What Modern Weapons Would The Founders Want Americans To Own?

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I do not think The Founding Fathers would have a problem with citizens having weapons on par with the military.




Historical revisionists love to pretend that the human right to bear arms reflected in the Second Amendment was specifically confined to Colonial-era muskets, and only then in the service of the aims of the state. That is self-evidently false, as anyone with a passing familiarity with the speeches, letters, and broadsheets authored by the Founding Fathers would be able to tell you.

The Second Amendment did not create a right to bear arms.

When John Adams and his contemporaries wrote and then ratified the Second Amendment they wererecognizing a pre-existing natural right of all people to be armed for their self defense.

The right to bear arms was always and continues to be an individual human right to allow you to protect your life, and the lives of those you love, and others you feel compelled to protect.

The Founders were explicit in their belief that any weapon that could be carried by a soldier should be available to the citizenry, as Founding Father Tenche Cox made clear in 1788, three years before the Second Amendment was ratified.

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army,  must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Would the Founders want Joe Six-Pack walking down the street with a M67 fragmentation grenade? We can only speculate, but I’m going to guess that they probably would not.

Would the Founders want grenades, cannon, and other “terrible implements of the soldier” available for militia service against enemies foreign and domestic? Almost certainly, though I suspect they would want the heavier weapons (up to and including artillery) under lock and key at an armory under the control of the local militias (not standing government forces, which includes the National Guard).

The Founders were clearly in favor of personal arms being retained by individual citizens, and they expected citizens to be both well-armed and well-trained  with their guns (which is what they meant by “well-regulated”). These included multi-shot weapons, among them rifles with “high capacity” detachable magazines that existed more than a decade before the Second Amendment was written.

In their writings, the Founders were very clear that they wanted the citizenry to be able to use private arms for the following reasons:

  • Defend individual lives, families, and communities along the frontiers against lawlessness, and attacks by Native Americans
  • Defend against the threat of foreign invasion
  • Defend against domestic tyranny in local, state, and federal government

It’s very important to note that these reasons intertwined and overlapped to varying degrees then, just as they do now.

The first point, self-defense, speaks to the fact that citizens are responsible for their own defense, as we still are today. It was even rougher in the late 18th century, of course, because there was no option to call your local police for assistance, as their response time would be measured in decades (Boston formed the first police department in the United States in 1838). Flash forward to 2016, and you are still responsible for your own self-defense; the Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect individuals.

You can call 911 with the most desperate of emergencies, but as much of Los Angeles discovered in 1992, the police won’t come when they are needed the most.



You’re on your own.

The threat of foreign invasion was very real to the Founders, and with good reason; the British were still supporting Native American attacks along the frontier of the young United States, and the long-simmering hostilities between the United States and Great Britain erupted in a full-on war again in 1812. Fears of an amphibious invasion from a foreign power saw a network of coastal fortifications spring up in following generations that lasted until the last forts were abandoned in 1950.

While General Yamamoto’s apocryphal quote that, “You cannot invade the mainland United States because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass” is almost certainly false as a statement, it does speak to a larger truth: the citizenry of United States possess more small arms (300+ million, with tens of millions more added every month) than all of the world’s armies, combined.

That brings us to the main reason the Founding Fathers wanted the citizenry to have ” every other terrible implement of the soldier,” which was their own well-earned and deep-seated distrust of the corrupting power of government.

While they may not have our modern technology, the Founders were much better students of world history and arguably far more attuned to the psychology of governments than our own reality-television and social media-obsessed population which is so heavily invested in trivialities.

The Founders believed that citizens should be able to own every weapon the military could possess, with only their personal financial condition being an impediment to ownership. That generally meant citizens would own a fowling piece (shotgun), rifle, or musket, but many also owned pistols and swords. More wealthy Americans might purchase pivot guns or cannons, and some wealthy souls such a Senator James DeWolf of Rhode Island, even own privateer fleets bristling with cannon capable of flattening coastal cities.

What does that mean for 21st Century Americans?

It’s amusing to watch gun control supporters attempt to claim the Founders could only imagine or mean citizens to have muskets, when Thomas Jefferson had a fast-firing rifle with 20-shot detachable magazines.

The Founders were very clear: they want Americans to be armed with weapons of contemporary utility for self defense and use in a modern militia.

