Drawing a Red Line


About the author: Becky is a conservative citizen activist who grew up in the 1980's Reagan era. During that time it was not unusual for American's to hear a great deal about the Cold War and to be concerned about the possibility of a nuclear war. When the Cold War ended, American entered an era of peace and prosperi ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Screen Shot 2014-03-17 at 1.30.04 PM

Thomas Jefferson said “no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.” He also said “The constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that…it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

Thomas Jefferson was a smart man.

When the founding fathers came together to unite the colonies into the United States, one of the biggest obstacles they faced was the fear from some state representatives that a federal government would grab power from the states, thus eliminating their autonomy and, over time, becoming the very tyrannical overseers the colonists had just rid themselves of.

As America groans under the burden of more and more crippling legislation, a stagnant economy, a weak White House administration on the world scene, and the thrust of liberal communism, American states are drawing their own red lines, and backing theirs up with action. Blue states like New Jersey, which is considering legislation to limit magazine capacity, and New York, with its erroneously titled SAFE Act (passed with no public input, overnight), are making every effort to move the would-be sheeple towards comfort with anti-constitutional restrictions on the rights they were born with, and that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Connecticut, taking it even further, has banned many classes of firearms and magazines, and has demanded registration of firearms by law abiding citizens, with the threat of door to door confiscation for those who do not comply. Much to the surprise and chagrin of the liberal Democrat socialist lawmakers of that state, some 85% of gun owners in Connecticut did the unthinkable; they practiced civil disobedience and refused to register. Governor Malloy was not expecting this. Such is the American spirit.

That spirit is evident in other states who, in a growing movement, are writing state legislation to counter the over reach of Uncle Sam. Pro gun legislation is making its way through state senate and house floors or committees in Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, West Virginia, Utah, Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Alaska, Georgia, and Wyoming.

With the rash of school shootings America has suffered in the last decade, and the anti-gun sentiment liberals have perpetrated as a result, it is interesting to note that Idaho’s Governor Butch Otter (R) just signed Senate Bill 1254 into law. This law, which takes effect July 1, 2014, will allow qualified retired law enforcement officers and law abiding adults who have obtained an Idaho “advanced” concealed carry license to possess a firearm on public college or university campuses. Governor Otter is quoted as saying

“I support the legislature’s determination that the burden of proving the necessity for [constitutional protections] falls not to the citizens exercising their second amendment rights, but rather to any who would seek to limit them.”

This bill, sponsored by state Senator Curt McKenzie, (R) passed the Idaho Senate by a 25-10 vote and the Idaho House of Representative by a 50-19 vote.

Alaska is considering a similar bill. If passed, Senate Bill 176, sponsored by state Senator John Coghill (R), would allow law abiding citizens to possess and carry firearms for self defense on the University of Alaska’s campuses.

The second amendment battle is being fought on every level and a showdown is inevitable. One could argue that it is occurring as we speak. Multiple cases have been pushed to the Supreme Court level, though the Justices have refused to review some. While the SCOTUS has historically upheld the right of citizens to possess firearms within their homes, at question now is whether or not the second amendment guarantees a person’s right to carry that same firearm outside of the home. In mid February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that California’s requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued to those gun owners who have “good cause” to carry a concealed gun in public is an infringement on the second amendment. After all, a person who is interested in self defense (and who isn’t?) has just as much interest in protecting himself in public as in private.

President Obama has made a habit of warning other nations about crossing a “red line”, promising consequences for these offenses. It hasn’t taken long for the nations of the world to realize that those consequences are impotent admonishments from an impotent administration. Today, as Obama and his cronies endeavor to implement the rule of communism in America, patriots in every state are drawing their own red line. Thomas Jefferson noted that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

While it is the sincere hope of every patriot that bloodshed will not be necessary to protect our rights, more and more Americans every day are waking up to the realization that our personal rights, and the responsibility that comes with them, cannot be subject to the whims of the would be tsars of Washington DC, or even those in state government. If we stand meekly by while they pat us on the head and tell us everything will be okay if we will just trust them and leave it all to them, we will soon find ourselves working fingers to the bone to hand everything over to them, and then holding our hands out, begging for meager handouts from the very culprits who took what we earned. And we will be subject to their other whims as well, giving them the ability to decide our value, our course in life, and whether or not we should even be allowed to live.

