and purchase firearms and such other items, such as memorabilia, that an American citizen has the right to own and possess? If an American citizen seeks merely and only to exercise a fundamental, substantive Constitutional right and if a public accommodation allows that citizen to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right, on what basis can a Governmental agent--in this particular case, the County Executive, George Latimer--lawfully deny, in totality, to an American citizen, the use of a public accommodation in which that substantive, Constitutional right may be exercised? If a legal basis does not exist for a total ban on gun shows, then George Latimer's unilateral action constitutes no less than an overt, unconstitutional discrimination against gun owners who desire to own and possess firearms. If true, then, does not George Latimer's Executive order impinge on and infringe the due process and equal protection clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as operating as an infringement of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and as an infringement of the Second?That George Latimer deigns to allow private gun shows to continue to be held in Westchester County, apart from public gun shows--at least for the time being--does permissible use of private accommodations for gun shows obviate Constitutional issues associated with a total ban on public gun shows in Westchester County? Then, too, does not George Latimer's ban on public gun shows operate as a shifty and deceitful attempt to slide around what antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs and antigun conspirators see as the public gun show "loophole" to the instant criminal background check system under federal law? For, if public gun shows do not exist, then, the perceived "loophole" issue disappears into mist. But, is not the "loophole" issue and is not the very expression 'gun show loophole' itself a myth perpetrated by and perpetuated by antigun proponents, antigun provocateurs and antigun conspirators to strain and constrain exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms?We will continue with our analysis of the Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s Executive Order in a forthcoming article.

A CLOSING NOTE: WHAT WE ARE SEEING; WHAT IS AT STAKE.

We see, of late, and with more insistent and incessant fury, a bold attack on the very cultural traditions and core values and belief systems of this Country underway. Do American citizens not see that, despite the electoral triumph of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, there is a conscious, sinister, insidious, diabolical effort underway to undercut our most cherished rights and liberties, and that this process is being carried out by the sinister forces that crush Nation States? Do American citizens not see that these forces intend to crush our Nation State through a systematic, orchestrated scheme of disinformation, misinformation, pseudo-information, and non-information designed to demoralize the American citizenry; to impose a false sense of guilt onto the American citizenry; to confuse and confound the American citizenry; to devalue the Bill of Rights, to devalue the notion of 'American citizen,' to soften and mold and reshape the contours of this Nation's citizenry as if the American people were but a lump of clay; to transform the American citizenry into weak, guilt-ridden, anxious souls.We see that Americans have lost the right to privacy. They have lost the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. They have lost the right of free speech, the right to speak their mind, as threat of public reprimand, and threat of loss of employment are omnipresent. They are slowly losing their God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms.We see monopolistic corporate mega-structures emerging in all business sectors: technology, finance, media, entertainment. We see these colossal mega-structures imposing bizarre, alien rules and bizarre principles of behavior on society, across society. They are doing this with impertinence, impudence, false piety, and with a disgusting sense of self-righteousness, and with impunity. And they are using their horde of wealth and outsize power to influence Government. They are operating as if they were Government, but as a Government free of constraints imposed on Government by the Bill of Rights--a Document that is systematically being dismissed as irrelevant. We see our Nation awash in waves of illegal aliens, falsely and loudly clamoring for and oddly claiming rights they do not have and should never be given. And, we see waves of unassimilable, poverty-stricken, ill-informed, mentally lazy refugees flooding into our Country from failed States. These individuals make an unwieldy welfare State, that we are becoming, even more untenable. They strain our resources and require support from our citizenry. And, many in Congress support this, would allow this; would encourage this. They would enact new immigration laws that would further disrupt our economy, and negatively impact our mores, our values, our sacred roots. We see, even now, our history revised; our children taught alien ideas. Our sense of National identity is being turned on its head. More than questioned, national identity, as perceived by the founders of our free Republic, is now scorned, and reviled, and slowly revised.How far can this awful state of affairs go? When will the American people fight back to recover their sacred birthright? _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEW YORK TIMES NEWSPAPER’S NEW “GAG ORDER” POLICY PREVENTS ITS EMPLOYEES FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH? SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? GOING, GOING GONE IF THE NEW YORK TIMES WERE TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION!

THE NEW YORK TIMES BOMBARDS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WITH ‘GROUPTHINK’ AND ‘DOUBLESPEAK: WELCOME TO “1984” IN THE 21^ST CENTURY.

“We are poor little lambs Who have lost our way. Baa! Baa! Baa! We are little black sheep Who have gone astray. Baa! Baa! Baa!” ~ from the Wiffinpoof song, circa 1910; traditional closing number of the Wiffinpoofs, an a cappella group of Yale UniversityAs is our wont, the creators of the Arbalest Quarrel often peruse on Amazon.com—books, on philosophy, politics, science, and law, among various other categories of knowledge to assist us in the work we do for our readers in defense of our most sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we write this, we came across a book, serendipitously, and one which we may purchase, titled, “Reasons Why,” by Bradford Skow. The illustration on the book’s cover is whimsical: a platypus seemingly contemplating a strawberry. And, lest one believe the book was written for a child, the answer is decidedly, “no.”Notwithstanding the straightforward, seemingly, superficially simplistic title, the material is decidedly tantalizingly complex. We perused a few pages of the book, on-line, as Amazon sometimes permits. We bring this matter up here because the subject matter of the book, “why questions,” drew us to consider something about the mainstream media that is somewhat mystifying to apprehend and, at once, frightening to contemplate. Mainstream media organizations—comprising major newspapers, radio, television, and internet—are drawn more and more to proselytize to the American public rather than to simply report the news, and this is contrary to the basic import and purport of news organizations. But, what is the purpose of a news organization? We ask:

WHAT IS THE IMPLIED GOAL—THE TRADITIONAL, PRIMARY PURPOSE OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS? THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A NEWSPAPER IS TO CONVEY TO THE PUBLIC A RECORD OF THE DAY’S EVENTS: TO REPORT THE NEWS, THEN, AND TO REPORT THE NEWS CLEARLY, ACCURATELY, OBJECTIVELY, WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT.  IN PROVIDING AN ACCOUNT OF EVENTS IN THE WORLD, A NEWSPAPER MUST REFRAIN FROM WEIGHING IN ON THE EVENTS IT REPORTS ABOUT THE WORLD. FOR, ONCE A NEWSPAPER WEIGHS IN ON EVENTS THAT IT REPORTS, THAT IT DESCRIBES, THE NEWSPAPER, THEN, IS NO LONGER, AND CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AN OBJECTIVE, NEUTRAL OBSERVER, NAMELY, ONE OPERATING APART FROM THE EVENTS, BUT, RATHER, BECOMES, INSTEAD, AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE EVENTS—IN THE VERY SHAPING OF EVENTS A NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON. AND, ONCE A NEWSPAPER BECOMES PART OF THE EVENTS, THE OBSERVED, RATHER THAN THE NEUTRAL OBSERVER, THE NEWSPAPER, THEREUPON LOSES ITS OBJECTIVITY—LOSES ALL OBJECTIVITY. BUT, THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BOTHER MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS IF THEY BOTHER TO CONSIDER THE LOSS OF OBJECTIVITY IN THEIR REPORTING THE NEWS AT ALL. TODAY, MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS, LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES, ARE NOT CONTENT MERELY TO REPORT THE NEWS, BUT ARE TELLING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HOW THEY ARE EXPECTED TO THINK ABOUT THE NEWS. OBJECTIVITY IS THEREBY COMPLETELY LOST. REPORTERS BECOME MINISTERS OF PRIVATE BENEFACTORS, UNKNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY BECOME PROPAGANDISTS. EVERYTHING REPORTED IS SUSPECT.

MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT OBJECTIVELY, NEUTRALLY, AND DRYLY TELLING THE PUBLIC ABOUT CRITICAL EVENTS IN THE WORLD—AND THEY ARE NOT REPORTING ON ALL THE CRITICAL EVENTS. RATHER, MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS SELECTIVELY REPORT EVENTS AND THEY DO NOT ALLOWTHE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO MAKE UP ITS OWN MIND ABOUT THE EVENTS REPORTED. THESE MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ARE, AT ONCE, TELLING THE PUBLIC HOW THEY SHOULD REACT TO EVENTS, HOW THEY ARE TO THINK ABOUT THE EVENTS, REPORTED.