Today that would include modern handguns, shotguns, and of course, those intermediate-caliber rifles that are clearly the most vital part of modern militias and armies.

Put bluntly, AR-15s, AKMs, and their standard capacity 30-round magazines are quite obviously the modern firearms that most closely align with the explicit intent of the Founders that the American people be armed with weapons capable of being used for self defense, defense against external threats, and threat posed by an ever-more corrupt government.

I won’t go so far as to insist that every American should own one of these “modern muskets,” but the Founders clearly meant that citizens should be able to choose firearms of contemporary military utility to defend their homes and communities from threats both foreign and domestic if they do desired.

Those souls attempting to ban such necessary weapons from the hands of the citizenry are not to be trusted, nor are they to be obeyed.

Gun Control Debate Sounds More Like Salem Racist Trials

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The DemocRats are getting desperate so they are playing the race card against the whole nation





Unfortunately, the gun control debate has turned into the Salem Racist Trials. You have bird brain videos like the “Black NRA” from Sarah Silverman mocking the concept of a black NRA, insinuating that the NRA is a racist organization that only advocates the use of firearms for non-African-Americans. So in turn, you turn to the oldest joke in the book: The NRA is racist. Good one. No one saw that one coming. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t because the video was so poorly executed, I’m not even sure it was satire.

Even if it was, the point I think you were trying to make is ignorant. You’re so desperate to turn the Second Amendment debate into black versus white that you’re the one who ends up looking like you’ve got a race problem. Because the only place I see people fearing young black men like myself who own guns responsibly is in your own video.

Look, there are a bunch of white people in the NRA, but that’s like saying there’s a bunch of sand on the beach. There hasn’t been a full scale attack by the mainstream media to dissuade white people from the NRA. But I can pull up video after video, article after article insinuating that the NRA is racist simply because they have a lot of white members. Oh, and God forbid they give a black man a platform to talk gun rights—now they’re pandering.

<iframe width=”640″ height=”450″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ src=”https://www.nranews.com/embed/video/commentators-one-nra-with-colion-noir&#8221; webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen>

“Media Actively Conspiring With Clinton Campaign” To Cover-up Hillary Major Health Issues

Leave a comment

Nwo Report

hillary-confused3This article was written by Michael Snyder and originally published at the End of the American Dream.

Editor’s Comment: They can try to cover up her declining health and significant mental problems, but there is just no covering up the psychopathic tendencies – they run strong in her, and the whole country can see it plainly.

It is a matter of the Naked Emperor; everyone knows, and yet somehow she clings to power. Must be an important somebody’s errand gal. God help us.

There Is A Mainstream Media Conspiracy To Hide Hillary Clinton’s Rapidly Failing Health

by Michael Snyder

Is Hillary Clinton healthy enough to serve as president if she wins the election? Over the past couple of weeks this has become a major issue, and the mainstream media is actively conspiring with the Clinton campaign in a desperate attempt to cover up the truth. For example, the Washington…

View original post 1,113 more words

Facts Hillary Hopes Voters Won’t Remember on Election Day!

Leave a comment

H/T Constitution.com. 

We need to make sure these facts get around the country.


Did you know Hillary Rodham was raised in a conservative household?  She campaigned for both Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater in her hometown of Chicago when they ran for President in the 1960 and 1964.  During her college years, Hillary’s views changed taking a radical turn to the left.

Hillary and Bill may be the first first couple who lived together before they were married.

When Hillary married Bill in 1975, she kept her father’s last name, Rodham, which upset her mother and mother-in-law.  She eventually changed it to Clinton in order to appeal to traditional voters.

Hillary was hired as a congressional investigator during the Watergate scandal which brought down President Richard Nixon.  Dan Calabrese, a writer for North Star, claims he interviewed Hillary’s supervisor, life-long Democrat Jerry Zeifman, in which he stated Hillary was fired from this position due to unethical behavior.  This account is contested by Hillary supporters including the left-leaning website Snopes.com.

The power and action in the White House emanate from the West Wing.  Traditionally, the Office of the First Lady was located in the East Wing.  Hillary had the Office of the First Lady moved to the West Wing during her husband’s first term.

Remember filegate?  The Clinton White House had illegally obtained numerous FBI files on those they considered enemies.  As a result, Bill and Hillary hold the distinction of being the first and only first couple fingerprinted by the FBI.

Hillary also holds the distinction of being the only first lady in the history of the United States to receive a subpoena by a court conducting a criminal investigation.  That investigation is known as the Whitewater scandal.

When Bill was governor of Arkansas back in the 1990s, his pay was $35,000 a year.  Hillary made three times that amount working as an attorney.

After graduating from Yale Law School, Hillary took the bar examine for Washington, D.C. and failed.  She tried her luck in Arkansas and passed.  She practiced law in the state until Bill was elected President in 1992.

While a Senator, Hillary received an 8-million-dollar advance for her autobiography “Living History.”  The irony being, Hillary criticized Newt Gingrich for receiving an advance on his book just a few years earlier.  Her advance was twice the amount as the one Gingrich received.  Due to pressure from Democrats, including the Clinton White House, which claimed the then Speaker of the House was using his public office to fill his pockets, Gingrich returned his advance.  Hillary, on the other hand, kept hers.

The birther conspiracy, the charge that President Obama was not born in this country and was, therefore, unqualified to be President, was not started by the vast right-wing conspiracy, but the 2008 Clinton Presidential campaign.

Though she claimed that she and Bill were “dead broke” after they left the White House, the last sixteen years have been good.  According to Forbes, they estimate the couple’s net worth at 45 million dollars.

Hillary often rails against Wall Street.  What she doesn’t want voters to know is how much Wall Street loves her and the money they have given to her campaign.

Hillary and Bill have been involved in more scandals than just about any other politicians in the history of the country.  Scandals include Whitewater, travelgate, filegate, cattle futures, death of Vince Foster, Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan collapse, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, illegal campaign contributions, sniper fire in Bosnia, theft of national property, Benghazi, and the most recent email scandal.

Hillary Clinton also holds the distinction of being the only former Secretary of State investigated by the FBI for criminal wrongdoing while serving in that position.

On and on and on.

And with this torrid past, Hillary still has the audacity to question the trustworthiness of Donald Trump.  Go figure!

Airlines Refuse to Fly Critically Ill 3-Year-Old to Doctors… So Parents Call Trump

Leave a comment

Stop, He’s Not White!’: Reporter Says Milwaukee Rioters Stopped Beating Him When They Saw His Face

1 Comment

H/T Independent Journal Review.




Aaron Mak is Chinese-American. He was a summer intern for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and for his last summer assignment, he was sent to cover the unrest following the officer-involved shooting of Sylville Smith.

Considering the violent nature of recent protests in Ferguson, Baltimore, and several other cities, Mak was apprehensive as he arrived on the scene. He said that one of the protesters, a black community activist whom he had interviewed earlier, had tried to reassure him with these words:

“I can see from your face that you don’t think you’re safe. You are. You’re a minority, too.”
Mak said that despite the apparent sincerity of the man who spoke to him, he wasn’t entirely convinced. He wrote in his article:
“I was the only non-black person there at the time—the other news crews had left—and my presence was soon questioned: Some pointed me out as an interloper; others, like the reassuring activist, told me I would be fine.

I brushed off the more hostile comments as much as I could: They were angry, and anger doesn’t always hit its intended target.”
By the end of the night, Mak said that he and another intern, Calvin Mattheis (who happened to be white) were crouching behind parked vehicles to shield themselves from gunfire.

The other intern stepped out to take some photos, and immediately became a target.

Mattheis wrote in his own account of the evening:

“I stood up from behind the Suburban and when I raised my camera, a man from across the street saw me and shouted ‘Get your white a** out of here! You better not let me f****** catch you!’

I stood up, arms raised saying ‘It’s cool man I’m leaving don’t worry about it,’ and began walking away as he started walking quickly toward me. The friendly and caring people around me looked at me with concern and fear in their faces and said ‘He’s heated man you gotta go! Run man run!’

As I turned around I saw he had begun charging at me with dozens of other joining in from either side. I was now running at full speed and realized I was in utter danger. I estimate the mob was around 20-25 people. I dropped my heavy cameras on the ground and sprinted full speed south toward Burleigh shouting ‘Help! Help!’”
Mak watched his colleague running for his life, and on pure gut instinct, gave chase himself – but the angry crowd soon caught up to him.

He said that he was on the ground, curled up, and taking blows to his shoulders and back when he heard a voice yell out:

“Stop! He’s not white! He’s Asian!”
Mak explained that he was then lifted from the street and escorted to safety by the protesters who had intervened on his behalf. As he was guided away, he heard one of them repeat: “Don’t f**k with Chinese dudes.”

He left the scene, bruised and shaken, but unhurt. His colleagues were also able to get out safely.


U Of WV Warns Students: If You Don’t Use Transgender-Approved Language You Are Violating Federal Law

Leave a comment

H/T The Lid Blog.com.

I have nothing. Sigh!!


West Virginia University (WVU) has warned its 29,000 students that they’re violating federal law if they don’t use pronouns or other language approved by those claiming to be transgender, Dr. Susan Berry reported at Breitbart.com on Monday.

“That policy means if a biological man — for example, famous transgender athlete Bruce Jenner — says he ‘identifies’ his gender as female, then all other students must refer to the man as a ‘she,’ or else be treated as a law-breaker,” Dr. Berry said.

[Note from Jeff OH MAN! (oops sorry)]

According to WVU, using the wrong pronouns is a crime because the ironically-named federal Departments of Justice and Education claim transgender people have special protection under the law.

Here’s a list of alleged “rights” the university claims students have, according to Dr. Berry:

  • You have the right to be treated according to the gender you identify with. Your school cannot require you to provide legal or medical evidence in order to have your gender respected.
  • You have the right to be called by the name and pronouns consistent with your gender identity.
  • You have the right not to be bullie d [sic]or harassed because you are transgender or gender non-conforming. If you are bullied or harassed contact your Title IX Coordinator, James Goins, Jr. at 304.293.5600 orJames.Goins@mail.wvu.edu. You may also file a complaint online at titleix.wvu.edu
  • You have the right to equal educational opportunities regardless of your gender, including your gender identity or expression, or your race, nationality, or disability. This includes not being punished or excluded from school activities or events because you are transgender or gender non-conforming.
  • You have the right to dress and present yourself in a way that is consistent with your gender identity, so long as you follow rules for how to dress that apply to all students. This includes how you dress at school every day as well as for dances, graduation, and other school events.
  • You have the right to use restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that are consistent with your gender identity, and can’t be forced to use separate facilities. There are several WVU Gender Inclusive Restrooms on campus.
  • You have the right to privacy concerning your transgender status and gender transition. Any such information kept in school records must be kept private and not shared without your permission unless the school has a legitimate reason that it not based on gender bias.
  • You have the right not to be harassed or discriminated against based gender stereotypes, including stereotypes about sexual orientation.
  • You have the right to join or start a Gay-Straight Alliance or Pride Alliance, and to have your group treated like other student groups. WVU Spectrum is West Virginia University’s student-run organization dedicated to providing a social space for LGBTQ people and their allies in north central West Virginia.

[Jeff Note: the rights above are in the constitution, under the part where that says we have the right to healthcare, free college, free internet, and free cookie dough ice cream]

The Daily Caller, she added, said WVU “offers a handy guide on ‘Proper pronoun usage’ that explains how to swap out pronouns such as he, him and his for … pronouns such as ‘ve,’ ‘ver’ and ‘vis.’”

Excuse me?  Who came up with “ve,” “ver” or “vis,” anyway?

[Jeff Note: actually those pronouns were used by my late grandfather, who escaped the Czar’s cossacks in Russia over 120 years ago and came to this country legally. I always thought my Grandpa’s use of pronouns like “ve” was due to his accent. Who knew? My Grandpa was a trailblazer]

Here’s a chart showing approved pronouns students may use:


So what’s the punishment for using the wrong pronoun?  Dr. Berry explains:

In Fairfax County, Virginia, the school board rammed through a policy change that makes children open to expulsion from school for expressing criticism of transgender ideology.

The new regulation states: “No student in FCPS shall … on the basis of gender identity … be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity.”

As Breitbart News reported, school board member Elizabeth Schultz, who opposed the regulation, said “discrimination” language means that a student who speaks out against the “gender identity” ideology can be disciplined, and presumably suspended and even expelled.

Why stop there?  Obviously, someone who commits the egregious act of referring to someone by an unapproved pronoun deserves the full penalty allowed by law, right?

No wonder today’s kids are so messed up.  They’re not being educated, they’re being brainwashed and indoctrinated.

God help us.

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 901 other followers

%d bloggers like this: