Anyone who has read my material knows that I'm no fan of Jeff Miller, R-FL-1.

However, when you're right you're right, and it is only fair to report when someone is, especially when this is a lawmaker in my district and my representative, as poor as I generally believe he is in that regard.

Nonetheless in this regard he is right, and this view and all who share it must be identified and supported.  This is what hit my email box this morning:

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.” -Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School sparked a national discussion over the best courses of action to protect our children in their schools and prevent the mass murder of innocents at the hands of predatory killers. While the moment held promise for a reasoned debate that could have produced effective policy solutions, at the prodding of President Obama, the conversation has devolved into an attack against American citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed civil right to keep and bear arms.

This past week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo laid out his plan to institute the “toughest assault weapon ban in the nation,” claiming that “no one hunts with an assault rifle.” His comments suggest adherence to a belief that the Second Amendment was included by the framers of our Constitution to guarantee our right to hunt deer. What Governor Cuomo and those who parrot his talking points fail to grasp is that the framers of our Constitution didn’t include the Second Amendment to protect our right to hunt (although today we hunters enjoy the protections provided by the Second Amendment). They were a people who had, less than a decade earlier, finished fighting a war for independence from a tyrannical government that believed its citizens served it, instead of the government serving its citizens.

It was in this climate of somber renewal and thoughtful reflection that cautious debate emerged over the future of our nation. How would our government be structured so as to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Just as importantly, the framers of our Constitution sought to reinforce the bedrock principle that government derives its authority from the governed. The Bill of Rights is composed of the first ten amendments to our Constitution—amendments that provide unequivocal protections for individual citizens and states against abuses from the federal government. This first generation of Americans carried with them firsthand memories and experiences of tyranny and oppression from which they were freed, not by repeated petitions for redress of grievances, but only by armed resistance in the face of a better equipped and better trained government force.

The lessons they learned during the American Revolution and the decades which preceded it informed the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Within the Bill of Rights, our right to keep and bear arms is preceded only by the right to worship as we please, to speak freely without fear of government repression, and to peacefully assemble. The framers understood that the right to defend oneself, one’s family, and one’s nation is an innate right that must be protected if this experiment in freedom is to succeed.

Interest groups, politicians, and the Administration should not be exploiting a national tragedy to abandon liberty in pursuit of political expedience and advantage, rather, we should all comprehensively examine the policies, practices, and culture which lead to mass violence. Additionally, any attempt by the President to enact gun control by executive order would be an obscene abuse of power, ungrounded in Constitutional authority, and tantamount to a violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

For nearly 240 years, the right to keep and bear arms has stood the test of time, and I will continue to stand by those courageous citizens who follow in the footsteps of generations of American patriots and who through their sacrifice dare defend and protect the written words of our Founding Fathers.

Yep.

The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to hunt deer, pheasant or duck.  It guarantees the people their right to shoot tyrants, no matter whether they are of the petty variety that accost you in your home at 3:00 AM and desire to******or murder you and your family, or the rather-more-dangerous variety that unfortunately have arisen too many times through the centuries, including in places like Nazi Germany, Rwanda and (yes), in Colonial America.

Our Revolutionary War began when The British decided to send 700 soldiers in an attempt to determine who owned and then confiscate muskets, powder and ball from the Colonists.  They demanded that the 77 Minutemen who faced them throw down their weapons and permit that confiscation to take place. 

The Minutemen refused.

It is unclear exactly who fired first, but the fact remains that it was The British who tried to confiscate the Colonists' weapons and in doing so caused shots to be fired, whether they actually fired first or not.

The Second Amendment exists to guarantee the people arms of similar type and quality as used by a military organization, as in the extreme case where that Amendment need be deployed that is exactly what those bearing them will face. 

The founders wrote this into our Constitution because they had just survived exactly that situation, they knew damn well that it might happen again, and they were well-aware that the only reason they did not all wind up dead, imprisoned or hanged is that they had their guns -- the equal of those facing them -- and refused to surrender them.

Chuck Schumer seems to be confused, as is documented here:

On Sunday, Sen. Charles Schumer called on major gun retailers like Wal-Mart to suspend the sale of assault weapons temporarily.

“In Florida alone, there were nearly 5,000 background checks requested on the day of Sandy Hook, as opposed to the day before where there were 3,000,” said Schumer.

That's right Chuck, the people of this nation are voting with their wallets.  They believe that your actions may rise at some point to the level of high treason against natural law ensconced in the Bill of Rights and declared in The Declaration of Independence.

170 million people have been slaughtered by tyrants in the 20th century alone outside of direct wartime combat.  Arguably the most-outrageous in terms of the percentage of the population murdered per unit of time was the 1994 slaughter in Rwanda where 20% of the population, some 800,000 people, were shoved in the hole in 100 days. 

They had, more than a decade previous, been disarmed under the exact same rubric you, Mr. Schumer, present now -- an allegation that for reasons of "public safety" the people had to be debarred their natural right to shoot tyrants. 

Unfortunately for the people in Rwanda once they acceded to this outrageous demand (in 1979) the tyrants showed their true colors 15 years later and killed one fifth of the population in three months.  And the United States, for all of its bluster and bull**** about being "morally superior", did exactly nothing about it.

I note specifically that you were in Congress at that time, serving as a US Representative. 

You did exactly nothing to stop that slaughter.