Journalists, also referred to as—and, traditionally, more inclined to prefer the term, ‘reporters,’ as the latter expression is narrower, suggesting specifically what these professionals do, namely reporting news events rather than journalizing whatever may come to mind—learn, in college, before commencing work for mainstream news organizations, what reporting of news encompasses and, just as importantly, what it does not. Whether through the written or spoken word, reporters are expected to—well—report the news, nothing more and nothing less. To do their job correctly, appropriately, reporters are expected to report news accounts clearly and dryly, without embellishment, utilizing nouns and verbs, eschewing the use of adjectives and adverbs, to avoid “coloring” their reporting. They are expected to propound propositions that mirror truth, under the epistemic correspondence theory of truth they ascribe to, with the goal of providing the American public with reports on facts--'states of affairs' as philosophers prefer to refer to these “things,” “facts”--about and in the world, rather than propounding subjective  evaluations, about the facts, that is to say, providing extraneous comments about the states of affairs reported on.Reporters answer fundamental ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and, occasionally, ‘how’ questions. It is not the purpose of reporters to ask and to discuss ‘why’ questions, which brings us back to Skow’s book, directed principally to the philosophy of science, as “why” questions set the stage for causal explanations for events. Yet, today, we see mainstream media encroaching more and more on ‘why’ questions. They do so—as they may say—to engage the public in open and lively discussion, and to give context to their news reporting. They attempt to explain the reasons for events and, they proceed, then, to a consideration of changes that they believe should occur for the benefit of society. But that is shifty, deceptive, and not the basic motivation of mainstream news reporters for dealing with “why” questions at all. They provide answers to “why” questions to manipulate thought. They sermonize. Sometimes they do this calmly and collectedly. More often they do this callously and caustically; bombastically and sanctimoniously; stridently and angrily. They do this to cajole the public into accepting the nonsense they spout, attempting to convince the public that their prescriptions for dealing with the many events they report on, that they write about, is right, and proper, and just, and should be acted upon by policy makers. Many Americans—all too many members of the American public, to date, but, increasingly, fortunately, fewer members of the American public, through time—do still accept, unconditionally and uncritically, the presumptuous and vapid claptrap the mainstream media offers up for the American public’s consumption. Indeed, these reporters—now propagandists —working for mainstream newspapers and other mainstream news organizations, attempt to disguise the subjective evaluations they propound about events as true, simple, to-the-point, objective, accurate accounts of the events reported on, when subjective evaluations and objective reports about states of affairs in and of and about the world merge into each other, or where one becomes the other, and the public is left with the impression that it has received bare factual accounts about news events when they are really obtaining subjective appraisals of the events reported on.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S DANGEROUS PREOCCUPATION WITH FIREARMS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

One of the favorite topics of the mainstream media involves news about ‘gun crimes,’ which are particularly susceptible to this subterfuge that mainstream news reporters engage in which is to mix objective news accounts into subjective evaluations.  If newspaper and cable networks and radio simply reported instances of ‘gun crimes,’ dryly and matter-of-factly, and left the matter at that, that would be fine. But, then, mainstream newspapers and cable news networks, were they true to their creed, would also report on defensive uses of firearms. Yet, the mainstream newspapers and their affiliates on cable news invariably remain silent on defensive use of guns by law-abiding citizens who forestall gun violence, through use of their own firearm or who use a firearm, as necessary, to defend themselves or to defend other innocent lives. One would think that accurate reporting would require newspaper accounts to strive to report all news events: to report, then, on the use of firearms by ordinary Americans to thwart violent criminal acts, as well as to report gun crimes committed by lunatics, terrorists, criminal gang members, and by your garden-variety common criminal.

SELECTIVE NEWS REPORTING IS DEMONSTRATIVE OF “FAKE NEWS” NO LESS SO THAN FALSE REPORTING OF NEWS

The non-reporting of critical news events constitutes deception no less than the false reporting of news events and no less than the habit of mainstream news reporters of adroitly stirring subjective evaluations into news accounts. The mainstream media, including, prominently, The New York Times—whose motto is, “All the News That’s Fit to Print”—infers, or, more correctly, assumes that defensive use of firearms isn’t news that’s fit to print at all; so, the American public doesn’t see it. But, it is news just the same and, to our mind, this news does fall squarely into the domain of “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” The New York Times refuses to report on instances of defensive uses of guns as that tends to denigrate and weaken the running narrative that guns cause only bad things to happen. Still, if The New York Times stuck to reporting gun violence and refrained from proselytizing about the “evil” of guns, we might accept reporting of those events involving gun violence alone even if the Times’ accounting of “use of guns” is incomplete—as in the case of utilization of firearms for self-defense. Unfortunately, The New York Times and other mainstream news organizations do not and will not stop with reporting the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how’ of gun violence. These mainstream news organizations tread dangerously into the realm of the ‘why’.’ They dare to ask, rhetorically, ‘why did the individual commit a violent act with a gun.’ The ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how’ of gun violence, then, is merely a side-note. It is merely incidental to and serves to buttress their argument for strengthening draconian gun laws and adding ever more to the serried ranks of restrictive federal and State gun laws and local gun ordinances. And, it is these arguments for ever more restrictions on the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms that the mainstream media makes, constantly, ad nauseum: sermonizing, proselytizing to the American public.The reporting of news merely operates, then, as an introduction to what it is that mainstream news organizations really wish to do which to address “the need to get rid of guns in this Country.” So, reporters and editors of mainstream news organizations, like The New York Times, mention instances of gun violence in order that they might proceed with their long-running, never-ending polemic on why gun violence occurs and wherefore gun violence happens and ‘why civilian access to guns is wrong and why, therefore, guns ought to be abolished. And, that is where mainstream news organizations have gone astray. They should protect this Nation, this Free Republic; but they have, instead, hijacked this Nation as they work strenuously, and actively, and insidiously against it, undermining the Nation’s Bill of Rights, all the while masquerading that they are the guardians of it, oblivious to the inherent invidiousness of their pronouncements.Mainstream news Reporters and Editors wrongly assume the role of psychologists, and psychiatrists, and sociologists, and politicians, and ethicists, and attorneys among others. They do not merely report the news, they attempt to explain the news. In so doing, the mainstream media no longer remains the outside, neutral observer of news events, coolly describing events, but insinuates itself into the events themselves, observing itself and thereupon reflecting its own image onto the American public’s psyche, and, in a most contemptuous fashion, proclaiming to the American public how the public ought to see the world and how the world ought to be molded and shaped.And, with that—with attempts to answer “why” questions—these mainstream news organizations carefully construct and carefully calibrate their explanations and use these explanations as springboards to “ought imperatives” such as: ‘no American civilian ought to have access to firearms;’ and ‘this Nation ought to have more stringent, common-sense gun control laws’; and ‘this Country ought to perceive gun ownership and gun possession as unnecessary and dangerous to the well-being of a modern society;’ and ‘Americans should abhor guns like most citizens do who reside in other Western Countries, like those citizens of Nations that comprise the EU do;’ and ‘ everyone has the right of free speech as long as one’s comments do not offend another person’s sensibilities; and ‘employers ought to be able to control their employees thoughts and ideas, whether on the job or off,’ and that ‘censoring of ideas and opinions and beliefs is wrong, except that, sometimes, it could be right.’Not content to declare what it is that happens to be the case—the “thus and so” of a given news event—mainstream news reporters and editorial boards tell us what “ought to be the case.” Now, generally, newspapers have used opinion editorials—“Op-Eds”—as a place where they feel they are at liberty to answer the ‘why,’ the cause of such event, and, therein, to express and expound upon the ‘ought,’ as they see it, from the occurrence of a given event. But this seeming bright-line separation between “news” and “opinion” is no longer perceptible or tenable in the age of mind control and psychological conditioning through various media mechanisms. The one flows seamlessly into the other. But normative ‘ought’ statements—normative prescriptions of the way the world should be, according to mainstream media—do not logically follow from ‘is’ statements—descriptions of the way the world happens to be, notwithstanding that mainstream news Reporters and Editors assume that ought prescriptions can be derived from and deduced from “is” descriptions, and we see, now, that Reporters and Editors of mainstream news organizations commence to operate as if the one can be derived from and deduced from the other. But, they cannot.It is hardly a secret that mainstream newspapers, like The New York Times, vehemently, indeed virulently, oppose possession of firearms by anyone in society, other than law enforcement, and other than the military and--although they won’t admit it--other than by the powerful, ruthless billionaire class that increasingly rules us and that seeks to destroy our free Republic, and that seeks to destroy the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State, and that seeks to destroy our unique and sacred Bill of Rights.Now, even as the owners of mainstream media vehicles will quickly deny—at least in their reporting of events—any specific position toward firearms and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the fact of the matter is that the owners of these mainstream media news vehicles have, as with any other subject discussed in their media vehicles’ “bag of tricks,” specific opinions that infiltrate, insinuate themselves into, and seep and filter in and through, descriptions of news events. So, the public is not obtaining merely descriptions of news events, but prescriptions about how the public should think about those events and the sorts of actions that should be taken by policy makers from those events. Bad enough that mainstream media is reduced to propagandizing and proselytizing to the public through control of virtually every major form of media apart from a few outlier websites such as the Arbalest Quarrel, but mainstream media seeks, of late, to control the thoughts and actions of their own employees, too.Consider, one mainstream media news organization, The New York Times, goes so far as to control its reporters’ exercise of their personal First Amendment right of Free Speech even when they are not writing specifically for the newspaper. This is reprehensible and, likely would not survive Constitutional muster if challenged and is odd, too, when one considers that The New York Times, and other mainstream media news organizations, vociferously, presumptuously, and hypocritically argue that the President wrongly attacks their First Amendment right of freedom of the Press. Yet, the U.S. President is also a citizen and, as a citizen, he certainly has the right, guaranteed under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to call out “fake news” narratives when he sees it. And, he rightly does so, on behalf of himself and on behalf of those Americans who support him.

