This is What Guns Were Made For

One of the main purposes for guns in the American philosophy is certainly a controversial idea. It is an aspect of the Second Amendment that few people today are comfortable talking about, but, uncomfortable or no, it is a major factor in the necessity and usefulness of the Second Amendment in our founding father’s experience. That purpose, that guns in the hands of the people are a breaker on the power of the state, is an issue raised again in last week’s story out of Canada.

In Ontario, Canada Jessie Sansone, a young father of four, was grabbed up by the local storm troopers and charged with a gun crime. He was thrown in jail for most of the day, not allowed to see his wife and children, was repeatedly interrogated, and it seems threatened with having his children taken away from him and his wife. His crime?

You won’t believe this…

His crime was that his kindergartener daughter drew a picture at school, a stick figure of a man with a gun.

Because this five-year-old drew a picture of a man with a gun, the idiot principal of the school decided that her father must be a mass murderer, or something, and called the police. The police in turn battered down Mr. Sansone’s door and threw him in the Ontario dungeons.

Granted this occurred in Canada and in Canada people don’t have the same rights to self protection that Americans do. But this incident is the exact sort of situation that our founders feared. Ontario authorities proved themselves to be the sort of Fascists that would grab up citizens for illegitimate reasons and their illicit actions are precisely the sort of over stepping, authoritarian powers that our founders wanted to put a stop to by allowing citizens to be armed.

After all, one does not casually start battering down the doors to people’s homes if they imagine the inhabitants might be armed and dangerous. Some more thought is usually required before violent confrontations in such cases if you are a government used to dealing with an often armed public (unlike Canadian authorities are). This is the sort of Fascist, authoritarianism that the founders were intent on stopping and that is why they wanted us armed.

This is not just a “gun nut’s” fantasy, either.

The founders thought the right of self protection to be a natural right, one no one could take away. But even that aside they wanted guns in the hands of the people to stop overbearing governments.

In his famous treatise on the U.S. Constitution early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story addressed the Second Amendment and noted this reasoning in its import. Story wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

The fact is uncomfortable for many today. The idea of shooting down policemen or other government officials that come ready to unfairly and illicitly imprison us for imaginary crimes is not an easy topic to discuss. But easy or not, our government is quickly approaching a time where a bullet is more apropos than a vote. Tales of the police — local, state, and federal –acting the role of oppressors and jackbooted thugs instead of keepers of the peace abound these days and seem to be growing daily.

As Americans we need to be reminded about how important our Second Amendment rights are and we absolutely need to keep government officials apprised that we the people know that one of the reasons for the Second Amendment is to keep them in their place.

It is true we are a nation of laws, not of mere men. But sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be watered by the blood of tyrants, as Jefferson once wrote. Would that it never comes to such violence, but government should be warned of the distinct possibility if it continues to violate our rights.

The Veruca Salt School of Feminism
State Senator cares as much about men's reproductive health as she does women's
  • Commander_Chico

    I agree, arm yourself now or prepare to be thrown into camps when war with Iran starts, oil goes to $400 a barrell, the dollar collapses and they round up dissidents.

    Many of you, being authoritarians, will be on the other side, with the state torturing enthusiastically. 

    But it will be OK, as long as it’s President Romney and they’re only “detaining” the Occupy Wall Street crowd, Muslims, and “liberals.”

    • Vagabond661

      President Romney? Not Santorum or Newt? No matter, Chico, I am down with that.

    • herddog505

      May we suppose that you’re OK when it’s Barry and the Bagman doing it?

      Attorney General Eric Holder unveiled the Obama administration’s legal justification for killing Americans outside the United States Monday, saying “lethal force” can be used against U.S. citizens who present “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

      And how are we “authoritarians” when (at least) Warner Todd Huston is explicitly decrying this abuse of state authority (I agree with him, by the way).

      I also point out that we aren’t the ones intent on rounding up the guns (and perhaps even running guns to Mexico to give us “gun violence” as an excuse).  Nor have we promised the Brady Bunch that we’re working on national gun control “under the radar”.  We aren’t the ones who used tanks on a religious cult, frying dozens of people (including women and children) in the process.  Nor did we send a machinegun-toting SWAT team into a private house to grab a child to send him back to Cuba.  And on a less violent front, we aren’t the ones pushing for the “Fairness Doctrine”.  That’s all libs.  You know: the anti-authoritarian, liberty-loving left.

      As for the possible war with Iran, talk to your boy Barry.  And the rest of the libs who thought that war was just swell when it was Libya.

      By the way: assuming that we only attack Iran with drones and Tomahawk missiles (no boots on the ground!) and we somehow get out without spending too much money or losing any US lives, will you be cool with that?  Or is the (d) behind the occupant of the White House’s name enough to get your support?

      • Commander_Chico

        Come on, cut the crap about supposing I’m OK with that Obama does. That guy is the death of hope.

        I am not saying you or Warner are authoritarians, but it’s telling that Wizbang editors did ten posts on Fluke and Limbaugh and not one on Barry and Holder claiming the power to extrajudicially execute Americans. Holder’s speech defending this was widely covered and commented on, so it’s not as if there was not an opportunity.

        Of course, it could be that they are afraid they’ll be put on some future hit list.

        • herddog505

          Given that the Limbaugh / Fluke kerfluffle was national news AND has much to do with ObamaCare, not to mention issues of freedom of speech and of religion, perhaps it’s not so surprising that Wizbang covered it.

          As for NOT covering the Bagman spouting that it’s perfectly OK to kill Americans… what do we expect?  If you want to talk about authoritarians, then I point you no further than the democrats and especially Barry and his ilk.  Extrajudicial killing of American citizens, waging war without even consulting the Congress, dictating to private companies and the Catholic Church what health benefits they must offer, etc.

          Hope and Change, indeed.

          Of the sort last seen in 1933.

          • Commander_Chico

            Hope and Change, indeed.
            Of the sort last seen in 1933.


            We have been riding a train to Dachau that started on 9/11: the Patriot Act, the de facto legalization of torture, lengthy detentions of U.S. citizens without judicial review (Padilla and Hamdi), widespread electronic surveillance of unknown scope, administrative “national security letter” searches, and now it’s being taken to the next level by planned extrajudicial killing by the government.  When asked if the president had the authority to order a hit on a U.S. citizen in the USA, Holder says he wasn’t sure. . . .

            Only a few people are consistent in their defense of civil liberties and the Constitution.  You could count Judge Napolitano, Glenn Greenwald, Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, Naomi Wolf and Ron Paul among them. And Chico, of course.

            Most partisan hacks who were cheerleading and excusing Bush’s abuses are now acting all offended by Obama’s, and vice versa.

          • herddog505

            There is something in what you say.  To my shame, I can’t say for certain that I’d be so upset about the killing of al Wakiwaki if it had been Bush who did it.

            On the other hand, the left ASSURED us that Barry would NEVER do such a thing.  Yeah, more the fools they.

            I am reminded of what I’ve read about the Red Scare back during the ’50s.  Despite the criticisms of Joe McCarthy, democrat politicians became fairly militant anti-communists themselves (JFK brought us “the Missile Gap”) simply because they were trying to prove that, in the wake of “losing” China, Korea, and other problems, they weren’t soft on communism.

            After seeing the crap that Bush had to endure for “allowing” 9-11, what president in his right mind wouldn’t move heaven and earth to stop another one, and the Constitution be damned?

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s odd that the USA survived the Cold War with its Constitution mostly intact, when we were facing the USSR with 10000+ nukes, the KGB, fighting commies in Korea and Vietnam,  and worried about huge military forces threatening Europe, but a rag-tag band of Arabs brought it all down with one well-planned operation.

            One reason the USA is doomed as a free nation is that most Americans would trade liberty for security nowadays. 

            Barry conned a lot of people, he ended up worse than Bush in some ways (the Bush DOJ prosecuted Enron, Holder can’t prosecute MF Global).  His only virtue so far is that he hasn’t launched a huge new war like Iraq – yet, but that might be coming with Iran.

    • GarandFan

       Projecting again, aren’t we?

  • I do not see in the 2nd Amendment a right to shoot a law officer who is not endangering another person’s life.

    • Commander_Chico

      What about a “law officer” who was participating in a systematic effort to imprison people without probable cause or due process, for political reasons, in violation of the Constitution?

      What about a “law officer” who came to search your house without a warrant?

      What about a “law officer” who was enforcing “emergency” movement restrictions at a checkpoint?

      What about a “law officer” who shut down your local newspaper for “seditious libel?”

      These are hypothetical situations now, of course.

      • jim_m

         To answer your questions:


        No, unless he enters your home without identifying himself and he is legitimately mistaken for an intruder

        No, although depending upon the cause for a security checkpoint there might be an excuse for mass demonstration.

        No, but I would suggest that which ever politician ordered the shut down of the paper probably should be tarred and feathered.  Or tried for treason, convicted and hanged

        • Jay

          No, unless he enters your home without identifying himself and he is legitimately mistaken for an intruder

          That’s actually been avoided by the current Supreme Court.  The police actually have the power to invade your house without a warrant even if they create the conditions.  (Source)

          No, although depending upon the cause for a security checkpoint there might be an excuse for mass demonstration.

          That just went away with the signing of HR 347.

          No, but I would suggest that which ever politician ordered the shut down of the paper probably should be tarred and feathered.  Or tried for treason, convicted and hanged

          The ICE is actually shutting down blogs and free speech right now in the name of “preventing piracy” when they have no proof.  Having read the recent DoJ request, they’re opening two new prisons when violent crime has gone down.  In essence, you have 20 people that decide the fate of free press everywhere.  I wish we could hang these people for violating the Constitution, but that’s impossible with today’s rules of Civil Procedure.

          • Are you incapable of understanding ANYTHING?  You keep posting these false ideas, are you just stupid?

            The case you link does not authorize what you say it does.  There is NO dispute that probable causes for a search existed, and there is NO dispute that exigent circumstances existed.  The dispute is whether, by knocking on the door, the cops created the exigent circumstances.  The Court held they did NOT by an 8-1 decision, indicating it wasn’t some close call or ideological decision.

            Your near-total ignorance is appalling.  Public schools, I’m guessing?

          • Jay

            Adjoran.  Either understand what’s being posted or shut the hell up.  You’ve never proven Rush’s numbers even though you’ve been asked a number of times and you’re nothing more than a conservative hypocrite looking to paint people in a negative light.
            The dispute is whether, by knocking on the door, the cops created the exigent circumstancesAnd that’s the issue here.  They have been allowed to create the circumstances to come into your home, against the 4th Amendment rights that people have in the US.

            That has happened on a number of occasions where the police have arrested the home owner and looked through his stuff such as this complaint here.

            Hell, even other conservatives understand that legal traditions are being usurped such as in the Hoosier state.

            Maybe instead of trying all the time for your ad hom attacks you could reply with something more substantial.  It’s not like I was contradicting what Jim had to say in the first place.

        • Commander_Chico

          I gather your blood is not going to be watering the tree of liberty when the time comes.

          (Edit) Thinking about it, it might not be my blood either, since I have residency rights in the UK/EU. I might just move to Denmark or Ireland: they’re too small and the people too ornery and too decent for a real police state.

          But if I can’t get my assets or my ass out, I’d like to go down with guns blazing rather than live on my knees.

          • jim_m


            Your earlier comment was intended to stir up anti- government sentiment with bullshit hypotheticals.  Had I answered in the opposite manner you would have accused me of being some tin foil hat conspiracy nut.

            I don’t believe that the government has the authority to team roller our rights.  Hell, you defend the obama admin over most of what they are doing to erode those rights.

            But I also don’t believe that the most effective way of defending those rights is going off on a solo suicide mission, which is what you were essentially advocating with you comment.  Mass protest is the way to get results.

          • Commander_Chico

            Okay, Ghandi.

            I remember what Orwell said about Ghandi: that Hitler would have run over him and his protesters with a tank.

          • jim_m

             Perhaps you should have been a bit more specific.  Had you not had the reputation of frequently being a lefty tool I might have taken your hypotheticals in the spirit you claim you offered them.

          • Commander_Chico


        • Anon Y. Mous

          I think you are missing the point of this post (and the 2nd amendment). One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment was so that citizens would be able to remain a check on out of control government. Such as, the cops showing up to a citizen’s home, taking him into custody and throwing him in jail for the “crime” that his daughter drew a picture of a man holding a gun.

          So, how would this check work? How does the fact that citizens are allowed to possess firearms prevent the government from throwing this father in jail? It only makes sense if the government is afraid to try such a thing because the father (and his fellow citizens) may use his gun to resist their unlawful actions. By shooting those who would try to throw him in jail.

          And who are these government agents who would be coming to throw him in jail? The government agents who come to grab people and throw them in jail are the cops. The cops, in this case, are the intruders. They come to take his freedom for his daughter’s thought crime of drawing a man with a gun.

          The only way that the 2nd amendment can work as a check on out of control government is if the government is afraid to go too far and end up with the guns pointed at them.

          • jim_m

             The check works as a general threat not as isolated individual action.  If these were characterized as sweeping national actions my answers would have been different.  As it is, the questions appeared to be posed as isolated incidents and the individual has to weigh the possibility of his misperception of the circumstance and the likelihood that if wrong he will go to prison for a very long time.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s not the idea that you would take individual action, but that you would join some resistance group.

            This is for when there is no room for “misperception,” for example concentration camps for political dissidents or government censorship of political speech.

      • ackwired

        What about the law officer who breaks into the wrong house on a drug raid, destroying property and injuring or killing innocent people.  It’s happening right now all over the country.

        • Killing or injuring, yes, self defense.  Anything short of that, no. And I haven’t seen evidence of this happening all over the country now. Where is this you speak of happening?

          • herddog505

            I don’t know if we can say that it’s happening “all over the country” as though the police in every city are knocking down the wrong doors every day, but it does happen.

            Here’s one example:

            The SWAT team that gunned down a former Marine in his Tucson, Ariz., home was cleared today of any wrongdoing in the incident.

            Jose Guerena, 26, was killed in a hail of bullets from the SWAT team, which broke down the door to his home on May 5 while trying to serve a search warrant as part of a home invasion probe.

            His crime?

            A SWAT officer, Sgt. Bob Krygier, told officials of the sheriff’s office who investigated the incident that the raid on Guerena’s home was probing “possible drug running, home invasions and potential homicides.”


            “Possible” drug running and home invasions, so they kicked in his door and lit him up.  Oh, but he was “heavily armed”, so that makes it all OK.

            They also didn’t find any drugs.  An apparently innocent man killed, his family terrified, and… for what?

            The Cato Institute has this handy interactive guide along with a map:


            As you will see, the map is liberally peppered with “red” markers (innocent person killed) and “grey” markers (raid on innocent suspect).

            This from my own state of No. Carolina:

            On September 4, 1998, police in Charlotte, North Carolina deploy a flashbang grenade and carry out a no-knock warrant for cocaine distribution on a tip from an informant. By the end of the raid, police have put four bullets in 56-year-old Charles Irwin Potts, killing him.

            Potts was not the target of the raid. He had visited the house to play cards. Police say Potts drew his gun (which he carried legally) and pointed it at them as they entered. The three men in the house who saw the raid disagree, and say the gun never left Potts’ holster. Police found no cocaine, and made no arrests as a result of the raid.

            The men inside the house at the time of the raid thought they were being invaded by criminals. “Only thing I heard was a big boom,” said Robert Junior Hardin, the original target of the raid. “The lights went off and then they came back on . . . everybody reacted. We thought the house was being robbed.”

            Police were cleared of all wrongdoing for Potts’ death.

            Nobody wants police officers to be killed.  Nobody wants crooks to get away with it.  On the other hand, is it REALLY necessary for the police to behave as though they are taking down an AQI safehouse in Fallujah?

            This one really chaps my a**.  Apparently, because drug dealers use vicious guard dogs, police have developed the nasty habit of shooting even family pets:

   (graphic video)

            Even politicians aren’t immune:


          • Jay

            Actually, you should look into the NYPD.

            They held a guy for reporting corruption

            And I’ve seen so many stories about police abuse, it’s ridiculous.  There’s a very close connection between police, the DAs and judges because they all can’t exist without one another.  Here’s a recent one about a 9 yr old being tasered.

            And here’s the problem when the police find out that a teenager (who was black) happened to be shot and killed.  Trayvon Martin had a clean record while going home.  He was murdered by someone that was stalking him.

            In NC, an officer resigns and assault charges are dropped against him.

            The problem isn’t just one area or place.  It’s the entire system that seems to be corrupt.  If you want me to show more stories about the police being found not guilty of crimes and being protected, I could put up story after story.  It’s just disturbing what you can get away with as a police officer.

          • herddog505

            JayThere’s a very close connection between police, the DAs and judges because they all can’t exist without one another.

            Not that I disagree, but I suggest other reasons that they all (ahem) work together:

            1.  They literally work together.  Judges, prosecutors, and police officers see each other on a routine basis.  They are, in a real sense, coworkers.  Further, they share the same job: catching and punishing criminals;

            2.  People have a tendency to lose a sense of perspective, to immerse themselves so much in their own jobs / lives that they forget that the rest of the world goes on, too.  Police officers deal with crooks and lowlifes all the time.  Ditto prosecutors and judges.  It’s easy to start imagining that MOST people are crooks and lowlifes, or, at the very least, that the way one treats the scum of humanity is the normal way to go through life.  Take the police habit of shooting dogs (even very small dogs): most people would never think of doing such a thing.  But, to the police, it’s SOP.  They are taught to “take control” and dominate a situation; it’s a short step from this to being a f*cking thug.

            Let me hasten to say that, lest it be thought that I’m a cop-hater, I’m not.  They have a tough job and most of them do it with honor, courage, and common sense.  However, the War on Drugs has done much to turn the police from public servants to bulldogs.  This bodes ill for all of us.

          •  Thanks.

        •  It happens all too often, and the solution is simple:  no immunity for whoever made the mistake.  Whether it was a cop, DA, or clerk typing up a warrant, if you make the mistake on a search, you are fully liable.

          They’d be a darned sight more careful if their own house depended on the street number being correct.

  • W

    What is bad is there is PC brainwashing at our schools even at rural schools. An elementary school in same rural town where I went to high school, scolded a kid years back for drawing a Revolutionary Soldier carrying a musket. Like my daughter said, what did the teacher think they carried flowers? 
    Then another case where the assignment was to draw something your family did over the summer.  The kid drew a bulldozer knocking down a house since they rebuilt their house over the summer. The teacher went ballistic saying that was violent drawing. Sent the kid to the principal’s office and requested the kid and his family go to counseling.
    Kids are generally taught to respect their teachers but when they pull this liberal brainwash B.S.  what is a parent to do.

  • jim_m

    Canada has for years now been very anti-liberty and does not have the same notion of freedom of speech, religion etc that we in the US have.  I was shocked about this story when I first heard of it some time ago, right up until I saw that it was Canada and then I understood.  But don’t be fooled, what happens in Canada is exactly what the left here wants.

  • herddog505

    This is What Guns Were Made For

    This is also what homeschool was made for!

  • GarandFan

    Gotta love those teachers.  From incidents I’ve read of late, I wouldn’t let any of them teach my dog.

  • W

    One of the first things a government does before becoming a dictatorship is to take the population’s weapons. It is much easier  to run roughshod over a pollutions when they are only arm with bricks and stones.

  • W

    It is much harder to round up large parts of the population and put them into concentration camps when they are armed. It is much harder to take away their rights as well.

  • Gmacr1

    Canada lacks the protections offered by the 1st & 2nd amendment rights.
    Small wonder they act with impunity in matters like this, not to mention they actually have a board that determins what ‘hate speech’ is in spoken and written form.

  • Commander_Chico

    I always thought this was pretty cool, when the Black Panthers started out they would openly carry guns.  They went to the California State House like this:

    • herddog505

      IIRC, Condi Rice (who knew a thing or two about violent racism) recalled her father and other black men in their community arming themselves especially in the wake of the Birmingham church bombing.

      It is a mystery to me why blacks especially are not passionate advocates of the 2A.  Union hoodlums, too, for that matter, as (before they started doing the shooting themselves) union members were more than once victims of mass shootings by police and troops in the pay of the company bosses.

      I suppose that giving up one’s right to the means of self defense is part of becoming a democrat.

      • Commander_Chico

        Especially when you consider that California outlawed the open carrying of weapons right after the BPs did that.  Gov. Reagan signed the law.

        It’s more of a city/country thing.  Lots of black people live it cities and cities move towards more social control because of the human friction.

        Still, even in cities, plenty of black people have guns.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    …. Canada’s para-militarized authoritarian-regulatory feral police –AKA the royal Canadian mounted police — “the mounteds” — proved themselves to be the sort of Fascists that would grab up citizens for illegitimate reasons. Their actions are a demonstration of why our republic’s founders forbade our government interfere with our God given Right to defend ourselves against its — our government’s — every attempted usurpation of those Rights  ….. 

    A Truth becoming less well appreciated it would seem with every passing generation of “Democratic” potty politician. Whose racing to strip from us those Rights and responsibilities not specifically enumerated to government will not, it seems, be checked, except it comes to the point we are forced to remind them and their increasingly criminally (un-Constitutionally) paramilitarized goons, that we own several hundred million firearms, several billions of rounds of ammunition, most of the American Legion memberships, most of the medals awarded the brave — and a certain knowledge the Tree of Liberty needs nourishing from time to time with  its natural manure: The blood of patriots and tyrants!