Indeed, you were even worse than being comotose at the time while Mr. Clinton enjoyed his dalliances in the White House.

Let us not forget that you, Mr. Schumer, were later a co-sponsor of S 106 in 2007 to recognize the Armenian Genocide -- not-incidentally also preceded by firearms registration and confiscation!

Now you have the gall to demand..... firearms registration and confiscation!

The people buying rifles and clearing the shelves of ammunition today are not people who have developed a newfound love of hunting.

They are concerned about people just like you, Mr. Schumer, who think The Constitution is a piece of toilet paper, and when the highest law of the land becomes inconvenient to your fantasies it is and will be ignored. 

They fear, with good cause, a replay of Armenia, Nazi Germany, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, Rwanda and dozens of other examples.

The people are not crazy -- they are observant of the record you personally and the rest of Washington have compiled in the last decade, but most-especially over the last four years.

During that time we have been witness to an outrageous display of utter contempt for the law where financial instruments that are known to be crap are sold to people and later admitted to have been known to be "vomit", over 100,000 cases of perjury are committed and later admitted to, an entire county is rooked out of billions in hinky sewer derivatives through various devices including actual bribery, multiple major international and US financial institutions are caught funding drug cartels via money laundering in the billions and our own government arms Mexican drug gangs illegally, resulting in thousands of dead Mexican citizens and at least one confirmed murder here in the United States -- of a border agent.  And that's the short list; I have a litany of these events here on The Ticker as do many others, and in many cases these are not mere allegations -- they've been admitted to and thus are facts.

Yet nobody in our government has been indicted, prosecuted or impeached for any of this and not one major criminal case has been brought against a major financial institution or its executives.

Tricky Dick Nixon was expelled from office for violations that were a tiny fraction of the severity, scope and personal impact upon the people's lives that have been served upon the public by our government and its cohorts in the financial sector over the last four years.  And let us remember that several of Nixon's "buddies" were actually prosecuted with 43 people being indicted, tried, convicted and incarcerated including the Attorney General and Nixon's Chief of Staff.

If there was ever a time in this nation's history to believe that our government could decide to commit genocide against we the people at some indeterminate point in the future (but certainly within our lifetimes) it is now. 

I need only look at the last four years of our history and the willful and intentional refusal to prosecute people up and down the line who admitted wrong-doing under oath and on television, never mind the obviously-false story told with regard to Benghazi, to find every reason to believe that even raw and blatant murder will not be prosecuted provided some element of the government or a favored commercial interest commits the crime.

I do not expect such an act today, of course, for tyrants never tell you up front that they intend to kill you as they "politely" ask for your guns under penalty of imprisonment (or being shot on the spot.)  Oh no, that nasty outcome tends to come a decade or so down the road long after the people forget that they were disarmed "for their own safety" and are well beyond their ability to do anything about it!

The record of the last four years, to me, looks like a perfectly-reasonable argument for immediately going to the gun store and buying everything you can afford, right here and now, and it appears that honest, law-abiding Americans see the present situation exactly that way. 

The incessant and transparent bloviating on guns, when it is clear that none of the changes in law demanded would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting or any of the others, appears to have woken the American people from their slumber in regards to the outrageous and pervasive nature of Washington DC's fraud upon the people.  

To that I say it's about damned time.

I will note that should WalMart or any other company accede to willful and intentional interference with Constitutionally-guaranteed rights they should be boycotted by the American people and put out of business for their willing participation in what could, in the future, turn out to be acting as an accessory before the fact to a literal genocide on American soil!

They can join Dicks' Sporting Goods who already deserves exactly that punishment.

There is a lawful means by which we can change the Second Amendment, should it be called for and the people agree to it.  I believe, for the reasons I outline above, that doing so would be ridiculously foolish, but there is nonetheless a Constitutional means to achieve what certain people seek.

It's the very process enshrined in The Constitution itself.  Congress merely needs to pass a bill to do so through both houses with a 2/3rds majority, and then 3/4 of the States must ratify it.

This is very difficult to accomplish -- on purpose. 

It is difficult precisely to prevent people from dancing in the blood of dead children while tearing the Constitution to shreds -- and laying the groundwork for tyranny down the road. 

It is precisely that long, drawn out and difficult process that was designed to force public debate on what is being proposed and what ugly side effects may come if a given proposal is agreed to.  Such a debate will of necessity include a nice examination of whether the government should be trusted with the security of the people -- and whether it has discharged its responsibility in a faithful manner to the rule of law thus far.

Until Congress and/or The President take that route and travel that road, as difficult as it is, they have absolutely no lawful authority, and neither does any other part of the Federal Government, to abridge or abuse the rights delineated and protected in The Bill of Rights.

In short the people of this nation are lawfully expressing their opinion of the bloviating Mr. Schumer, along with that of Obama, Biden, Blumenthal, Feinstein and a few others. 

The people have seen the record of Washington DC when it comes to giving a damn about mere law, say much less unalienable rights (such as one's right to life) and they are both gravely and reasonably concerned in that regard.

The American people do not want war, but there appear to be plenty of law-abiding and patriotic Americans who will not go silently into the showers.

All Representatives, Senators and The President took an oath of office when they were sworn in that included defending The Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

There appear to be a few Representatives, including Mr. Miller, who understood what they swore to do and upon what they swore their oaths.

The dishonorable Mr. Schumer, on the other hand, is a disgrace to his office and the State of New York.