Back Home Up Next



The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

These things bother me. This section of the Constitution is in the section of rights reserved by the people. Liberal politicians and liberal judges (Executive Branch and Judicial Branch) are continually trying to erode these rights reserved for the people.

Now there are two other things that bother me. Congress has passed two laws in recent memory which are ex post facto, which means "retroactive" One was an income tax increase, the other prohibited a spouse abuser from owning or carrying a firearm, a "noble purpose". This was passed in spite of a legal opinion of the legal staff of the Library of Congress, advisor to Congressman, that part of it would be ruled unconstitutional.

Not being able to own or carry a gun in felony spouse abuse was not necessary because a convicted felon is prohibited by any felony conviction, and has been for years. By making conviction of misdemeanor spouse abuse retroactive, violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws. Making this provision apply to misdemeanor convictions at some future date, or "grandfathering" would have made it constitutional.

Now we get to the Brady Law, which requires a background check on anyone purchasing a firearm.. Our President, along with high officials in the Justice Department have reported 250,000-300,000 gun sales have been stopped by the background checks required by the Brady Law. Here is the rub, it is a Federal felony for attempting to buy a firearm who meet the criteria for rejection. This includes convicted felons, mentally unstable individuals, and several others.

Question:  Where are the Federal prosecutions of these felony acts? They do not exist.

Then we have the statistics they feed us on the number of gunshot deaths per year, something around 35,000 per year. Let us look at the 35,000 per year. They include those killed by the police, those killed by honest citizens in acts of self defense, who incidentally kill more than the police, hunting accidents, gang shootings, usually drug related, drive by shootings, a few nuts, like recent school shootings, etc. Random acts of violence are rare.

A University of Chicago professor has reported that an analysis of 30,000 counties in states that have liberalized the "right to carry" laws, with permits, the crime rates have dropped in half.

Mayor Daley, of Chicago, spearheaded a tighter gun controls in Chicago and crime has risen drastically.

New York City has had the Sullivan Law for over 50 years and I would not walk down the street there.

Washington D.C. has a total prohibition on owning firearms and is known as "the crime capitol".

Both England and Australia recently passed stringent gun control laws and crime went up drastically.


1.  Why are the executive and judicial branch so adamant in wanting to take the means of self defense for home and family away from the average law abiding citizen?

2.  Now I'm sure they know that citizens use firearms in self defense over 2,500,000 times a year, usually without a shot being fired.

3.  I'm sure they know that over 60% of the crimes committed in the United States are committed by a minority group comprising 13% of the population.

4.  I'm sure they know that fully automatic weapons have been and are being fired in the mountains of New York by members of the JDL. Ownership of an automatic weapon requires a license costing $500 per year, per gun. This firing must be in violation of some law.

5.  Why do they refer to semi-automatic (self-loading) weapons as "machine guns or automatic weapons." Do they know the difference, or just being careless with the truth.

6.  Why the push to pardon convicted felons? Many elections are won by just 1 vote in a precinct. A lady lost an election in Norfolk by 4 or 5 votes. A check showed there were over 700 convicted felons on the voter rolls. A judge would not permit her to find out how many had voted.

7.  Does this provide an insight into a president, who took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution", while in the past had said it should be abolished.

8.  Does this indicate that the lunatics have taken over the asylum? I have no answers, but just think about it.

Meandermgs of Henry T. Cook, Lt. Col., USMC (Retired)