By Michael LeMieux
If “We the People” are the creators of the government, and the government is authorized arms, then in order for the people to maintain their position, in relation to the government, they to must be armed. If the servant government (servant of the people) has arms, and the people do not, then the roles are reversed for the people can not resist a government that has become tyrannical. Continue reading
By Michael LeMieux
By now many of you have heard of the Chicago Supreme Court case to hear NRA Vs. City of Chicago and McDonald Vs. City of Chicago to try and overturn the no handgun rule for the city residents.
Now with this next statement I am sure I am going to get a ton of hate mail but please hold judgment until you have read the entire article. You do not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms! Now I want you to understand, you MAY have a right to keep and bear arms, but it is not granted by the Constitution. Continue reading
On April 21st of 2009 Democrat Senator Lautenberg introduced a bill into the Senate called “A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.” I immediately raise the BS flag knowing that ALL federal firearms “dealers” must already perform background checks before selling to ANY person, whether at a gun show or from their own place of business. That is not what this bill is about, it is about control of the American citizen, it is about control and the denial of rights of all Americans. Continue reading
By Michael LeMieux
I am troubled over all the hoopla over the recent decision of the D.C. V. Heller case; not for what it has affirmed, but for what it does not say, and for what it left out.
Justice Scalia started off the decision citing the history of the case; and then he jumps immediately into the “meaning of the Second Amendment,” (with which I totally agree). Justice Scalia then begins his analysis and break-down of the Second Amendment into its various clauses, and then he came to the conclusion, as have many on the right, that this amendment is indeed an individual right. Continue reading
Over the years I have heard countless politicians and even gun rights activists defending our Second Amendment right as being for hunting, target shooting, or some other recreational activity involving firearms.
When it comes to the true purpose of the Second Amendment they could not be further from the truth. To prove this point lets look at the words of the Second Amendment itself: “A wellregulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Continue reading
By Michael LeMieux
There are some in our society, and in government, that believe the Constitution is a living document that must “change” with the times. Oh really? They would have us believe that when someone writes a document for the establishment of a government that the documents meaning would change just because time had passed. And who would be the deciding voice on that change? And who would decide which passages are changeable and which were not? Continue reading
By Michael LeMieux
In a previous article for News With Views, “Is State Sovereignty Dead”, I brought up the case of McCulloch V. Maryland where I stated the following:
By Michael LeMieux
Many of you by now have received your 2010 Census form in the mail and have waded through the questions. I must admit I was braced for much more intrusive questions but was still wondering why the federal government needs to know whether I own or rent the dwelling I am inhabiting and how that allows them to ascertain my states representation.
On the very front of the envelope it states “U.S. Census Form Enclosed YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.” And I thought to myself, oh really? If the central government is defined by the constitution and all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people (10th Amendment) where do they get their power to go beyond that? Continue reading
In all societies there is a balancing act between state power and citizen rights, between tyranny and freedom. As sovereign citizens of the states of the union we “the people” are supposed to be masters of our domains and our lives as long as we do not trespass against other citizens rights. At least that was the way our nation began.
Today, however, we have “evolved” to a state of legal confusion and intentional obfuscation of our rights. We are supposed to have the right to free travel without harassment from government. That our property and our persons were to be free from searches and seizures unless, under due process (a judge says so), the person doing the searching must have “probable cause” that a crime has been committed. But what if they do not have probable cause, hmmm, how about if we change that to just having “reasonable suspicion.” Continue reading
Shortly after that fateful day of September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and accused defenders of liberty of giving aid to the terrorists and weakening America’s resolve because they criticized the government with fears of loosing civil rights.
On the Friday prior to voting on the PATRIOT Act, the Judiciary Committee passed a bipartisan version of the bill that did not have the broad sweeping powers wanted by Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House. At 3:45 am on Sunday the bill was printed; but it had been modified to include all the items of the original bill which, according to Rep. DeFazio from Oregon, were a direct challenge to our civil liberties. These same items had been rejected by congress even before 9/11 occurred. Continue reading
