No products in the cart.


Guest Columnist NavyJack: The Second Amendment is Under Fire


The Second Amendment is Under Fire



By NavyJack


President Obama has nominated Judge Merrick Garland for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The President could not have picked anyone more dangerous to the preservation of our Constitution; especially the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

As a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Merrick Garland supported a DC gun ban in 2007. He voted to reconsider DC v. Heller. Heller was the landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. A subsequent case, known as McDonald v. Chicago, extended the Heller ruling to the states.

The McDonald decision prevents states, cities and other legislative bodies from restricting the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment as defined by Heller. The Heller and McDonald decisions are the defensive line protecting our freedom from legislative and executive overreach. They are both now hanging by a thread.


The Heller and McDonald decisions are Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy. I cannot imagine a more disrespectful action towards the memory of this great man than to nominate his nemesis as his replacement. With the assistance of U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah), this is exactly what President Obama has done.


In a 2000 case, Merrick Garland voted to maintain a registration of gun owners, supporting efforts by the Clinton administration to use the instant check system to illegally retain gun owners’ names. As of this morning, at least seven GOP U.S. Senators have agreed to meet with Merrick Garland to start the process of confirmation:

• Susan Collins (Maine)
• Jeff Flake (Arizona)
• Mark Kirk (Illinois)
• Roy Blunt (Missouri)
• Thad Cochran (Mississippi)
• James Inhofe (Oklahoma)
• Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)

In addition to the list above, Senator Orin Hatch (Utah) not only recommended Merrick Garland’s nomination to President Obama, he is supported by Senator Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) on the Senate Judiciary Committee that is tasked with oversight of the nomination process. If Merrick Garland is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, he will work to implement a gun registration, adopt semi-automatic and handgun bans, and even allow the “DHS/FBI Terrorist Watch-list” to be used
to prevent law abiding citizens from owning a firearm.

The timing of Merrick Garland’s nomination is critical and suspicious. On March 4, 2016, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed to rehear a case that could potentially deal a blow to a Maryland gun control law that bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The ruling in this case would set the precedence for lifting of similar bans in other states, including CT and NY. This 4th Circuit panel ruling is entirely contingent on the DC v. Heller Supreme Court decision. Regardless of how the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rules, the escalation of this case to the U.S. Supreme Court will provide Judge Garland with the exact case needed to overturn Heller.

All Oath Keepers are asked to take the following actions:
1. If your Senator is one of the GOP members listed above that has either supported the Merrick Garland nomination or agreed to meet with him to initiate the confirmation process, you need to call their office today to voice your disapproval. Your Senator’s contact information is available at:

2. Use the following link provided by the National Rifle Association to take action:

3. Use the following link provided by Gun Owners of America to write your representatives regarding this attempted breech of your Second Amendment rights:


Oath Keepers leadership will do its’ best to keep our members informed and provide the tools and guidance needed to maintain our rights as guaranteed by The U.S. Constitution.



Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net



  1. As a 66 year old combat veteran (RVN) I feel a very deep betrayal.
    What bothers me as much as the politicians are all of the “dumbed down” people.
    I know EXACTLY why I was drafted to serve in Viet Nam – war profiteers!!!
    “Not everyone who lost his life in Viet Nam died there.
    Not everyone who came home from Viet Nam ever left there.” …anon, found on the internet.
    How many times do we have to die?
    Whoever believes Scalia died of natural causes is not paying attention.

  2. The Second Amendment is MOOT!

    I am so damn sick and tired hearing about The Second Amendment, how it is in jeopardy, and that my firearms will become illegal to possess.

    First, the RIGHT to own firearms existed long before there was a U.S. Constitution establishing The American Republic.

    Second, our Founding Fathers mentioned “the militia” three times within The Constitution (Article I and Article II), and determined that a person’s RIGHT to possess firearms was addressed. However, George Mason et al. disagreed and fought for the entire Bill of Rights to ensure that there be NO misunderstanding about these RIGHTS. It is called The Bill of RIGHTS for a reason.

