Executive orders were not meant to provide a president with designs on monarchy a way to realize his dreams via a vehicle by which he could ignore the House, the Senate and the Court and simply dictate his personal doctrine, via whim, to the American people.

Yet, here we have a president who is doing just that, cranking out an executive order whenever he is not satisfied with the dictates of the Constitution or the legalities of United States governance.

As we know, President Obama is purportedly preparing another one of his executive order specials to step on the Second Amendment without consideration of any possible interference from those pesky members of the other branches of government.

A Washington Times article by Andrew Napolitano pretty much defines the issue.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

SNIP!

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Above emphasis mine.

Read the entire piece, it’s as good a pro-Second Amendment article as I’ve seen in the course of this latest attempt by the left to deprive us of one of our most basic rights.

Seth’s interim post hit the nail right on the head, reflecting all our thoughts here at Hard Astarboard.

On the same token, we all agree on one thing, and that is that of all the PACs and PAC oriented organizations purporting to fight for our rights, the single one we can always count on to keep their nose to the grindstone and remain ever vigilant on our behalf is the National Rifle Association.

To that end, whatever else happens in the red light district of politics, we will not neglect to remind readers of the importance of our Second Amendment rights.

That said, a letter that’s making the rounds, from an eight year United States Marine to Senator Dianne Feinstein regarding that leftie legislator’s war on American gun ownership, appears at The Blaze.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl,
United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Those are our sentiments, exactly….

No matter what results from their misguided and often unconstitutional policies, liberals would rather stick to their — wait, I can’t say “guns”, since they are anti-gun — laurels? — and ignore whatever harmful tragedies these policies cause, as long as these tragedies don’t happen to them, personally.

Take California’s dedication to pretending there is no Second Amendment in the Constitution.

From Godfather Politics:

Gun Control Laws to Blame For California’s Rise in Crime

The city of San Bernardino is feeling the effects of California’s restrictive gun laws. The 50% increase in crime compared to last year is being blamed on a dwindling police force that’s being subjected to cuts because of the city’s bankruptcy. That may be part of it because people have perhaps grown dependent on the police to provide protection. But California’s gun control laws are some of the worst in the nation.

In order to get a carry concealed weapon license (CCW), you have to convince the police department in your interview with them that you actually have “good cause” to carry a gun. Saying that you need one for general self-defense is not good enough. Your life has to be in imminent danger, and you have to be able to prove it to them.

Out of the 2 million residents in San Bernardino County (San Bernardino city sits in the southwest corner of the county), only 2,800 have been allowed CCW’s by the county’s police department.

Unlike most other states, California’s state constitution doesn’t even address possession of guns. It doesn’t grant its citizens the right to bear arms. You’d think the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution addresses that issue enough to apply to all states, but that’s one issue where liberals blithely bring up the importance of states’ rights.

{My emphasis on that last bit, and quite applicably mentioned as California liberals only embrace the ever important concept of states’ rights when they can’t get the House and the Senate to violate the Constitution in their favor}

In a recent San Bernardino city council meeting called by one of the council members to address the citizens’ concerns of rising violence, the city attorney Jim Penman spoke candidly about the issue. He drew fire when he told attendees to “lock your doors and load your guns.” He reiterated to the local CBS station:

“Let’s be honest, we don’t have enough police officers. We have too many criminals living in this city. We have had 45 murders this year…that’s far too high for a city of this size.”

Meanwhile, the same is happening in Oakland, where officials say that they’ve experienced a 43% increase in burglaries compared to last year. Again, they’re claiming it all has to do with the police officers that are being let go because of budgetary problems. CBS reports:

“According to the latest numbers from the Oakland Police Department, more than 11,000 homes, cars or businesses have been broken into so far this year – translating to about 33 burglaries a day. The most popular targets have been cars with more than 5,700 burglarized so far this year… One of the most likely reasons for the sharp uptick in crime – city officials said they believe it’s the gradual loss of police officers from the force.”

If California would legalize the Second Amendment, the crime rate would decrease, and there wouldn’t be a need for a large police force. Just look at Kennesaw, Georgia, which passed an ordinance in 1982 that required every household to own a gun. The crime rate dropped 50% between then and 2005, and it continues to drop. In fact, it has the lowest crime rate in the U.S. But don’t bring that up with liberals. They go ballistic.

Kalifornia liberals…

For those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund endorses a vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket.

Of course, how could any right thinking American vote any other way?

I wasn’t going to do a second post today until I ran across this must-listen-to speech from Rep. Allen White before the NRA.

Bravo!