GROUPTHINK VERSUS THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

Lest the reader of this article think that the Arbalest Quarrel has made a false claim about The New York Times controlling its employees’ expression of personal opinion, outside of employment, we point out that the Times, itself, expressly admits as much. On October 16, 2017, a reporter for the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, writing in the Business Section of the Times newspaper, in an article titled, “Seeing Right Through Tech Chiefs’ Talk of Better ‘Transparency’”, said: “My newspaper [The New York Times] is [when reporting on Tech Companies control of their employees’ opinions], also dealing with the question of how transparent a person should be on social media. On Friday, it announced a new policy for its journalists requiring them to avoid say anything on the platform [that is to say, reporters must avoid saying anything on any and all vehicles, aside from The New York Times, when, on their own time] that they could not say under the banner of The New York Times. At a TimesTalks event in Washington on Thursday night, the Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, said that overly opinionated or partisan tweets could undermine the paper’s mission of reporting ‘objectively and clearly.’” Who is Baquet kidding? The assertion is nonsensical and disingenuous to boot. For, it isn’t “objective and clear reporting” that the NY Times newspaper is interested in protecting. It is, rather, a specific “subjective viewpoint” that the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times seeks to foster and buttress, and it is a subjective viewpoint that the drafters’ of the newspaper’s new policy obviously presume that every employee of the newspaper knows or should know. In fostering and buttressing that viewpoint, the newspaper’s owners and Editorial Board would squelch a reporter’s right of free speech in that reporter’s capacity as an American citizen, even when, on that reporter’s own time, the reporter wishes freely to express his or her own viewpoint on a subject, absent constraints imposed on the reporter in the course of his or her work for the newspaper. Obviously, it isn’t objective facts that the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times is concerned about protecting—despite what Baquet says; for, after all, the facts can take care of themselves. Rather, it is the running narrative—the “why” and of a story—that The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board wish to maintain an overarching monopoly on. It is the running narrative, as it were, that they wish to control and that they intend to control, through the Times’ new policy.The newspaper, thereupon, muzzles and censors its own reporters First Amendment free speech rights, through a policy that operates essentially as a “gag order” lest its reporters, and any other employee, working for the newspaper, weaken the running narrative the newspaper’s publisher owners and Editorial Board wish to convey and to maintain clear, categorical, and unequivocal. Consider, too, that, this new policy directive of the New York Times, as issued by the executive editor, Dean Baquet is logically absurd, as well as legally insupportable. For, if a newspaper is simply describing events, objectively and clearly—the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when, ‘where,’ and, occasionally, ‘how,’ of the news—an account that “mirrors” a state of affairs in the world, how can such objective description feasibly be subject to subjective analysis? The answer is that it cannot; for such descriptive account of a news event, of a particular state of affairs in the world, can only admit of one accurate descriptive account, not multiple accounts. Only subjective analyses—one’s opinions—of descriptive accounts can admit of and allow for multiple and incompatible propositions about an event. Thus, there can only be one accurate descriptive account about any given actual state of affairs but many subjective opinions about that one descriptive account. If so, then how can one’s opinion about an objective news account, the ‘why’ statements and ‘ought’ statements, “undermine the paper’s mission of reporting ‘objectively and clearly?’” The answer is that opinions cannot undermine a newspaper’s objective reporting of an event.Recall what we said, supra. Normative, prescriptive ‘ought’ statements about the way the world should be do not logically follow from or entail descriptive ‘is’ statements, namely declarative propositions about the way the world happens to be. So, then, take the example of a lunatic, or psychopathic terrorist who kills innocent people with a gun. The newspaper reporter recounts the event in a news story. Likely, the news account will be, as well, laced with inaccurate, suggestive wording regarding the gun incident. Then, suppose that the reporter that wrote the story for the newspaper, writes, on his own time, on a social media site, that he supports the arming of all American citizens, as a method for reducing criminal gun violence. Would that supposition undermine a newspaper’s mission of reporting accurately and objectively? How can it? It cannot. It cannot because logically accurate, objective, clear reporting of an event—that is to say, logically accurate, objective, clear reporting of a state of affairs in and of the world—does not implicate and cannot implicate, anything, intelligible about the way the world—from one perspective or another—ought to be. Yet, you and I both know where this goes. For, assume, then, the newspaper’s editorial board, follows up the descriptive account of a terrorist murdering innocent people with a firearm, with an Op-Ed calling for new restrictive gun laws, impacting law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens' exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, if a reporter working for the newspaper were to argue, contrary to the position of the editorial board, that all law-abiding, sane, responsible Americans ought to be armed and that Congress should enact a national handgun carry reciprocity law, such normative viewpoint on gun ownership and possession would be at loggerheads with the editorial board’s own normative viewpoint on gun ownership and possession--one calling for confiscation of all firearms in the hands of civilians.It is not the descriptive account of a violent gun incident that the newspaper owners and editorial board are concerned about protecting. Rather, it is the normative, prescriptive remarks concerning the buttressing of restrictive gun laws that The New York Times owners and Editorial Board is desirous of protecting. For, the two normative, prescriptive viewpoints—one viewpoint expressing the desire for more restrictive gun laws and the other viewpoint calling for a relaxing of restrictive gun laws—are semantically incompatible and logically inconsistent. The reporter who writes something, on his own time, in another medium, arguing for the arming of civilian population in America could end up receiving a “pink slip” from his employer, a mainstream news organization, for that employee's troubles—and he may receive a very public rebuke as well.Extrapolating from this, to the new policy of the NY Times, it should be evident that the mission of the newspaper is not, contrary to Dean Baquet’s assertions, undermined if the newspaper were only concerned about protecting clear and objective and accurate reporting of news events. It is, rather, something other or, at least, in addition to the protection of objective and accurate reporting of news events. For, the more emphatic, persistent, and ominous mission of The New York Times is one not of reporting news events, it is, rather, one of persuasion—persuading the American citizenry, for example, that civilian gun possession should be radically restrained and constrained, and that the Second Amendment is archaic and should be repealed. And, these normative prescriptions of the way the Nation ought to look, of the way things ought to be are conveyed to the American public constantly, vociferously, incessantly, through the medium of The New York Times. Obviously, a reporter that does not share the normative worldview of the newspaper’s publisher and owners and of the Newspaper’s Editorial Board and who wishes to make his or her contrary thoughts known in another medium, on his or her own time, will be skating on thin ice, for it is this person’s personal opinion that the newspaper’s owners and editors really see as undermining one specific mission of the paper—a mission that is directed to restricting and thereby weakening gun rights, not expanding or strengthening gun rights. The objective reporting of a particular instance of gun violence is not affected by differing opinions concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The matter of restricting or strengthening gun rights has, then, absolutely nothing to do with the mere reporting of a particular incidence of gun violence. Normative, ethical pronouncements have nothing to do with and do not follow from a descriptive accounting of a particular event in the world. But, the newspaper’s owners and editors don’t wish to acknowledge this. They do not wish to be seen as preventing their employees from exercising their fundamental right of free speech. So, they concoct a subterfuge. They come up with a ludicrous rationale for their news policy—a rationale that is tantamount to doing just what they do not wish to be seen as doing: preventing their reporters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak freely, and on their own time, whatever it is that their reporters may wish to say, pertaining to personal opinions about this or that subject, through a medium other than through The New York Times newspaper.The NY Times’ owners thus deny to their employees the free exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a right they, as members of an “aristocratic elite,” as they fashion themselves, garner for themselves. And, of course, these aristocratic “elite” see no inconsistency in reserving for themselves those fundamental rights that they would deny to their employees, as American citizens, and which they would deny to most every other American citizen if they could, whether it be the right of free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that they would like to restrict or the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Imagine, for a moment, that the writers of the Arbalest Quarrel happened to work as reporters for the NY Times. Would the Times’ publishers and editors suffer us to write in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Not under this new policy as heralded by Dean Baquet, which he, as a spokesperson for The New York Times, sees as a good thing, as a positive thing. But that can only mean The New York Times does not draw a tenable distinction between its opinion articles and its news articles. Objective facts and subjective opinion are conflated. Opinion and Fact are all one and the same for the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times. Thus, The New York Times owners and Editorial Board, through this incongruous sleight-of-hand, argue that its reporters cannot offer an opinion, even on their own time and through a medium other than the newspaper they work for if that opinion happens to be inconsistent with and therefore is perceived as operating to the detriment of the newspaper owners’ and Editorial Board’s running of an Op-Ed/News narrative. This, though, has nothing to do with protecting objective facts which can very well take care of themselves. It has everything to do with controlling the thought processes of the public. The public is coerced into accepting one line of thought regarding any subject that The New York Times happens to write on and the Newspaper will suffer no viewpoint to the contrary.