    Third, The Second Amendment does not GIVE me the RIGHT to possess a firearm; rather it PROTECTS my RIGHT to such. Again, a RIGHT that existed within the original Colonies, and before.

    I do not NEED The Second Amendment to possess a firearm. I have a RIGHT to possess a firearm.

    You want to INFRINGE upon one of my God-given RIGHTS? Molon Labe!

    LoneStarHog (Hog)
    Texas Life Member #140

    1. You are right, the right to own the firearms of our choice, to protect our lives, our families, as well as protect the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, is a preexisting, God given right we were born with, that is enshrined in the 2nd amendment. We don’t have rights because of some benevolent government, if we did we wouldn’t have any rights; any rights we weren’t born with, we don’t have.

    2. Hog, I feel the same way about this and that, and pitty tat, on the Second Amendment alerts. I don’t need no darn permit to carry – anything. I’m an American – I will die as an American. No FEMA camps or hell holes for me or my family. To hell with the traitors. They can pass all those darn treasonous rules all they want, pages and pages of treasonous rules. We ain’t gonna abide by none of them. It is called personal Nullification by purposely and cheerfully and peacefully ignoring treasonous rules.

    3. LoneStarHog… on sir…..Bulls Eye !!……I repeat your statement “You want to INFRINGE upon one of my God given RIGHTS ? Molon Labe !!

  3. “The President could not have picked anyone more dangerous to the preservation of our Constitution; especially the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

    Once again everyone writes as if we actually have LEGITIMATE “rulers” instead of people who are ALLOWED to serve within our government as long as the actions they do are what they agreed to do in the contract they agreed to, and KEEP the Oath.

    Judges are ALLOWED to retain their position as long as they use “Good Behaviour” as the constitution assigns it – doing their duties as is put into writing within the US Constitution and TAKING and KEEPING the Oath of Office.

    If he is a danger to Americans and the US Constitution it is our fault – we who are the Militia and do not bother to read the US Constitution, make the effort to understand it, train from those who can teach us as is constitutionally required. He can, like other judges need to be, removed as the US Constitution allows and requires of us.

    It is WE the people who allow the dumbing down of our children and the creation of them into good little obedient citizens with non American values. We let ourselves; allow ourselves to be bought by “things” that commercials tell us we “need”; allow things like “SmartMeters” placed upon our homes – gas, electricity, water. Smartmeters that can set our homes on fire when it is deemed expedient, can blow them up through the gas lines, and can cut off all of the above to “bring us into line if they feel we are redeemable instead of removable. We buy the Smartphones, big screen TV’s, etc and assist in our own betrayal and imprisonment within our homes, allow and abet the watching and filming of us even in our most private and intimate moments. Let them shut our voices up with fake “political correctness” in our speeches. We let them divide us.

    It is the fault of all who are in enforcement positions and do NOT keep their Oaths, who must NOT “just follow orders” and “just do their jobs” as those did who “just followed orders” and “just did their jobs” did in Nazi Germany, in Stalin”s/Lenin’s Russia, etc.. It is their choice to one day have everything they earned and own taken away form them, and most will even lose their life because they are considered a huge risk when they find out their betrayal from those whose orders they follow.

    It is the fault of those who serve within the law community at any level, and it is most assuredly the fault of those that serve. What part of the written US Constitution have you been using in your cases, following in the cases decided, etc?

    … especially the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment”

    Not one person was delegated any authority over the Bill of Rights. The only exceptions are put into writing the way they are ALLOWED to be excepted from the norm, under what circumstances and in which ways.

    WE have law enforcement and military (what USED to be the US military, but is now the enforcement arm of the UN/NATO) that was NEVER trained in the US Constitution, that do NOT know, let alone understand American priorities and values.

    If we ignore the US Constitution instead of bringing it up at every turn – and we have, using it in the courts, pressing charges when Oaths – felony and Perjury- are broken, etc then what do we expect? The document to defend itself?

    What do I mean by that?

    The US Constitution requires the Militia to train as congress requires the US military to be trained. It requires this. So when domestic enemies and traitors are allowed to get into positions where that is no longer happening then the duties fall to the people who are the source of all authority delegated to our governments to remedy that by training. Then we must REQUIRE that when our governments “enforce” a law, etc; that they MUST do it as constitutionally laid out procedures are written down in and is the authority OVER any who serves within our governments. They cannot use the excuse that they must use their own groups of enforcement whatever name they are called by as the document that they are under lays it out clearly who is to be used for those purposes and their are trained -as-congress-requires-the-military available to be used for those purposes. What purposes are the Militia to be used for?

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions. “

    For the federal government the Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
    — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”

    Those that serve within the general (federal) government is under contract made stronger with an Oath in order to remain in their position they occupy to follow that contract and USE THE MILITIA for those purposes, no one else, no other group.

    That is OUR duty at all levels. It is the agreement made when those elected, hired, contracted, etc start work within our government. At every position no matter how high or low those that serve within our governments – state and general – are required to TAKE and KEEP the Oath to “support and defend” the US Constitution above the orders of superiors, and BEFORE the duties of the position being occupied. That IT is the FIRST duty of all who are in our congress and legislative branch, in our courts and the judicial branch. It is the first duty of all who serve within the executive branch except for those select people who serve as US presidents and they themselves are held to a HIGHER requirement.

    US presidents are REQUIRED to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend” the US Constitution as IT IS our government. It is the FIRST duty of all who serve within law enforcement – state or general – and BEFORE the orders of superiors,. and BEFORE the duties of the position they occupy. It is the FIRST duty of all who serve within the military BEFORE the orders of superiors,. and BEFORE the duties of the position they occupy. It is the duty of all politicians, of all bureaucrats who serve within our governments, all agencies down to the dog catchers, housekeeping, etc all have that MOST important duty before anything else – to take and keep the Oath, and to enforce that Oath at all levels.

    It is most important to understand, and Dr. Vieira says it much better then I can so I will, once again, quote him here. Read these words, and work to understand exactly what he is saying, that we have NO GOVERNMENT at all when those that serve within it is not doing as delegated.

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. IT IS WHAT LAWYERS CALL A LEGAL FICTION. (caps are mine)

    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”

    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability. ” (end quote by Dr. Vieira)

    As long as there is no enforcement by us, as long as we do not read and work to understand our US Constitution and train others about it, as long as we do not train as a Militia we will be aiding and abetting the destruction of our nation, Understand that this is my opinion, but it is an opinion based upon the US Constitution, the writings of our framers and forefathers, reading the debates involved in its creation, the words of people such as Dr. Vieira, Lemioex

    Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

    Judge Thomas M. Cooley: “Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it. . . To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume.”

    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

    Madison said: “That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) WAS NOT MADE THE EXCLUSIVE OR FINAL JUDGE OF THE EXTENT OF THE OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO ITSELF; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “EVERY ACT OF A DELEGATED AUTHORITY, CONTRARY TO THE TENOR OF THE COMMISSION UNDER WHICH IT IS EXERCISED, IS VOID. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    1. Your comment was heavy, deep, and informative. Our Founding Fathers and the educated were so much more like real men who wouldn’t tolerate for a minute anything that smelled of corruption or tyranny. We have been so dumbed down as a society that we are not even aware how bad our own vocabulary has become, and we find ourselves taking out a dictionary to understand the common words that were written in correspondences, letters, and books written by many of the Founding Fathers and other influential persons responsible with the forming of the Republic and the defining of personal liberties, which was so unheard of because most people back then were so used to government and theological tyranny. Now we find ourselves in a situation that seems so familiar to other previously fallen societies just before they were taken over by an evil dictatorship. It seems that the only solution to cure the very complicated mess that this mear shadow of a Republic is, would be to patiently wait for the soon and total collapse of this society and rebuild it; simpler said than done.

  4. I just finished speaking with my Senator’s office (Thad Cochran) and the little lady I spoke with claims that he will not meet with Merrick Garland to discuss the confirmation process. I assured her that if I hear (after the fact) that Sen. Cochran did in fact, that I would make sure that many more of his constituents would know it also. Being from the state of Mississippi, I am sure that HE knows how this state feels about our Constitutional rights.

    1. I first talked to Sherry at Senator Inhofe’s office and she said she had called the wantabe SCJ and said he wasn’t going to meet with him. I then called my Senator’s office, Blunt, and was told he wasn’t going to meet with him. Some of them on the list, I don’t trust as far as I can see them. I know there are some that will try to sell us out.

      1. I have written to Senator Inhofe’s office and am waiting a reply. This article startled me because I saw on the local OKC, OK news both Oklahoma Senators say that they would not entertain any nominations at this time. I do not know where this list came from but I can not believe Senator Inhofe would change his mind and if so like the other man said, an hole lot of people would find out about it very quickly and it would not be good. Do not think Oklahoman’s would appreciate that….

        Do not know what the other guy is talking about either about putting a “D” in front of the names either, Senator Inhofe has been a solid Second Amendment and Conservative voter in the Senate for years, since his first election their. Being from Oklahoma I have watched how he votes and can not any time he differed from that. If all the “D’s” were anything like Senator Inhofe, we would have a much different Country…..

  5. I hate to say “:I told you so”, but I have told you so, again and again, until my fingers are about to fall off from typing so much into my word-processor. All of this desperate fear about the appointment of a new Justice, and that Justice’s being a committed proponent of “gun control”, stems from the adoption of the false notion that the essence of the Second Amendment lies in its last fourteen words, and that those words need to be (or can only be) enforced through the Judiciary–the result being, that when the Judiciary turns against the People, all is lost. I shall not say that the NRA and the others who for decades now have promoted this false strategy are nothing but fools. But I will commend to your attention the old adage: Experience keeps a dear school; but fools will learn in no other.

    1. Thank you Dr. Vieira.
      I will remind readers here once again to get their personal copies of “How To Dethrone The Imperial Judiciary”, which is listed in our Academy here at Oath Keepers.

      How To Dethrone The Imperial Judiciary by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.; Copyright 2004-2005 Vision Forum Ministries; Content Copyright 2004-2005 The Conservative Caucus Research, Analysis, and Education Foundation and Dr. Edwin Vieira; Vision Forum Ministries, 4719 Blanco Rd., San Antonio, Texas 78212, ; ISBN: 10 0-9755264-1-3; ISBN: 13 078-0-9755264-1-5.

      At Amazon:

      From the back cover of my copy of your book I will share a passage which may help fearful citizens who somehow presume that a panel of nine mortal (and therefore imperfect) individuals who hold “Judge jobs” which require their dressing in Black Robes, cannot themselves be held to the highest law of the land. Too many Americans today have been programmed and conditioned to think that “Black Robes Matter”. Reading on the back cover of your book —

      “The most important constitutional issues of this generation concern the meaning of the rule of law and the ability of the people to enforce true law by restraining runaway activist judges. For decades such judges have simply been making up the law. What is worse, liberal and conservative lawmakers have been reinforcing such behavior by treating such rulings as if they were legitimate…

      Elias Alias, editor

  6. It is hard to argue with any of the comments above. We must also recognize that citizens of Maryland, New York, Connecticut, California and other states are being subjected to unconstitutional laws.The US Supreme Court cannot be counted upon to overturn these laws. I suggest that we must do everything we can to slow the march towards absolute tyranny. At the same time, we must address what we will do to restore the rights guaranteed by the constitution. It is no longer enough to simply declare the orders we will not obey. In the current post Malheur and post Bundy Ranch environment, any step taken may be your last, so planning and patience is crucial. I will work up an article with specific recommendations on this subject in the coming weeks. In the mean time, I would sincerely appreciate any cooperation provided on the list of actions outlined at the end of the article above.

  7. Have I missed something? Does not ‘O’ have the ability of Recess Appointment? Congress just has to sit back and let him do it then they can say Hey it was not us’.
    Even if the appointment would only last until the end of ‘O’s’ term (who knows how long that will be) he has plenty of time to get the job done.

    Who is really fooling who here??

    1. From the Washington Times:
      “Senators are scheduled to be on a break from Washington for the next two weeks, but they have left behind a rearguard to keep the chamber running on low gear, denying President Obama a chance to install his Supreme Court nominee. It’s part of Republicans’ vow to do everything to keep Mr. Obama from replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose death last month left the court divided 4-4, and left Democrats salivating over the opportunity to replace the conservative Scalia with a liberal.”

  8. You could put a “D” by the name of everyone of those Senators and no one would know the difference!!

    1. AZArchangle55: I do not know about the other Senators on the list, but I do know Senator Inhofe and being from Oklahoma have voted for him many times. He has always supported the Second Amendment and “conservative” ideology in all his positions and Senate votes to the best of my knowledge. I have traced his voting record for many years and have never found anything or any liberal or democratic stand he has taken. If you have any FACTS to the contrary, I am the first one to want to know, please. As I said in another comment, I have no idea where the writer got his information, but I saw Senator Inhofe on the Local OKC, OK news saying he would not entertain any nomitations for the SC at this time. I have writen to confirm that and if it changes I will be the first to Post it hear and everywhere else…..

      1. ole Shoemaker – Senator Inhofe released a statement that he would be willing to meet with Judge Garland in response to the Presidential nomination. See

        Senator Inhofe did vote to confirm Merrick Garland to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The second most powerful court in the country. Only Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell opposed his nomination in 1997.

        I believe that we should oppose Merrick Garland ever being seated on the Supreme Court, not just until the election is over. Also remember that Merrick Garland prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombing case and has very close ties to your local politicians.

      2. Navyjack: Yes I read the article you put in your link, YOU SHOULD HAVE TOO !!!
        Direct quote from the article you mentioned : “Inhofe, too, said he would be open to meeting with Garland, though he made it clear it wouldn’t influence his vote. He said he talked to Garland on the phone shortly after Obama nominated him, telling him, “it has nothing to do with you,” but he will oppose his nomination.”

        Do not tell half the story to make yourself look good !!! Senator Inhofe, as a politician and the good person he is, would and will meet with anyone, but it does not mean he is going to change his position. Also because he voted for him for a lower court does not mean he would automatically think that he is qualified to be a SCJ. Unlike other senators, he listens to the people he represents. Senator Inhofe is from Oklahoma and would be in “derelict of duty” if he did not know or associate with Oklahoma politicians and the people of Oklahoma. Do not say something to cover your “rat’s behind” like that because it does not help your case.

        DO NOT BRING UP CRAP ABOUT THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT !!! First of all, although it was a, or may have been a FBI building, but especially the Day Care and most of the people who worked in the building where not FBI government employees and/or had nothing to do with WACO or the Government. Anyone can argue for ever about the situation, but the facts are it was a soft target and mostly all, if not all collateral damage. So do not talk of someone who prosecuted the MORONS that attacked Innocent civilians and especially children, as if he did something wrong, that is not a strike against him. In reality, the attackers did nothing different than driving that truck into a Wal-Mart or Target store or a daycare or public school and call that retaliation for WACO. They were as bad or worse than the FBI at WACO. They were murderers, not martyrs, heroes or patriots. Anyone who tells you different does not have a clue of what they really did, including the fact they did nothing to further anyone’s cause, if not hurt and make some legitimate causes look suspect.

        If I wanted to hear and read a bunch of “BS” I can get that anywhere, I read this site because I thought the people and organization here provided factual information, not half truths and crap.