Now is the time to draw our own red line, and dare them to cross it. Let’s just make sure our consequences are ones they don’t want to face.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Had the framers established government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as reflected in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11), these anti-gun laws could have never been passed. In fact, they wouldn’t have even been given consideration under a Biblical judicial system:

    “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)

    “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

    The Amendment with the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment completely whittled away or repealed altogether. This is the inherent nature of optional rights as compared to the much more potent non-optional God-expected responsibilities, like those above.

    For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.com/#FeaturedMessages. If you prefer to read, see our blog article “You Can’t Win Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight.”

    • Phaenius

      Since it is apparent to you that we have NOT done so, then it is up to us to insist that all dealings with civilization of America, from now on WILL be based on such a thing among the People as a presumption that we will personally enforce, and if goveernment is indeed a terror to good works, and the authority loses its ordination from God, then we are not a people without law for we still have the ten commandments which Locke implies in his Second Treatise of Government that all municpal laws were based on and should be interpreted by, and we will continue doing good even if we are punished for it, for so did they to the Apostles and to the Head of our Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself.
      Peter who said to submit to all statutes by King or Governer and who said, who would harm us for doing good, and said if we are then we are to continue doing good, when told by a magistrate that he should not preach in the name of Christ to the community, replied, “we ought to obey God rather than men.”
      So American freedom is NOT the raw freedom of the libertine, because such tends to be license even to the understanding of that Same John Locke who mentored Jefferson through his Second Treatise of Government, when Locke said that suicide is not LIBERTY but LICENSE, because God put us on this earth to LIVE and not to quit our station early, and if we do not have a moral right to off ourselves before the time, then we do not have a moral right to delagate power over our innocent life to another, ergo the unalienable right to life and attendent rights as Liberty and Possessions, then American freedom is called LIBERTY or the freedom to do that which is right in the sight of God.
      Licnese I may surmize is that complementary freedom to do that which is deleterious to innocent life and at best indifferent to the protection of innocent life. So…is government going to give us a “license” to carry for self defense or are we going to demand our inalienable RIGHT of LIBERTY to protect our innocent lives with whatever we feel fit to do so.
      No government is ordained of God which is a terror to good works, and we here PRESUME our government to be based on the Christian morality of JHWH, for 1 Cor. 7:20-24 forbids us who are free, or in reference to our black brothers, who are MADE free to ever again be servants of men, and if we are FREE we are to USE IT. And USE IT is to do that which is necessary to PRESERVE IT, ergo, again, our NATURAL GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES, leaving JESUS, the only one with perfect free will, TO HAVE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR OUR guilty souls, paying that price, making us now having INNOCENT LIVES.

  • shannon853

    a stroke of a pen is all it takes to make or remove any law. failure to enforce laws are the death of them. by failing to enforce “the right to bare arms SHALL NOT be infringed” has in effect made the amendment weak. no permit is required as ANY law that in any way infringes in the right to bare arms is really illegal! to bare is to carry open or conceled.

    • Patriot


      • shannon853

        what ever floats your boat. you knew what was and is meant.

    • reggiec

      The Second Amendment lists both the “right to keep “AND BEAR” arms”.

      In the English language “bear” has several meanings besides
      the name of the large animal that graces the California state flag.

      Definition of to BEAR: to carry, transmit, transport, have a
      characteristic of and exhibit.

      It seems pretty clear to me that laws banning open carry are
      in direct violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

      Fourteenth Amendment, Section1

      “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
      the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”….

      The Second Amendment does not say; you may bear arms except in
      a public place, on your car seat or list any other place where the Second
      Amendment does not apply.

      Unless I have been asleep, I have not heard of the Second
      Amendment being repealed or rewritten or the dictionary’s definition of the
      verb “to bear” changed. If politicians or the courts can change or interpret
      the English language at their whim, our country is in very serious trouble.
      When they actually, for all intent and purposes, remove words from The
      Constitution, the situation has become critical.

      • shannon853

        they do that by using new definitations that were not in use when teh document was written. black’s law dictinary is one wat to make words mean something different then common useage. in some states making a will that says plainly i leave everything to my brother may mean nothing as the state has made laws forbidding things like that unless it conforms to state law. your real wishes mean little when lawyers get involved. same with the constitution and its amendments. by picking judges for the supreme court, they can make the true meaning of anything come out teh way the court is picked. hense, teh court picks what cases they will rule over and it can almost always see the outcome for any case by who is seating at that time and how they were opicked. if teh old definitations were used, from history is is clear no one could be denied a weapon for any reason. in the old days what is now known as felons had their guns returned after serving their time.

        • reggiec

          That is my point exactly. A legal ruling is a precedent. A precedent only says something has been done ,not if it was done constitutionally.The meaning of a constitutional amendment should not be changed except through through the amendment process.

          James Madison warned us.

          “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate

      • Becky

        In fact, they have made every effort to redefine the language. Common Core, that reprehensible curriculum our children must now suffer to learn in the public school system, has amended the second amendment to read “in a state militia” and SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor made it clear that as she views the second amendment it only applies to a militia, which in her mind, is a regulated group of military style persons under the control of the state.

  • Patriot

    “at question now is whether or not the second amendment guarantees a person’s right to carry that same firearm outside of the home.”

    A cursory reading of the 2nd Amendment clearly shows that is not in question.

    • Becky

      You’ll get no argument from me. However, that IS the question being posed before many courts. I applaud the people of Connecticut who refuse to register. I sincerely hope that all gun owners will practice civil disobedience and not allow them to further infringe on our rights. Where a law is passed that the masses refuse to follow, the legislators can do naught but repeal the law.

    • reggiec

      In addition to a cursory reading here is what the Founding Fathers meant.

      here are a few quotes:

      ***”The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” – George Washington in address to the 2nd session of the United
      States Congress.

      ***“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” (George

      ***”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone’s 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England.”, Judge of the Virginia
      Supreme Court & U.S. Dist. Court of Virginia

      ***”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
      – Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

      Those who argue that the Second Amendment was written just for militias are completely blown out of the water by the following quote from
      Thomas Jefferson.

      “The strongest reason for “people” to retain the
      right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
      tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed.,

      James Madison is credited with the writing of the “Bill of
      Rights” and was pretty clear about the meaning on the Second Amendment.

      “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the “people” with arms.”

      Here are a few others who help define the true meaning of the Second Amendment. It becomes very clear upon the examination of the meanings
      attached to the Second Amendment by our Founding Fathers that the original
      intent of the Second Amendment is being attacked in order to eventually disarm the American people.

      ***”I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
      George Mason, (co-author of the Second Amendment) in Debates in Virginia
      Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

      ***”Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
      — Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the
      First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

      ***”The best we can hope for
      concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
      — Alexander Hamilton, The
      Federalist Papers at 184-188

      ***”That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
      — Samuel Adams, Debates and
      Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87
      (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

      ***”Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the
      United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no
      laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they
      will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to
      resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and
      –Noah Webster, An Examination of
      the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

      ***”No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
      — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal
      Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

      ***” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
      — George Mason, (co-author of the Second Amendment) 3 Elliot, Debates
      at 380

      Then there are politicians who insist in taking our
      Constitution out of context of time and original meaning. James Madison warned
      us against this.

      “Do not separate text from
      historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the
      Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of
      illegitimate government.”

      In the case of the states that have banned open carry they
      have not just separated text from historical background; they have blatantly
      removed the word “bear” from the Second Amendment. I guess they feel they can get away with the removal of “bear” since they have been so successful in
      removing “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” from the First Amendment,
      in regards to religion.

      Here is one of my favorites from James Madison. If only he
      was around today.

      “I was there and this is what we

      Every time a Second Amendment case comes before the Supreme Court, I have sent separate letters to each justice listing the above.
      Maybe I am tilting at windmills but I still do it.

      • Becky

        The last part of your post is awesome and inspiring. Keep sending those letters, though they may go unheeded by most.

        I have used several of the quotes you listed above. The problem, of course, is not that we don’t know the intention of the founders. It is that the liberal masses do not know, nor do they care to know. They have the nasty habit of simply regurgitating what their “leaders” tell them, spewing and defending the erroneous and anti American tripe fed to them by progressives who wish to subvert the constitution and all that America stands for, I shudder at the thought that things have progressed so quickly that the face of America has changed exponentially in the past two decades, though I know the movement has been afoot since 1913.