THE OWNERS AND EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ARE HYPOCRITES

The hypocrisy of the NY Times’ owners and Editorial Board toward the First Amendment free speech protection—a right it would retain for itself, as coupled with freedom of the Press, and which it has the audacity to refuse exercise of by the Newspaper’s employees—was not lost on another mainstream newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, no less a mainstream newspaper—a “gatekeeper” ostensibly on “the right” of the political spectrum, but still a mainstream media newspaper just the same, representing the wealthy “nobility” in this Country. William McGurn, writing an Opinion, titled, “The NFL vs. the New York Times,” on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, quoting the NY Times editor, Baquet, at length, which the NY Times itself dared only to touch upon ever so slightly for its readers, noted the hypocrisy and doublespeak and smug self-assurance coming from the Times. “Mr. Baquet says ‘. . . In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation. Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively. These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics. . . . We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy. . . . While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones. Separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or ‘like’ online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.” If this is the rationale for gagging a citizen’s right of free speech, it is a poor argument, as it denigrates the very idea inherent in a newspaper—the notion of factual reporting of events. It also denigrates the very notion of free expression, one of the essential legs upon which a free Republic—our free Republic—stands. Indeed, it is the very notion of critical comment and commentary that the American public has a right to demand. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board admit their fear of critical comment, commentary, and review. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board admit their fear of public consumption of opinions different from and contrary to their own. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board fear open and public and lively debate. All this the American public now hears from a newspaper that loudly proclaims the right of a Free Press, codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—but, apparently, only so long as there exists one voice—that of the NY Times’ owners and Editorial Board which they would deign the American public to hear. Through this policy The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board are telling their employees that the purpose of The New York Times goes far beyond the mere reporting of “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” far beyond the recitation of objective facts. The newspaper’s owners and Editorial Board has informed the American public, “clearly and objectively and accurately, that the newspaper engages in influence peddling and, more, that it will suffer no viewpoint on any subject other than its own, as dictated to it by its benefactors: the enclave of  incorrigible, intractable, ruthless, secretive, inordinately wealthy and powerful internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist “elite,” both here and abroad, who seek to undercut the sovereignty of this Nation, who seek to undermine the supremacy of this Nation’s laws, and who seek to pervert and debase the sanctity of the natural and fundamental rights of this Nation’s citizenry.The New York Times’ new policy goes well beyond the import and purport of the Hatch Act that applies to Federal Government Bureaucrats. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits the vast Federal Government Bureaucracy from taking part in political campaign activities, but the Act does not prevent a Government Bureaucrat from expressing his own political or social or philosophical view on social media, on his or her own time, as that would be at loggerheads with the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Yet, the new policy of The New York Times' Editorial Board goes must further. For, here we have a mainstream newspaper, the fervent promoter of and benefactor of the Freedom of Press clause of the First Amendment, that dares to deny of its own employees the right of free speech—which also resides within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—when those employees wish to exercise, outside of their employment in their capacity as American citizens, the right embodied in the First Amendment. Thus, The New York Times disparages and decries of others what it would monopolize for itself—the right to express an opinion. Clearly the Times Newspaper is not interested in protecting objectivity in reporting. It is only interested in controlling opinion and, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the NY Times intends to control opinion--to control the narrative--completely, even if the exercise of that control amounts to denying--denying of its own employees, in their capacity as citizens of the United States, and denying to those employees, hypocritically, as well as denying to those employees, unlawfully-- the very right of free speech, which it would jealously guard for itself.Apparently, The New York Times is taking its cue from Germany. In an article posted on June 30, 2017, titled, “Delete Hate Speech or Pay Up, Germany Tells Social Media Companies,”  NY Times Reporters, Melissa Eddy and Mark Scott, write:“Social media companies operating in Germany face fines of as much as $57 million if they do not delete illegal, racist or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours under a law passed on Friday.The law reinforces Germany’s position as one of the most aggressive countries in the Western world at forcing companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to crack down on hate speech and other extremist messaging on their digital platforms.But the new rules have also raised questions about freedom of expression. Digital and human rights groups, as well as the companies themselves, opposed the law on the grounds that it placed limits on individuals’ right to free expression. Critics also said the legislation shifted the burden of responsibility to the providers from the courts, leading to last-minute changes in its wording.Technology companies and free speech advocates argue that there is a fine line between policy makers’ views on hate speech and what is considered legitimate freedom of expression, and social networks say they do not want to be forced to censor those who use their services. Silicon Valley companies also deny that they are failing to meet countries’ demands to remove suspected hate speech online.Still, German authorities pressed ahead with the legislation. Germany witnessed an increase in racist comments and anti-immigrant language after the arrival of more than a million migrants, predominantly from Muslim countries, since 2015, and Heiko Maas, the justice minister who drew up the draft legislation, said on Friday, that it ensured that rules that currently apply offline would be equally enforceable in the digital sphere.”As a prime example of hypocritical, contradictory “doublespeak,” the Times Reporters, add this remark of Maas:“‘With this law, we put an end to the verbal law of the jungle on the internet and protect the freedom of expression for all,” Mr. Maas said. “We are ensuring that everyone can express their opinion freely, without being insulted or threatened.’“That is not a limitation, but a prerequisite for freedom of expression,” he continued.” What? Taking away a person’s right of free speech is to be equated with giving that person the right of free speech? Unless something was lost in translating the German into English, here, this remark by Heiko Maas is a contradiction in terms and the quintessence of bombastic absurdity. Maas should be ashamed of himself. Apparently, though, The New York Times felt there was something noteworthy in the remarks of Maas to the extent that The New York Times felt that Germany’s new National policy is worthy of adoption by the Times newspaper itself. Incredible! But, the absurdity fostered transcends well beyond the Times itself. As the newspaper reports, major publishing houses are hiring so-called “sensitivity readers”—at the moment directed to the writers of children’s books. In an article, published on December 24, 2017, titled, “In an Era of Online Outrage, Do Sensitivity Readers Result in Better Books, or Censorship?,” by Times reporter, Alexandra Alter, we are told that,“In today’s hair-trigger, hyperreactive social media landscape, where a tweet can set off a cascade of outrage and prompt calls for a book’s cancellation, children’s book authors and publishers are taking precautions to identify potential pitfalls in a novel’s premise or execution. Many are turning to sensitivity readers, who provide feedback on issues like race, religion, gender, sexuality, chronic illness and physical disabilities. The role that readers play in shaping children’s books has become a flash point in a fractious debate about diversity, cultural appropriation and representation, with some arguing that the reliance on sensitivity readers amounts to censorship. . . . Behind the scenes, these readers are having a profound impact on children’s literature, reshaping stories in big and small ways before they reach impressionable young audiences. Like fact checkers or copy editors, sensitivity readers can provide a quality-control backstop to avoid embarrassing mistakes, but they specialize in the more fraught and subjective realm of guarding against potentially offensive portrayals of minority groups, in everything from picture books to science fiction and fantasy novels. . . . Some see a downside to publishers’ growing reliance on sensitivity readers, and warn that it could lead to sanitized books that tiptoe around difficult topics. Skeptics say the heightened scrutiny discourages authors from writing about cultures other than their own, resulting in more homogenized literature. “Can we no longer read ‘Othello’ because Shakespeare wasn’t black?” the novelist Francine Prose wrote recently in an essay about sensitivity readers and censorship in The New York Review of Books."The NY Times' reporters, continue:

"Others have echoed that view, arguing that sensitivity readers might have derailed works like William Styron’s “The Confessions of Nat Turner,” Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” or Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” After the subject was covered in Slate, a writer for National Review fretted that “if ‘sensitivity readers’ are given the freedom to hijack authors’ visions, we’re going to lose some beloved works of art that we could have otherwise enjoyed.”

Is The New York Times’ “gag order” policy anything less than an attempt to censor opinion? Does not The New York Times impose its own sensitivity readers—its Editorial Board—on all ideas expressed. We are seeing, in this Country, an attempt to second-guess every written and spoken word. The American public is not the better but all the worse for it.This attempt by the Deep State and by the mainstream media to control guns, to control thoughts, to control actions is leading to societal upheaval, mass hysteria, pandemonium. Perhaps this is by design—an attempt to create volatility and confusion in order to weaken this Nation, to weaken its resolve, to weaken the Bill of Rights so that we, American citizens, will be ripe for takeover by the powers that seek to crush us into submission.

HOW FAR WILL THE NEW YORK TIMES AND OTHER MAINSTREAM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS GO TO TRAMPLE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS WE ENTER A NEW YEAR?

As this year draws to an end, The New York Times has commenced a series of articles, “The Home Front,” where the newspaper’s Editorial Board is calling for a major transformation of the Lautenberg Amendment, 18 USCS § 921(a)(33)(A)(i). What is the Lautenberg Amendment? Essentially the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, following in the footsteps of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, makes it unlawful for any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a gun. Here we have the NY Times Editorial Board writing an extensive series of articles on a law—subsumed under the Gun Control Act of 1968—that the Editorial Board knows little, if anything about, and seems to care even less of what it may know about, the law, but writes with presumed and presumptuous authority and certitude about a law as if it knows full well whereof it speaks. Yet, it knows nothing. Nonetheless, the NY Times Editorial Board skirts broad discussion of the actual law itself and yet writes extensively and boldly about why the law needs to be strengthened.The NY Times' Editorial Board should not be proselytizing to the American public on matters beyond its professional ability to explain and decipher. Actually, the Editorial Board should not be proselytizing to the American public at all, but certainly not on matters of law, especially those impacting fundamental Constitutional Rights. The Editorial Board, likely, does not include lawyers. Unfortunately, that doesn’t prevent, the Editorial Board from expounding upon the law. That it chooses to do so is illustrative of an overbearing pompous attitude exhibited in discussing legal matters. This pompous attitude adds to, rather than distracts from, this Newspaper’s condescending attitude toward its readers. The Editorial Board apparently believes it can successfully cloak its ineptitude concerning law and legal matters by cultivating an air of moral superiority when pontificating on matters involving firearms and on the exercise of the right to keep and bear them.The Editorial Board of the NY Times suggests—nay, demands—as seen in this series, which has yet to conclude, that the law—the Lautenberg Amendment—ought to be transformed. The Editorial Board would create a monstrosity, denying to millions of Americans their right to own and possess firearms.We will take to task in forthcoming articles on the Lautenberg Amendment in the New Year. We will provide you with the language of the Statute as it exists—something The New York Times will not provide for its readers. We will explain the meaning of the law as drafted and enacted, and will discuss problems with it, in the context of the Second Amendment and in the context of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well. The law is poorly drafted. The New York Times would make a poorly drafted law even worse, as it calls on the public to blindly go where the newspaper leads it—to the edge of a cliff.Returning, for a moment, to the Yale a cappella group’s Wiffinpoof Song, consider, in light of the foregoing remarks set down in this essay:

WHO REALLY ARE THESE “BLACK LITTLE SHEEP IN THE WIFFINPOOF SONG WHO HAVE LOST THEIR WAY? ARE THE BLACK LITTLE SHEEP THOSE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHO HOLD TO TRADITIONAL VALUES, MORES, CODES OF CONDUCT, HISTORICAL PURITY—WHO VIEW THIS NATION AS THE FOUNDERS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, ESTABLISHED—OR DO THEY INCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS NATION: NAMELY AND PARTICULARLY, THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE  MAINSTREAM MEDIA; VARIOUS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS; THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE VAST BUREAUCRACY OF GOVERNMENT; AND NOT LEAST, THOSE CONFUSED AMERICANS WHO HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE CAREFULLY PLANNED AND ORCHESTRATED RUSE THAT NATIONALISM IS BAD, THAT OPEN BORDERS ARE GOOD; THAT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES HIM OR HERSELF TO BE AN ‘AMERICAN’ IS AN ‘AMERICAN’ EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS RESIDING HERE ILLEGALLY; THAT GUNS ARE EVIL AND THAT GUN BUYBACKS ARE GOOD; THAT GENDER IS NOT BIOLOGICAL AND ABSOLUTE BUT INFINITELY MALLEABLE, SO THAT A MAN IS A WOMAN AND A WOMAN IS A MAN AS ONE WISHES TO BE; OR, PERHAPS, NEITHER, OR PERHAPS, BOTH AT ONCE; AND THAT WE, AMERICAN CITIZENS, ARE NO LONGER TRULY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT, RATHER, CITIZENS OF THE WORLD—ONE BIG, GLORIOUS HAPPY FAMILY, FIXATED ON MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE: SPORTS, ENTERTAINMENT, CLOTHES AND JEWELRY AND COSMETICS—THE DAILY DOSE OF SOMA TO KEEP A PERSON, HAPPY, CONTENTED, AND ASLEEP? PERHAPS, TO SOME EXTENT, BOTH ARE “BLACK LITTLE SHEEP”: AMERICANS WHO SEEK TO HOLD ON TO THEIR BIRTHRIGHT, WHO CHOOSE NOT TO “GET WITH” THE NEW PROGRAM, THE BRAVE NEW WORLD ORDER, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THOSE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHO SEEK TO DEMOLISH THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION, OF THIS REPUBLIC, HAD SO LOVINGLY BEQUEATHED TO US, THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY? PERHAPS THIS NATION AND ITS CITIZENS AND THE IGNORANT, ILL-INFORMED AMONG US AND THE DEMON KIND WHO WISH TO RULE OVER EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING ARE ALL WELL LOST AND HAVE ALL GONE ASTRAY. PERHAPS IT IS MUCH TOO LATE FOR THIS NATION AND MUCH TOO LATE FOR ALL THE DENIZENS IN IT. IF SO, THEN, LET US ALL CHIME IN: “BAA, BAA, BAA!” BUT, WE HOPE ALL IS NOT LOST FOR US, TRUE AMERICANS, WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE OUR NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR CONSTITUTION'S MOST SACRED AND CRITICAL COMPONENT--THE BILL OF RIGHTS--WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE OUR NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALISTS, TO UPHOLD OUR TRADITIONS, OUR VALUES, IN THE MODE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS GREAT NATION, IN THE MODE OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION. WE MUST CARRY ON; WE MUST PERSEVERE, AND WE MUST BE EVER WARY AND CAUTIOUS OF THOSE WHO TALK ABOUT CHANGING OUR NATION, CHANGING OUR CORE VALUES AND CORE TRADITIONS, CHANGING OUR HISTORY, "TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES;" FOR THESE ARE PSEUDO AMERICANS; THEY ARE THE BETRAYERS OF OUR NATION, THEY ARE BETRAYERS OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS FREE REPUBLIC; THEY ARE BETRAYERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OF OUR SACRED BILL OF RIGHTS. THEY USE AN ODD NOTION OF MORALITY TO CLOAK THEIR DESIRE TO TEAR DOWN THIS NATION STATE; TO DESTROY OUR SOVEREIGNTY; TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION; TO DESTROY OUR NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES--RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT EXIST IN US INTRINSCIALLY AS THEY COME TO US FROM THE CREATOR AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE LAWFULLY TAKEN FROM US BY GOVERNMENT. WE MUST PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE. ALL THESE NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE UNDER CONCERTED ATTACK BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND BY THEIR FELLOW TRAVEVLERS IN CONGRESS AND BY THOSE BUREAUCRATS THAT LURK IN THE SHADOWY CORNERS OF GOVERNMENT, UNSEEN AND UNHEARD, AND BY THE SECRETIVE AND RUTHLESS INTERNATIONALIST, TRANS-NATIONALIST ROTHSCHILD CLAN AND BY THEIR TOADIES IN THE UN AND IN THE WTO, IMF, WORLD BANK AND IN OTHER "INTERNATIONAL" ORGANIZATIONS--EVER SCHEMING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO INCORPORATE THIS NATION INTO THE EU AND EVENTUALLY TO DISMEMBER ALL WESTERN NATION STATES, MERGING AND SUBMERGING THEM INTO A NEW WORLD ORDER, PRESIDED OVER BY A COLD-HEARTED WEALTHY AND POWERFUL RULING "ELITE," DICTATING POLICY TO WE, THE NEW SERFS OF THAT NEW WORLD ORDER, WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS, NO LIBERTIES, SAVE THOSE THAT THE RULING "ELITE" DEIGN TO GRANT TO US AND WHO MAY, ON A WHIM, TAKE FROM US.

The Arbalest Quarrel seeks to awaken the American public from its slumber. As always, and most importantly, the Arbalest Quarrel will set the record straight on matters involving this Nation’s most sacred right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2018 we will press for enactment of national handgun carry reciprocity and propose our own language to avoid attempts by some States to ignore the national handgun carry reciprocity if, or, hopefully, when, enacted. We will explore the qualifications of certain individuals we would like to see on the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will continue with our detailed expositions of Federal and State firearms legislation and of Federal and State case law impacting on the Second Amendment. We will return to completing series we had commenced writing on in 2017 and in previous years. We have a lot of work to do, and much to accomplish.Antigun groups and antigun legislators are not sitting idly by. They intend to destroy the Second Amendment. But, like brave Horatio at the Bridge, the Arbalest Quarrel intends to stop these anti-American groups and anti-American people. But, we intend to do much more. We intend to take the fight to them, strengthening the Second Amendment, along with and in conjunction with the critical work NRA does on behalf of Americans.We will never give up our values, our history, our traditions, our Bill of Rights!Our articles and our essays stand as a testament to our commitment in support of our Bill of Rights and, especially, in support of our sacred Second Amendment. Please feel free to explore our site at www.arbalestquarrel.com. We encourage you to join our list of readers. It is easy to add your name to our list. You will receive immediate notification of the posting of our articles. There is no cost to you.We all have our work cut out for us. But, together, taking nothing for granted, and working hard to preserve and strengthen our Bill of Rights, and supporting our President in this effort, we can succeed in holding our Nation together, in the vein the Founders of our Republic intended. Won’t you join us?_________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT: GUARANTEEING THE SUPREMACY OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

