What “Fast and Furious” was really all about…


The Obamanation Administration engaged in an intentional program to provide itself with a justification to violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This program was called “Operation Fast and Furious” There have been many on the right who figured out exactly what was going on pretty much the moment US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered.

Well, what we knew was coming has arrived, and it is exactly what we knew it would be.

ATF to accept public comments prior to outlawing shotguns

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is taking a rare step of allowing public comments prior to issuing a decision on a study that could result in outlawing certain types of shotguns currently available to citizens.

Read that very carefully as it is of utmost importance. The ATF, the exact same agency in charge of “Operation Fast and Furious” is going to outlaw certain guns. Shotguns to be precise. It would seem that the Obamanation Administration, headed up by the supposed Constitutional Scholar Barack Obama haven’t bothered to read the United States Constitution.

Shall not be infringed.

in·fringe // //
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Latin īnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fring’er n.

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 progressive movement has been eroding this amendment since early on in the 20th century. Hiding their actions behind such vile and detestable terms as reasonable regulations and public safety.

The real truth is that the founding fathers left zero wiggle room regarding the regulation of firearms ownership. They made their thoughts on the subject absolutely crystal clear.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

History had to be revised by a progressive controlled educational system for these facts to be so ignored and watered down as to advance the notion the founding fathers found both insane and insulting, reasonable regulation and public safety.

Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best.

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

The second amendment is not a States Rights issue, nor does the Federal Government have any constitutional authority to regulate firearms ownership, the constitution makes this indisputably and incontrovertibly clear.

Yet Federal administration after administration and State after State have completely and totally violated the letter of the law as spelled out in no uncertain terms in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the FBI has documented and for the most part hidden their results which prove beyond any doubt that populated centers where individual gun ownership and right to carry laws exist have the very lowest assault, murder, and robbery levels in the entire country.

Federal and State gun regulations are not and never has been about providing public safety, they are and always have been about making stripping the constitutional rights away from citizens and increasing the governments control over individuals lives.

Ponder the words of the great and famous statesman Benjamin Franklin, consider where you fall in this great divide, are you on the side of the Founding Fathers of this Great Republic, or have you sided with the Progressive Movement, (and yes that really does mean communists) who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution?

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Choose you this day upon whose side you are on, I pray that the words of Sameul Adams are not spoken of you.
Sameul Adams:“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

I am left to ponder the painfully obvious, what part of “shall not be infringed” is it that these Marxist fascists do not understand? Part of me, I must confess believes that they understand completely what “Shall not be Infringed” means, but they just do not care. That pesky Second Amendment gets in the way of their planned coup and implementation of their Marxist Utopia. Before I go any further and you think that I might be over reacting or going overboard on what I am suggesting regarding the meaning and intentions of the Founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment let me quote David E. Young Constitutional scholar and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment history.


The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’

As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive “reasonable” regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the “shall not be infringed” restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the “shall not be infringed” language was to prevent regulation of the right.

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb “infringe” was intended to be in the Founders’ view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.

James Madison’s Usage
The Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that “infringe” based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison’s intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable “reasonable” regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of “infringe” based protection.

Samuel Adams’ Usage
Another person who used “infringe” in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison’s case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Congressional Amendments Committee Usage
There is other informative period Bill of Rights related use of “shall not be infringed” language often overlooked today due to gun control advocates’ historical arguments diverting away from the Second Amendment’s actual Bill of Rights history. The Committee of Eleven, to which Madison’s proposals were submitted by Congress, accepted his original use of “infringed” relative to freedom of religion as well as his “shall not be infringed” language relative to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Committee also added Madison’s original Second Amendment restrictive language (“shall not be infringed”) to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech – freedom of the press – the right of peaceable assembly – the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison’s “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged” [OSA p.654], were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”. [OSA p.680] Once again, it does not appear that such period usage indicated the Committee members understood that religious beliefs could be subjected to extensive reasonable regulations, or that they used “shall not be infringed” with the intention that it would condone extensive and reasonable regulation of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, the right to apply for redress of grievances, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Unlike President Obama, David E Young is a genuine boni fide Constitutional Scholar, not a part-time guest lecturer. Please go read Professor Young’s entire article, it is extremely well written and impeccably sourced.

The ATF has absolutely no, as in ZERO legal authority to outlaw so much as a spitwad straw let alone shotguns that can accept a magazine or hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition. To say that this attempted action by the ATF is unconstitutional and completely illegal would be one of the biggest understatement of the century, and there have been a lot of understatements made in this fledgling century.

With the “Operation Fast and Furious” investigation going absolutely nowhere (one can only assume that Issa and Boehnor have intentionally buried it at this point) how can we not come to the conclusion that it is time to eliminate the ATF?? It has shown itself to be nothing less than a criminal organization bound and determined to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “What “Fast and Furious” was really all about…

  1. Grat Post; too bad we can’t make it required reading on all College Campuses. We will only win in defending our rights if the public is aware. I’ve send the link to this post to 20 college students (including my son). Hope it speards.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s