        Until and unless we can get people to let go of partisan politics and understand what is being taken from all of us, not just those of us who are trying to protect the second amendment, we will be doomed to face a revolution of some sort. The first step to that is to amass the leaders (not politicians, God forbid) who understand the issues and liberty, and to get the ball rolling. If we are very blessed, the revolution will be educational and fought in courts and capitols.

        The Tea Party was pretty effective in 2010. Unfortunately, they seemed to have lost steam in 2012. I was surprised and disappointed by this. I am hopeful that they will reemerge this election cycle but they don’t, so far, seem to have the momentum they had before. We need REAL leaders who are not in it for personal gain and do not go to see what they can bring back to their states but, rather, what they can do to fix what ails us, no matter the cost. Where do we find those?

        • reggiec

          The TEA Party movement is not dead. It is merely maturing. There are things in the works to take it to a new level. Keep an eye out for something beginning with “Citizens”. Take heart and remember what Winston Churchill said when England was being bombarded mercilessly.

          “Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great
          or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

  • 2War Abn Vet

    Is it worth noting that prior to 1970 there is no record of a student going into a high school to shoot his fellow students? Since that time there have been many.
    What has changed?
    We’ve always had guns; they are only inanimate tools. We haven’t had spree shooters. Removing guns from the equation won’t solve our problems. Also, pointing fingers at violent movies and video games is too simple.
    Is it fair for me to place more blame for current events on the debased culture, the
    moral decline, the public corruption, the lack of personal responsibility, the decline of the family unit, and the ”anything goes” promiscuity preached by the current arbiters of society?
    When you create a Godless society; you must be prepared to live in a lawless world.

  • reggiec

    We were warned but sadly we have forgotten!

    James Madison:

    “Do not
    separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted
    and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized
    form of illegitimate government.” …

    George Washington

    “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty
    and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered.
    Staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

  • Bob

    May all the biblical Christians always continue to support Yahweh’s standards regardless if man says or attempts otherwise.

  • reagangs

    Just like Col. Travis at the beginning of the Battle of the Alamo (ending March 6, 1836), he marked a line in the Texas soil with his sabre and asked for volunteers to stay and fight for the Republic of Texas. It turned our to be a Red Line as no male fighting Texian survived the battle. Jim Bowie and David Crockett even fought there and died. Later at San Jacinto, Commander Sam Houston defeated the Mexican army and sent them home. Yes, Johnny, at one time Texas was a sovereign Nation because people believed in and fought for Freedom, just like the Original Founders did in the 1770s Republic America. We are a powerful peaceful Nation but those (communist, radical islamist and internationalist) that hate our success and ideals are determined to rule over us. Do we want to live in the USSA ???? I don’t. I will either die a free old fart or with my empty, hot weapons in my hands, just like Travis, Bowie, Crockett and the others. Freedom is NOT Free. Just ask the Viet Namese. US Navy vet, 1966-1970, Hospitalman, Corpsman “Doc”; the “Big E” (CVN-65), USS Repose (AH-16), USS Lexington (CV/T/S-16)

  • Brian P.

    The 2nd Amendment specifically says, “shall not be infringed”. Rights can only be prohibited by due process in a court of law as prescribed by the Constitution itself.

    An instant background check when purchasing a firearm is the ONLY mechanism that could possibly pass Constitutional muster as felons have had their day in court with evidence presented and convicted based on it and dealers need to know who isn’t one.
    That’s it.

    Other than that, I should be able to go into any gun store and buy the tool of MY choice, including FULLY auto rifles of ANY barrel length and even grenade launchers if I want to. If I own acres of land and want to blow up sheds on property for fun, that’s my right. Just like anything else, once I misuse those tools and harm others, then I get penalized by the law.

    How insane is it to give authority of what tool we’re allowed to have to the very same people the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us against?

  • reagangs

    Veterans took an oath when they joined the military or other federal/state/county/city agencies, to protect the Constitution of the USA and their local agencies. As a veteran, that oath still stands. I can safely state that most if not all vets own weapons and some even practice occasionally. So, don’t go messing with the general public, you just might end up messing with the wrong person.