NOW IS THE TIME TO GET MEANINGFUL FEDERAL SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS PASSED INTO LAW: LET'S GET THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT ("SAGA") UP TO SPEED.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson, Resolutions Relative to the Alien and Sedition Acts, in 1 The Founders' Constitution 292 (Philip Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987).Our fundamental rights, as codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights, are under constant assault. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in the continuous, contentious, cavalcade of laws emanating on the State and federal and local governmental levels—laws that slowly but inexorably chip and whittle away at the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But why is that? One reason for this aggressive assault on the right codified in the Second Amendment is that those supporting restrictive gun legislation view the right as an anathema, a thing of no positive value today. Those who support ever more arcane, restrictive, ponderous laws—a veritable cascade of them with no end in sight—may acknowledge that the right set forth in the Second Amendment had some import and merit, perhaps, at one time, early in our Nation’s history, but no longer. They see the right, today, as something archaic, anachronistic and, therefore, not a thing to be legitimately considered a right at all but, at most, a privilege, something that may be bestowed by government on a select few, whom Government trusts as worthy “caretakers” of society. What then becomes of the right as exercised by the common man? It is a thing lost, never to be recovered.Commoners—average Americans—are conditioned through propaganda to view firearms as an evil, as things to be reviled, and to view those who desire to own and possess them as individuals who are out of touch with reality, out of touch with the way the world works today, out of touch with the way things are or, as projected in the mind through incessant propaganda, out of touch with the ways things ought to be. The mainstream media pompously, piously, at the behest of its internationalist, globalist benefactors, proselytizes, telling us that firearms are responsible for the ills in society and that individuals who seek to own and possess them are rightfully to be shunned and viewed as slightly unhinged. The mainstream media, with the assistance of teachers and advocacy groups, condition children to fear firearms. Woe to the child caught bringing a toy gun to school or even pointing a finger at another child, simulating or suggesting a firearm. The school board ejects that child from the school, with great fanfare, as an object lesson for others. Thus, at an early age a child learns that “incorrect thinking” will turn that child into a pariah.Mainstream news sources at the behest of their benefactors—the secretive overlords of western civilization—seek, through constant, tedious, repetitive opinionating, to repress the desire in man to own and possess firearms. The argument made—specious though it is—is that firearms have no place in a “civilized” society. This modern-day excuse for a “Press” contends that Americans who desire to own and possess firearms are throwbacks to an earlier day and age and, so, need to be reeducated to forsake firearms. At times mainstream news sources—at the behest of their wealthy, powerful benefactors, the secretive, powerful, overlords of society—make these points overtly. At other times, the points are tacit, hidden in news accounts of criminals and lunatics who prey on us all. Yet, the American public is endlessly and noxiously bombarded with specious arguments remonstrating against firearms, arguing for destruction of firearm caches and castigating those who would deign to keep them. The ill-informed public thus perceives, in the constant barrage and fusillade of slogans and chastisements spat out by the propaganda machine of the mainstream media, that the loss of the right to keep and bear arms is nothing to be concerned about. The truth is ever lost on the public, as the very linchpin of the Bill of Rights falls to hundreds of unconstitutional restrictive State and federal statutes and dozens more of governmental edicts, and to tens of thousands of deliberately vague and ambiguous sentences and clauses and paragraphs tucked away in numerous local governmental rules, regulations, codes, and ordinances, designed to confound and mislead those among us who would dare to exercise the right believed important enough by the framers to carve in stone, but now to be dumped, unceremoniously, in a warehouse—like the statues and memorabilia of our Nation’s Confederacy—out of sight and, so, out of mind—lest raging anarchists and pseudo-moralists be offended.To convert the average American to its cause celebre—and to its way of thinking—to encourage the average American to accept the need for more and more firearms restrictions the mainstream media denigrates and trivializes the right embodied in the Second Amendment and, at once, castigates and ostracizes those who would dare support it.Clearly, it isn’t the career criminal, the psychopathic gang and drug cartel members, and the occasional lunatic, that gun restrictions are meant to target. No! It is, rather, the average, rational, law-abiding, American. It is that person who is the real target of ponderous gun restrictions. But, why is that? Why is it this individual that the mainstream media, and various like-minded politicians, and their benefactors—the inordinately secretive, extraordinarily powerful, insatiably and exorbitantly wealthy, and coldly ruthless internationalists, the destroyers of the Nation State and of a Nation’s laws—truly detest and truly fear? The answer is clear on reflection, and we see the answer in the mask shrouding the overt reasons the mainstream media blares out to the American public when extolling the virtue of ever more restrictive gun measures.The overt, pervasive reasons given for destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms masks a more insidious reason the Second Amendment is under constant and vicious assault and it is the salient, true reason. It is one never given, nor dared to be given, nor is it even hinted at. Yet, it lurks ominously, in the shadows, ever present—and evident to those who pause to consider the constant, dogged, unwavering, and rapacious efforts to destroy the Second Amendment. It is clear enough to those who reflect carefully on the wording of the Second Amendment.The reason the gun grabbers truly seek to undercut the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is hidden in plain sight. It is found in the prefatory clause: “a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state.”  The framers of the Constitution, the founders of our free Republic, expressed concern over two primal threats to the young Nation. One threat emanates from outside. It is the threat posed by foreign aggressors. The other threat—by far the more serious and insidious one—operates from the inside. It goes by the name, “tyranny.”The dependent “militia” clause has no purpose other than to make clear why the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary. The operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” is clear, categorical, unequivocal, and absolute. The operative clause is not conditioned by the prefatory, dependent “militia” clause. It is not conditioned by anything. The prefatory clause simply sets forth the salient reason for the codification of the right, as set forth in the operative, independent clause—the supreme importance of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the mechanism by which and through which the Nation guarantees that it remain a free Republic and, in that, therefor, the need for the right.Consider: there is no prefatory clause in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, justifying the right of Free Speech and Free Press. There is no prefatory clause in the First Amendment because the framers of the Constitution knew that freedom of expression and freedom of the Press—although powerful and critical rights—are not, in themselves, a check against armed invasion from the outside, nor do they constitute infallible checks against tyranny arising from within the Nation. Indeed, we see that the Press has been coopted by those who seek to destroy our Republic, thereby inviting tyranny—in fact, working indefatigably to see that tyranny comes to fruition even as the Press poses, deceptively, as a force poised against it—hence, the inherent, insidious, destructive nature of it--born from a poisonous seed within the Nation and nourished along by a chained Press. And, we see, in recent months attempts to constrain freedom of expression—deviously—through claims that it is improper for one to voice opinion that others might find objectionable. But, there is no equivocation in the Second Amendment. An armed citizenry either exists or it does not. If it exists, there is, in that armed citizenry, a perfect check against tyranny. If an armed citizenry does not exist, there is nothing to constrain tyranny.That is the salient reason for including a prefatory clause, a preamble to the Second Amendment. The prefatory clause serves no other purpose and it has no other purpose. But, those who seek to install autocracy in this Country see, in the inclusion of a prefatory, dependent clause, not the impetus the framers had for including it at all, but, a sly, devious way to suggest that the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that, in its clear wording, is not and cannot be infringed—is not absolute, but structurally conditioned through the prefatory clause: namely, that one’s right to keep and bear arms is limited by and through and to one’s connection to a militia. That notion is false to be sure. In fact, the notion is ludicrous; and that notion has, fortunately, thankfully, finally, been laid to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court in the seminal Heller case.The intent of the framers in codifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms is abundantly clear. For, if the right could be infringed, namely, in the event one sought to keep and bear arms but had no connection to a militia, then the prefatory, dependent clause would contradict the import of the independent clause, namely, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As a matter of formal logic, either the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed or it cannot.Under the law of non-contradiction, it must be one or the other. It cannot be both. The independent clause makes clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. If the prefatory clause were truly to suggest that the right of the people to keep and bear arms could be infringed, as the gun grabbers insist, then the Second Amendment would make no logical sense. Its legal import would be totally lost; and the right expressed in the independent clause would be reduced to a nullity—which is how the liberal-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court sees it, anyway.Thus, the import of the Second Amendment is determinative here by the absolute principle of sound logic, quite apart from its import in law. To suggest that the framers would deliberately draft a self-contradiction would be to presume them insane. On the other hand, to suggest the framers drafted a self-contradiction, negligently, would be to presume they were dunces. Neither, of course, is the case. The framers of the Second Amendment were extremely intelligent, extremely capable, competent, and rational men and, as well, they were extremely wary of the nature of the existence of some ambitious but ruthless men—men, not at all like them--who would be capable of transforming and predisposed to transforming a free Republic into an autocracy if given half a chance, to serve their own private purposes and desires.The Second Amendment, as with every other component of the Constitution, was crafted with great care. The Second Amendment is a hedge—the one best hedge against the introduction of tyranny into a free State. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed makes clear that, in the event Government sought to impose tyranny upon the American people--and intrusion upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms would be clear evidence of such design to introduce tyranny--such illegitimate encroachment upon a sacred right shall be met with lawful force exerted by the American people, to preclude any Government attempt and effort to insinuate unlawful power against the true Sovereign of this Nation: the American people themselves. The prefatory clause must, then, have no use and serve no use other than to make clear to those servants of Government, the reason why the right cannot be infringed: namely, to remind those servants of Government that the People are Supreme; that Government was designed to serve the people, and not the other way around; and that, if the servants of Government should forget their role and should forget Government's place in the grand Constitutional scheme, the American people will remind them of their role and will remind them of Government's place in that scheme, and the American people will do so harshly, exacting a heavy price upon those who have thoughts of grandeur—those who have thoughts that it is the People who serve them--the Government Heads--and not the other way around. And, Government Heads will roll for the audacity to attempt to exert control over the American people.Thus, it is that the framers of the Constitution intended for the Second Amendment to be the one, true, and absolute check on tyranny. The late Justice Scalia knew that to be so, but was reluctant to make that point manifest in the seminal Heller case—instead discussing the tacit reason for the presence of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights—that of self-defense. Justice Scalia had to get Justices Roberts and Kennedy on board, and they, likely, would not have done so, had Justice Scalia asserted that the primary import of the militia clause was to make clear that an armed citizenry was necessary as the best check against tyranny. To mention the salient import  and purport of the Second Amendment is, apparently, today, to make too emphatic a statement; but, then, that tells us just how far we have fallen as a Nation and how expansive and powerful and treacherous the federal Government has become and as it continues to devolve, unless our present U.S. President, steps on the brake and reverses the trend toward dissolution of our Bill of Rights and our free Republic. Passing effective federal legislation that serves to strengthen our Second Amendment, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended, would be a good start toward reversing the deadly trend and tendency of an increasingly powerful federal Government to thwart the Bill of Rights, thereby instituting tyranny. Justice Scalia must have been aware of this horrible trend and, given the opportunity, in Heller, to set things right, he made clear the import of the Second Amendment as the drafters of the Second Amendment made intended: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one's service in a militia. In that regard, Justice Scalia, writing for the Majority, pointed to the natural right of self-defense as implicit in the individual's exercise of that sacred right.Still, Justice Scalia’s discussion of one's right self-defense through firearms means--as I am sure he was aware--not only defense of one’s physical self but also defense against oppression, whether that oppression manifests outside this Country or, more frighteningly, within it. And, we have seen, in the regime of Barack Obama and as we would have seen in the regime of Hillary Clinton tyranny raising its ugly head, manifesting obliquely, tangentially, but most assuredly. We see in the Presidency of Donald Trump, a circumambulation around our Bill of Rights—an attempt to set things right, as Chief Executive of our Nation. But, he has his job cut out for him for the Deep State does not wish to cede the stranglehold of tyranny it has been weaving around this Nation for many years and which it shad ought to complete through the coronation of Hillary Clinton. Fortunately, that "coronation" never took place. Americans weren't hoodwinked.But, the failure of the secretive internationalist forces to elect their puppet, Hillary Clinton, hardly means we are out of the woods.We see the insinuation of tyranny through the instigation of international pacts and treaties, that operate to circumvent the sovereignty of our laws. We see it in the use of our military for purposes altogether unrelated to our national defense. We see it in attempts to draw this Country—an independent sovereign Nation—into the throes of the EU; we see it in the opinions of the liberal wing Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who argue that international law and jurisprudence should govern the decisions of cases impacting our fundamental rights, effectively subordinating, then, our Constitution and our written law to that of foreign bodies. We see it in the subordination of our laws and our sacred rights and liberties to that of international courts and tribunals. We are slowly, inexorably being sucked into a whirlpool that reshapes our laws, and our rights—to be twisted and molded and reformed into a thing that effectively loosens the underpinnings of our core values, traditions, and history. Our Bill of Rights, and, particularly, our Second Amendment, has no place in this new world order and must therefore be consigned--so the architects of our Nation’s destruction have ordered--to the dustbin of history.To that end, State and federal statutes and local governmental rules, regulations, and ordinances are enacted, to attack the free exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms to excoriate it; to exorcise it from conscious thought and memory—ostensibly to benefit society in its entirety, to benefit the collective, to benefit the “beehive,” never the individual, and, thus, to see our once independent sovereign Nation incorporated, as but one cog, into a larger “grand” design that embraces many other Nations in one seemingly seamless, cohesive whole. We see governmental regulations enacted in a scarcely disguised attempt to destroy the sacred right the framers of our Constitution knew to be necessary to restrict the power of Government and they saw the necessity of etching those rights and liberties in stone. But, attempts are made to undercut the Bill of Rights, and, particularly, to undercut the Second Amendment. Ominously, State and federal statutes are enacted to attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms at the root level. Statutes are enacted to attack the right codified in the Second Amendment in the hope that, at some point in the future, the Second Amendment will wither and die of its own accord, since de jure repeal of it outright is virtually impossible.Indeed, the framers intended that de jure repeal of the Bill of Rights would be, ought to be, must be, extremely difficult to accomplish. Repeal of fundamental rights should be difficult to accomplish, lest an uneducated or ill-informed public, hoodwinked by, and easily manipulated by  propaganda, spouted by a compliant Press, controlled by those who place no stock in the Bill of Rights, be led by the nose to believe that Americans really, truly, don’t need this or that right, codified in the Bill of Rights, and that we would all be better off to do away with the right altogether.Since actual de jure repeal of the Second Amendment outright won’t happen, cannot happen, even as those who detest the continued existence of the Second Amendment would love to see that happen—would fervently love to see formal repeal of the Second Amendment—it behooves those who seek to destroy it to find some other way or means to do so. And, they have done so, through a process that takes longer, but, through the inexorable tide of time, money, and effort expended in enacting ever more exacting, restrictive, convoluted, and redundant firearms legislation and through an easily malleable, complacent, compliant ill-informed public, they have exacted their toll on the Second Amendment, and have successfully eroded Americans’ exercise of the sacred right. Thus, the net result, if not reversed, would reduce the Second Amendment to a virtual nullity, even as it continues, formally, to exist.Thus, where we see the creation of ever more State and federal laws, and federal governmental rules and edicts, and local governmental codes, rules, regulations, and ordinances—enacted in defiance of the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and in clear defiance to U.S. Supreme Court rulings, we become aware that the destruction of the Second Amendment is no less certain than had the Second Amendment been repealed outright. This is what is meant by de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment continues to exist “on paper” but it has no efficacy. It means nothing. It means that no right exists that can be exercised through it.De facto repeal, then, has the same effect as outright de jure repeal. It just takes a little longer. Of course, the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to destroy the Second Amendment in its own way, through its misinterpretation of law, rather than through misuse of legislation. We see this in the dissenting opinions of liberal wing Justices. By corralling the operative clause of the Second Amendment—“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”—in the dependent clause, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” and as the concept of a State militia, as understood by the framers of the U.S. Constitution is essentially non-existent today, the Second Amendment would be nugatory, as it would be impossible for an American ever to exercise the right under it.” Thus, if those Justices who dissented in the Heller and McDonald cases, had been writing for the Majority, the Second Amendment would effectively be reduced to a nullity. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would be transformed into a mere privilege, something Government could grant to a person or deny a person, at whim.Occasionally, as in Congressman Chris Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act, we do see some relief—a welcome pushback against offensive restrictive firearms’ legislation. Yet, as we also see, that pushback is often gratuitous, designed merely to award a Congressman political points for taking a stand that, although unpopular to some, is welcomed by many, and should, even if it never were enacted into law, be heralded by all.But, Chris Collins’ bill, will wither and die, like the Second Amendment could, itself, unless the public spurs Congress to action. *Proponents of strong pro-Second Amendment bills must have the fortitude to see their bills through to fruition to the same extent, if not more so, than do opponents of the Second Amendment when introducing their own anti-Second Amendment bills. For we have seen, on several occasions, how opponents of our sacred right push their bills through to upend our most sacred right. It is unfortunate that those Legislators who ostensibly espouse their support of the right of the people to keep and bear arms demonstrate, at the end of the day, a lack of fortitude to see their work through to completion. They certainly do not exhibit the same exuberance as those who seek to undermine the Second Amendment exhibit, for, when introducing anti-Second Amendment legislation, such legislators generally work toward moving their bills along. They are serious about getting their anti-Second Amendment bills enacted into law. Such anti-Second Amendment bills don't simply die in Committee, much as we would like to see them do, unlike pro-Second Amendment bills, which we would like very much to see passage of.Thus, the best crafted bill in the Nation doesn’t get us anywhere unless serious effort is made to push it forward. We can get started on the first part—assisting Legislators—to craft effective legislation, and we are doing so. Yet, without a strong nudge from the public we see Congressional legislators unwilling to do their part, proceeding half-heartedly, at best, and then stopping short of their goal. That is hardly encouraging and we find it wholly unacceptable.The Republicans, for the moment, at least, control both Houses of Congress; and we have a U.S. President who has not been bought and paid for by internationalists—unlike Obama and the Clintons who have taken their marching orders from these internationalists—these ruthless and cunning individuals who owe their allegiance to no Nation—who seek to undermine all Nations, to bring them under the sway of their corporate control, operating through private charters that would undercut the constitutions of Nations. This we see as the fate befalling the Nations of the European Union. Lest we fall under the sway of the EU directly or otherwise fall prey to an EU styled dictatorship, it is necessary for Americans to take a stand and do our best to strengthen our Constitution and our Bill of Rights--those sacrosanct and inviolate documents that the founders bequeathed to us through their tremendous courage and through their great sacrifice.______________________________________*Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment right. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.         

FIRST AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK . . . IN CHICAGO WHERE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS TRAMPLED ON!

U.S. Under Attack: Chicago, Trump, Outrage . . . And the Trampling of Our Constitution

The American public must ask and a serious investigation to find answers must ensue: did the disruption in an auditorium in the City of Chicago, at a rally for the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, that occurred Friday evening, March 12, 2016, just happen or did it happen because someone or some group intended for a riot to happen?In other words, was the disruption in Chicago that led to cancellation of a rally for the leading Republican candidate for U.S. President, on the eve of the most important Super Tuesday 2016 primary elections, a happenstance – a mere spontaneous outpouring of anger and rage expressed by certain unhappy segments of the population toward the leading Republican candidate, as the mainstream media is playing this, or was the disruption something more – a staged event in and of itself – carefully orchestrated and choreographed by certain powerful and ruthless interests that are willing to do and, apparently, are capable of doing whatever it takes to destroy the momentum of a popular political candidate for the highest Office in the Land?At the moment the public can only speculate as to the root cause for the disruption. One thing is certain, though. Our Bill of Rights is under attack and has been under incessant assault for many years. Our Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms” has, for many years, slowly and systematically suffered erosion through Congressional enactments and State action. If the leading Democratic Party contender for the Office of U.S. President gets the nod and ultimately secures the Oval Office, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will likely cease to exist except as a short footnote in the history texts. And, what shall become of other fundamental rights and liberties of the People?The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Since the early years of the twenty-first century, that fundamental right has been quietly and systematically eroded by federal Government intelligence and police apparatuses – all in the name of promoting “safety” for the collective, for the masses, generally. But, one would be hard-pressed to find, through a careful reading of the U.S. Constitution, any clause, sentence, or passage that authorizes the federal Government to undermine an individual citizen’s fundamental right to privacy – the sacred right to be left alone and the sacred right clearly setting forth that an individual’s personal effects are to remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as entailed by and codified under the Fourth Amendment – ostensibly to promote and ensure public safety; and one would be hard-pressed to find, through a careful perusal of the U.S. Constitution, any clause, sentence, or passage that authorizes the federal Government to undercut the fundamental right of an American citizen to keep and bear arms – the inviolable right of the individual to take responsibility for one’s personal security, as entailed by and codified in the Second Amendment – ostensibly to promote and ensure public safety.Yet the federal Government – especially in recent years – incessantly, unashamedly, and unapologetically invades the sanctity of both these natural and fundamental rights – all under the mask, the guise, of ensuring public safety. But, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the United States Constitution, either explicitly or impliedly, that authorizes the federal Government, under any set of actual events or, as we are more likely to see, under any set of contrived circumstances, to denigrate the fundamental, natural rights and liberties of the people – the rights and liberties that are clearly, cogently, and unambiguously set down in the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.And, what of the First Amendment guarantee? The First Amendment as set forth in the Bill of Rights says, in meaningful part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . . .”For many years the American people have been asleep. They have been fed pabulum by the mainstream media as the rug has been pulled out from under them. But, as law-abiding Americans, hard-working citizens, have seen their wages stagnating, their jobs shipped overseas or given over to foreigners here – whether those foreigners are in this Country legally, having secured temporary visas, or are in this Country illegally, having simply walked across unsecured borders – Americans have begun to wake up. The Americans are now placing their support behind candidates who have not been paid off by wealthy, powerful, ruthless interests to do the bidding of their sponsors.All bets are off now. Those powerful, ruthless interests that have been slowly, quietly, insidiously taking over our institutions, rewriting our history, forcing an alien morality and an alien culture down our throats are now aghast that the American public is no longer falling into lockstep behind the newly minted puppets or, in one case, a dusted off old puppet. The American public is no longer listening to the vapid, insipid, soothing, carefully rehearsed melodies that the song writers have composed for their ears, as sung to the public by their string pullers in sweet-sounding three part harmony.There is, in this U.S. Presidential election cycle, one candidate from each major political Party who dares to speak his mind rather than parrot the views of paid sponsors. That fact bothers the ruthless interests that have slowly taken over this Country. It has made them uneasy. It is even making them frantic. These ruthless interests are devising ways – legal, quasi-legal, and even illegal – to silence those candidates they have not been able to buy and whom they can never control.The University administration officials in Chicago must certainly have known that elements would be attending the political rally on Friday who were not interested in hearing what one particular candidate from one particular political Party had to say. They were only interested in creating a disturbance, to silence a voice, and these University officials must take responsibility for the disturbance that did occur and that occurred quite spectacularly on their turf. And, they did, indeed, silence a voice, if but for a moment and only for a moment.In a City that has in place some of the most stringent gun control measures anywhere in the Country – in a City that requires its citizenry to place full stock in the police to protect it – University officials did not take sufficient advantage of police utilization to protect those individuals who sought simply to attend a political rally to hear what one candidate for high political Office has to say. University administration officials should have seen to it that the right of free speech and right of the people to peaceably assemble – rights guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – was assured. Instead those officials chose to send the First Amendment down the toilet just as the City of Chicago had, years ago, sent the Second Amendment down the toilet.Had there been an adequate police contingent at the auditorium on that Friday night, the police would certainly have been able to vet those individuals who sought attendance at the event, permitting entry only to those who honestly and sincerely wished to hear what one candidate for President of the United States had to say, and turning away those who sought to prevent the candidate from exercising his guaranteed freedom of speech and voicing his beliefs, his views, his policies and in his typical blunt, candid manner. And, in their desire to prevent an American citizen from exercising his right of free speech, those individuals who attended the political rally for the purpose of disrupting it showed their defiance of and contempt for the First Amendment, and, for some of those individuals, their obvious ignorance of the import and purport of the First Amendment.Make no mistake, the American people bore witness to a savage beating that took place the other night in Chicago, a beating abetted by both a complacent University administration and a treacherous news media. But, it wasn’t an individual who was harmed. It was the sanctity of the First Amendment itself that was savagely assaulted Friday night. Yet, that fact was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media either during the disturbance, nor at any time thereafter. Instead the mainstream media, at the behest of those interests that control it, have placed blame squarely and bizarrely on the candidate who was compelled to cancel the event and who was thereby silenced! The First Amendment freedom of speech died that night and without a whisper of its death.The mainstream media – the press – mentions the First Amendment in passing but never takes the First Amendment to heart. The press has lost its focus and direction, its purpose. It sensationalizes rather than enlightens. It seeks merely to sell a product, a commodity, rather than to inform and educate the American public.The mainstream media further denigrates the freedom of speech, guaranteed under the First Amendment, by demanding that the candidate apologize for the disturbance. Really? To whom and for what ought the candidate apologize?The First Amendment provides for and guarantees the right of every American to speak his or her mind, even if the ideas expressed are unpalatable, even repugnant to some individuals. Certainly, the public has a right to hear from a candidate, who seeks the highest Office in the Land, that candidate’s views on those topics and matters impacting all Americans. And each American may choose to hear, or not, what that candidate has to say. But no candidate should be silenced on the ground that some people do not like what the candidate has to say.There are mechanisms for peaceful protest. But, no person is permitted, in our Democracy, under our First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble, to shut out the voice of another person with whom one happens to take exception. To understand  Americans’ First Amendment guarantees is to appreciate the benefit it serves in a Democratic society and free Republic. For those few among us who do not appreciate the First Amendment, they should view it as the obligatory cost of living in a Democratic society and free Republic; and, if they are not content with that, such individuals ought to leave the Country.Of late we see our institution of higher education – an institution that should welcome diverse expression of thought – becoming decidedly intolerant, inhospitable to any view that is deemed inconsistent with a particular bland norm. That intolerance, that pretentious, impertinent, pious regard for the irrefutability of one’s own set of beliefs and values is now spilling over and into the political arena. Certainly, the American public has the right under the First Amendment to hear, unfiltered and unmediated, the thoughts of those individuals who seek to secure the highest Office of the Land.No candidate for public Office should be ostracized and denigrated simply because some individuals think that person’s views extend beyond the pale. No candidate should ever be silenced. The American public has the right to hear all viewpoints, to hear all sides of a debate. The First Amendment dies when the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, is shattered because some people don’t like the message recited and personally abhor the manner of recitation. Odd it is that the press – our press – that should be the first to recognize and defend the freedom of speech – becomes, instead, the voice of oppression that would gag free speech. Is the press – colloquially and affectionately referred to, in times past, as the “fourth estate” – not now, less an independent and necessary institution of a democratic society and free Republic, and more reminiscent of and, in fact, reduced merely to a tool of government – a tool of oppression that one witnesses in despotic nations?How is it, then, that we see our First Amendment guarantees crumbling before us? The public must understand: the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee does not guard against offending one. It was not designed to do so. It was never designed to do so. An adult should not be so easily offended anyway. And the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the freedom of speech clause has such parameters carefully woven around it, to protect the sensibilities of peculiarly sensitive souls. The American public ought to be made of sterner stuff.The mainstream media, instead of supporting a candidate’s right to speak freely, in accordance with the First Amendment guarantee, has the temerity to denigrate America’s fundamental First Amendment right of free speech. And, what does the mainstream media – the press – suggest a candidate for the highest Office in the land ought acquiesce to? Just this: timidity, banality, sophistry, careful modulation in thought and speech lest this or that sensitive or ignorant soul be offended. Nonsense!The American people are not supposed to think too deeply lest they begin to see what roils beneath the surface; lest they see through the vapidity of the puppet masters’ “talking heads;” lest they come to recognize the cupidity and ruthlessness of the creatures who seek to destroy the sanctity of the individual; lest they become aware that their Constitution is becoming no more than a curious relic of a by-gone age; lest they come to realize the loss of a free Republic, through the loss of the Bill of Rights; and lest they come face-to-face with the very real possibility of annihilation of a once great sovereign Nation State.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.