It is this simple

I did not write this for publication purposes, rather it was written to try to explain why certain people I know do not have the right to tell me that I can, or cannot, own whatever type gun I want. However, if you wish to circulate it amongst your contacts, feel free to do so.

It is this simple:
By Neal Ross

 In 1787 a group of men drafted a document which we know as the Constitution. In 1788 it was ratified, (agreed upon), by the required number of states to become legally binding as the Supreme Law of the Land. Article 6
That document created our federal government and binds it to the specific powers listed in Article 1 Section 8.

The purpose for which government was created is, “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” Declaration of Independence

Furthermore, ten amendments were also ratified by the states, which we now know as the Bill of Rights, the purpose for which was, “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” Preamble to Bill of Rights

The Second of these amendments states “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.”

The definition for keep is “to hold or maintain something in your possession

The definition for bear is “to carry something

As our nation grew older, new amendments were added to the Constitution, the fourteenth of which, in part states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the 1943 Supreme Court case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Justice Robert Jackson delivered the following ruling, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that all citizens shall have equal protection under the law and that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Therefore, any American should be able to exercise their Second Amendment right to the same extent as any other citizen living in the other 49 states.

Yet why do ONLY 39 states allow their citizens to own what they classify as assault weapons? Why do ONLY 39 states allow their citizens to attach noise suppressors, (silencers) to their weapons? Why do 40 states allow their citizens to own high capacity magazines for their firearms and the other 10 do not? Why is the Taurus Judge, a pistol which shoots both .45 caliber rounds and .410 shotgun shells legal in 49 states, yet it is not legal in California? Why do some states allow their citizens to bear arms, while others do not?

Where is the equal protection? Whatever happened to SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, IS the Supreme Law of the Land. Every elected official sitting in office takes an oath to uphold it. Why are any of these people still in office when the evidence clearly shows that many of them are guilty of violating one of our unalienable rights.

According to Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1910), Unalienable is defined as “ Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled “Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona

In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” U.S. v Miller

I am all for punishing anyone who abuses a right. If someone uses a firearm to commit a crime, then by all means they should be punished…severely! But to infringe upon MY right because of public outrage over someone else’s abuse is simply unconstitutional.

In the Nature of Judicial Process, 1921, Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo stated “The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles.

Therefore, just because you don’t like guns, or because you are afraid of those of us who do, you DO NOT have the right to ask us to surrender our unalienable right to own them, in the quantity and type of our choosing. You also do not have the right to ask that your legislator pass a law which restricts our ability to fully exercise our right.

It’s that simple!


I really admire Neal for his ability to articulate intelligently, and also for his consideration of people he really (and justly) despises. Attributes of which this Olddog has not been graced with, and the proof of that is most always found in my comments section, such as this.

You chicken shit scumbags that are obsessed with only allowing law enforcement and military personnel to have weapons had better not cross my path or visit my home, as I consider you unworthy of contaminating the air I breath. You will feel as safe around me as a light-bulb in the back of a pickup truck with a hundred baseball-bats rolling around. I despise the ground you pollute when you walk around. The only good thing about you ran down your mothers leg. Get the fxxking picture?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: