The USCCA has a FREE weekly newsletter for YOU! We discuss self-defense, guns, knives, tactics, family, friends and life. These weekly tips are valuable, entertaining and politically incorrect... and they're FREE. Sign up now or "pay the price."
Your name, and e-mail will NEVER be sold or rented to ANYONE. Click here to check out the USCCA Newsletter archives.
Ahhhh, back to school time! Time to give us parents a much needed break! It's also a time though, when we are forced to place the safety of our kids into the hands of strangers- unarmed strangers. Not an easy thing to do!
At any rate, I'm sure you've been dying to see the hilarious video of the week that I mentioned last week! It's not gun-related, but here it is: ENJOY!!
I swear I've seen that fifty times, and it just keeps getting more and more funny! Do you know someone who could use a good laugh?
Send them this 'bundle of joy'!
I've got an even better video for next week! Somebody recently pointed it out on the USCCA forum. One great thing about our awesome forum community- if you are in need of a laugh, you'll get one!!
I found this awesomely inspiring article over on www.2asisters.org, and apparently it was originally published in the September 13, 1991 issue of "Gun Week", and was written by "J. Neil Schulman".
You're in for a treat!
"THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT" by J. Neil Schulman
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"July 26, 1991
"Dear Professor Copperud:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
"Sincerely,
"J. Neil Schulman"
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;
and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure. There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.
All other rights reserved.
Wasn't that great?
Feel free to share it with a friend by clicking the link below!
----------------------------------------------
Gun and Gear Review
Here we go! My favorite part of every "Tip of the Week". This is where we get to look at some neat and interesting guns and gear.
When I saw this "Wilson Tactical Cop Tool" on Wilson Tactical's website, I knew that I wanted to review one. It just seemed so unique and original! It's made out of solid D2 steel, and is about six inches long. The thing that initially caught my attention, and impressed me the most about this thing is its handle. It is made of very tightly wrapped nylon parachute cord. It's super comfortable, and provides for a very good grip- even with wet hands.
This thing has very sharp edge on its top, like a chisel (only MUCH sharp), and a serrated blade on its face, which is also dangerously sharp. I have cut a LOT of stuff with this thing since I received it, and the serrated blade hasn't seemed to have dulled one bit. The 'tip', where the chisel edge and the serrated blade meet has held up very well. I've definitely put it through much more abuse than I would dare put a folder edge through. In fact, many of my folders have nicked up tips from doing once or twice what this blade has held up to over and over.
The other part of the Cop Tool is the "seat belt cutter". I didn't have any seat belts to try to cut, but judging by the way this thing slices through paper, plastic, cloth, and vinyl, I don't think seatbelts would be much of an issue!
Although feeling the slender handle and drilled thumb grooves give you a reassuring feeling, this isn't meant to be a defensive weapon. I'm sure you could cause plenty of damage to an attacker with it, but this thing is a tool for other purposes. This is the kind of thing that you want stuck in your vehicle console, or on your work belt. I was surprised at how often I began using it after keeping it on me, even for just a few days! Not to mention the amount of times that I whipped this thing out to show my friends!
My last note about the Wilson Tactical Cop Tool is about the lanyard and sheath. The lanyard is also braided cord, and is decorated with a little plastic skull! It looks menacing! The Cop Tool fits into its sheath with a super snug feel. The sheath itself is made out of kydex, and is supposed to be worn between two belts, but I have actually removed the belt attachment from mine, and just stick it in my pocket! Whatever works!
Cop or not- this is a handy tool for anyone!
Show it to a friend!
USCCA Forum Highlights
Every Deluxe Member has complete access to the USCCA forum, which is constantly being accessed by members sharing information, knowledge, insight, and fun. With well over twenty-thousand posts and growing by the hour, this is one heck of a valuable resource!
Help for No Weapons Zone
I could use some help wording a letter in regards to a "No Weapons" zone I encountered recently. I have seen and downloaded the "no guns=no money" cards but I want to draft an intelligent and well written letter to the board of directors. Here are the details...
It happened to me (Ohio Law & LEO)
This past weekend our neighborhood had its annual neighborhood garage sale (about 25 blocks)- and I set up. I put out among all my other items, some knives, holsters and a few weapons. Well, about 3:30, it happened, one of Toledo's finest rolled up and sauntered over to my drive...
Google makes it easy for the bad guy
It was recenly brought to my attention that Google.com had started a new feature. I became aware of this new feature through a warning email I received. Since I usually find people on here that take home security as vital as I do I thought I would post this on here for everybody...
Can you imagine having access to a pool of friendly people who, like you, have made the decision to carry a gun to protect themselves and their family?
Can you imagine the tactical implications of this, and availability of help with questions ranging from what type of ammo to use, all the way to how best to convince your spouse to carry?
With the USCCA Online Forum- that's exactly what you have!
Quote of the Week
Sometimes a good quote will inspire or motivate you. Sometimes, they'll just put a smile on your face! Here is the quote for this week...
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
~Thomas Jefferson
Closing Thoughts Member Feedback: Some of the best ideas, tips and thoughts come from other USCCA members just like you! So if you have something you'd like to share with the rest of us, please don't hesitate to send me a message. Click here to go to our contact form.
Well that's it for this week folks! If you are still debating whether or not to join, I've got great news- you can stop thinking about it, because with out "ethical bribe" offer, there is no risk whatosever! Check it out with all the details (and lack of asterisks!), here!
So stop wasting valuable time that could be spent gaining new advantages, learning new tactics, and making new friends!
Trust me- aside form your gun, holster, and some good loads, this will be the best money you've ever spent!
REMEMBER: This offer expires August 31st, so don't wait another day! CHECK IT OUT HERE!
Stay safe, and stay prepared! And have a great weekend!
The U.S. Concealed Carry Website uses 128-Bit Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption to transmit your personal information to our secure servers. The USCCA is a certified CA-1 Equifax Secure Global eBusiness. And most importantly, all of your personal and payment information is secured by Smith & Wesson, John Browning, Glock and Springfield Armory. Heck, this transaction will be safer than using your credit card at a restaurant! We don't mess around at USCCA, we've processed over 25,000 transactions with absolutely ZERO security breaches. Still not sure you want to do this over the internet? Well, just give me a call at (877) 677-1919.