      3. ole Shoemaker – I agree that Senator Inhofe has now made his position clear with regard to the timing of the nomination in his recent statements. He has posted an article on his official website that highlights a recent Fox interview on this subject:

        I said nothing good, bad or otherwise about Sen. Inhofe listening or working with local Oklahoma politicians. With regard to your narrative on the Oklahoma City bombing, I made no statements that were critical of Merrick Garland’s handling of the trial. I simply noted that, as your local news and Senator Inhofe have both pointed out, Merrick Garland has very close ties to Oklahoma and to your local politicians:

        All of this said, I do believe that Sen. Inhofe will hold the line and oppose a vote on Merrick Garland until after the November elections. In his words “he deeply respects Judge Garland’s Oklahoma connections, this is about a process and not the person”.

  9. Thomas Jefferson wrote (Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, spurred on by the
    Alien and Sedition Acts):

    “…the government created by this compact [The Constitution] was not made the exclusive
    or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers…”

    Also, In 1804 Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams (John Adams wife) regarding the previous “Alien and Sedition Acts” of her husband while President before him.

    “…the opinion which gives to the judges the [sole] right to decide what laws are constitutional . . . would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

    I realize that Jefferson is dealing with the matter of nullification, however, in like manner the Court gave itself the final say – starting with John Marshall – the power to legislate from the bench, or at least promoted the accepted understanding in Washington that it can determine what is lawful and what is not without contest – pshaw!

    Opposition is a matter still left to the states or to the people. Ultimately our hope is in our God-given abilities to protect our God-given rights.

  10. When we have to fear the placement of a Supreme Court Justice because they might to strip away more of our rights then our problems are far more grave then a Supreme Court Justice. There is not one arm of gov that works as it was designed to, it is completely destroyed. Things have spun out of control in this nation , we have people who call themselves “protesters” who should be sitting in prison as traitors and others for the acts of violence they have committed. Meanwhile, those who stood against this tyrannical gov peacefully are being murdered or taken as political prisoners. How is stopping a lawless judge from sitting in a lawless supreme court going to change any of this?

  11. In my opinion ; If this judge get’s nominated ; It’s over ! Another member on this same page posted that The Oathkeepers should tighten up on the ten order’s that you will not obey . I agree ! If Senate Majority Leader McConnell goes back on his word and bring’s this nomination to the floor to be voted on and this judge get’s nominated ; Then this organization must rethink what we will have too do . We must come to the center of the room on this point . Once we are in sink on what new orders we will not follow ; Then we need too double down and begin too push our new agenda feverestly with know turning back !!! This is not a game and it never was ; Molon Labe !!!

  12. In my opinion ; If this judge get’s nominated ; It’s over ! Another member on this same page posted that The Oathkeepers should tighten up on the ten order’s that you will not obey . I agree ! If Senate Majority Leader McConnell goes back on his word and bring’s this nomination to the floor to be voted on and this judge get’s nominated ; Then this is not a game and it never was ; Molon Labe !!!

  13. I see a lot of “Molon Labe” comments on this issue. I agree, but when I go to the local store to try and get an AR mag, a collapsible stock or a flash suppressor, the state has already come and taken them. The online retailers have been restricted from selling prohibited items to residents of the “Free State” as well. I intend to hold on to the firearms I have, but it would be nice to be able to buy parts to fix them. The “Molon Labe” only goes so far is my point. We need to stop further infringement.

  14. The Second Amendment is Under Fire! The Second Amendment is Under Fire! OMG! OMG OMG! The Second Amendment is Under Fire! Erp-A-Derp!

    I have news for you. Your 2nd amendment has been infringed in all its totality. If you have any firearms today, you have them by permission… not by right.

    Get it through your skulls. Huh?

    The 2nd amendment has been dead, in all of its totality, for a long time.

    Dead. Got that? Deader than a sun-baked worm… dead.


Comments are closed.