I recently watched a YouTube video from one of the USCCA lawyers, but, as of this writing, I cannot locate it again. I apologize. It was very informative about many legal technical questions raised by various anti-gun arguments.
The pea and nutshell legal
shuffling of the "Feinstein argument" belies the common sense of the
Second Amendment, especially with regard to any implication of the meaning of
"common use" restrictions, as there are no "common use" conditions stated in our
Constitution. The commonly understood cause for our Second Amendment was for common citizens to be able to protect themselves from any and every tyrannical government, including our own if it became tyrannical. That is clear in the ancillary writings of our Founding Fathers.
For decades, until my arthritis
got too bad, I carried a Sig Sauer P226 9mm semi-auto handgun on my person, for
protection. I, personally, used the OEM 15, as well as18 and 20, round
magazines in that gun. Those were my daily-carry ammo supply in my
self-protection firearm. I used both OEM and aftermarket magazines, commonly, in
that gun, all the time, on my person, as well as during practice at the range.
Even though I never had to fire even one round of ammunition from those gun and
magazine combinations in any actual defense of self or others, I was always
prepared to do so if it had been necessary. THAT was common use, in every reasonable and socially responsible sense of the word.
The illogical and
unconstitutional legal word salads made by anti-gun lawyers and politicians
deny the underlying truth of such common practical use by law-abiding citizens. Those legal
word salads attack the meaning of words instead of accepting the common usage
of words, and thereby, the anti-gun lawyers and politicians seek to make
language itself meaningless. Their attempts to destroy the meaning of common
language, confuse undiscerning courtrooms and citizens. Such verbiage, also, seeks to destroy
common understanding between members of society. By those obfuscations, the anti-gun crowd condemns our society to devolve into primitive combative anti-social behaviors, as we
see happening across our society, today.
It is an unholy thing that the Feinstein Argument sets up the requirement that common use of firearms should
mean that firearms owners and bearers must actually pull the trigger and actively shoot
other human beings as a requisite proof of common use of any politically or
"legally" questioned firearm configuration or design.
Feinstein's required shooting of human beings as proof of common use is an
immoral and an insane view of the purpose of our Constitution and our Second
Amendment rights.
We must remember that many of
those who are trying to disarm law-abiding citizens of the USA have delusions about the
function and availability of police forces, plus, many of the wealthier
anti-gun people are able to hire their own private personal armed guards or
armed services to protect themselves. But, those elitists do not want us, the
common citizens, to be able to arm or defend ourselves with weapons of our own
choosing, as was affirmed, stated, and implied in the SCOTUS Dred Scott
decision. The HULU Channel has a current program about serial killers that crisscross our continent, and the conclusion of the program states that our US justice system and policing are out of control, unable to protect U.S. citizens from harm and scarcely able to deal with a fraction of the violent crime attacks on our citizens. Honest appraisal of our criminal and justice systems must come to the logical conclusion that each and every citizen must be willing to arm ourselves and band together in defense of self, family, and our neighborhoods, IF we want to keep the local peace. The police departments are there to help pick up the pieces and begin the process of sorting out the legal implications of self-defense situations. There shall never be enough police to keep every evildoer from doing evil. Our communities must be self-policing, especially since FBI statistics have shown that 3/4 of all violent crimes against persons are NOT committed with firearms of any kind.
Many years ago, in the Dred Scott case, SCOTUS morally,
biblically, socially, and constitutionally misjudged the humanity of the man
incorrectly. Yet, the decision of the Court did correctly understand and apply
the Second Amendment in that case: for, as SCOTUS stated, IF they had
adjudicated him to be a human being, as they should have done, he would then have been wholly entitled
under our U.S. Constitution to all constitutional rights and would have been
recognized as having the natural right to keep and bear arms of any kind,
anywhere he chose, at any time, within these United States of America. The Sullivan Law of N.Y., the FDR establishment of anti-gun laws, and all anti-gun laws, ATF rulings, and Executive Orders have been in egregious violation of our Constitution. With that governmental infringement on our natural right to bear arms for self-defense against tyranny, our own government and self-serving anti-social groups have also infringed upon our rights to responsible free speech and freedom of religion.
Our Nation is sinking fast into
the oblivion of history. We must return to God's Word, the Bible, and to the
plain language of our US Constitution.
In Jesus Christ,
Craig Szwed
