The Second Amendment: Gun Control for Dummies.

 

The Second Amendment is not merely a line of text in the Constitution; it is the battle cry of a free people—a shield against the dark inevitability of government overreach. It is the ultimate safeguard of liberty, and without it, freedom will crumble. Today, as political elites and authoritarian forces conspire to strip Americans of this fundamental right, we stand on the precipice of a defining moment in history.

In 1791, the Founding Fathers—fresh from the blood-soaked battlefields of revolution—crafted the Bill of Rights as an unyielding defense of human liberty. The order of these rights was deliberate. The Second Amendment, following the First’s guarantee of speech and assembly, stands as a declaration of power: the people, not the government, hold the ultimate authority in this republic.

A Warning to Tyrants

The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunters or sportsmen. It was forged in the fires of rebellion, designed to ensure that no government—foreign or domestic—could oppress the American people without fear of resistance. It is not merely about self-defense; it is about the defense of a free state.

Tyrants fear armed citizens because they cannot enslave those who refuse to be disarmed. History has proven this truth time and again. Every dictatorship, every genocide, and every atrocity begins with disarmament. Those who claim otherwise are either ignorant of history or complicit in repeating it.

The Founders saw the writing on the wall. They witnessed tyranny firsthand: soldiers raiding homes, confiscating weapons, and silencing dissent. They knew that a disarmed population is a controlled population. This is why the Second Amendment is an explicit prohibition—not a suggestion—against any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

The War on Freedom

Today, politicians cloak their disarmament agenda in the guise of “public safety.” They peddle fear, exploiting tragedies to advance their cause. But make no mistake: their ultimate goal is not safety—it is submission. An unarmed population is easy to control. It cannot fight back, it cannot resist, and it cannot hold its government accountable.

Over decades, they have woven a web of gun control laws, each more draconian than the last. They demand registration, licenses, fees, and waiting periods—all designed to whittle away the Second Amendment until it is nothing but a hollow promise. They know the truth: the more hoops they create, the fewer people will exercise their rights.

Meanwhile, these same politicians insulate themselves behind walls, armed guards, and layers of security. They live in fear of the very people they claim to represent. They know that their power is illegitimate and that, one day, the people may rise to reclaim their freedom.

The Second Amendment Is Not Negotiable

Let us be clear: the Second Amendment is not up for debate. It is not subject to the whims of politicians or the fears of the uninformed. It is not contingent upon crime rates, technological advancements, or public opinion. It is an absolute right—a cornerstone of our republic.

The language of the Second Amendment is unambiguous. It does not permit regulation, taxation, or licensing. It does not restrict the arms that citizens may bear. It does not bend to the demands of bureaucrats. It is a line in the sand, and it cannot be crossed.

The Cost of Disarmament

The consequences of disarmament are written in the blood of the innocent. From the Holocaust to the killing fields of Cambodia, unarmed populations have been systematically slaughtered by their governments. To deny this reality is to deny history itself.

Gun control is not about saving lives—it is about consolidating power. Those who advocate for it are not protectors of the people; they are enablers of tyranny.

A Supreme Victory for Liberty

Thankfully, the United States Supreme Court has reaffirmed what we have always known: the Second Amendment is a first-class right. It is not a privilege to be licensed, taxed, or regulated. It is a right that stands as a bulwark against government overreach.

The Court has made it clear: gun ownership is not negotiable. The government has no authority to dictate the terms of this right. The Founders did not leave room for compromise, and neither should we.

A Call to Arms—Literally and Figuratively

This is the fight of our generation. The battle to protect the Second Amendment is the battle to protect freedom itself. We cannot afford to be complacent. Every inch we concede is an inch closer to tyranny.

The Second Amendment is the line between freedom and slavery, between dignity and submission, between life and death. We must defend it with everything we have, for once it is lost, it will never be regained.

Let the tyrants tremble, for the Second Amendment will stand. The people will remain armed. And liberty will prevail.

You’re charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon in California. What you need to get the blatantly unconstitutional case dismissed

 

Let me begin to say that I am not a lawyer, but I do have my many years of understanding the law when it comes to the second amendment of the United States Constitution.  Will your trial judge have the balls to actually follow the constitution rather than cater to those leftist people who got him placed on the bench?

Should you find yourself arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in California, I promise you most lawyers don’t have a clue about the second amendment. They will walk you into a plea agreement most likely ending in your conviction of a misdemeanor.  Here is a motion to dismiss that covers all the bases that would get you through the  court.  Not only would you file this but you’ll get a hearing and you’re going to have to argue this against an experienced prosecutor.  Is it simple? I’m not going to suggest for a moment it is simple even for a lawyer. Here is the Motion:  

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The People of the State of California,

Plaintiff,

v.

Ted Savage,

Defendant.

Case No. [Insert Case Number]

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Defendant, Ted Savage, Pro Se, and respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the charges against him for carrying a firearm in an automobile pursuant to California Penal Code §25463, on the grounds that the statute and its application in this case violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

The Defendant, Ted Savage, was arrested and charged with carrying a firearm in an automobile following a routine traffic stop, during which he voluntarily cooperated with law enforcement. The Defendant asserts that his conduct falls within the core protections of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).

The statute under which the Defendant is charged impermissibly infringes upon the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” for self-defense, and further, its enforcement is barred by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, this Court must dismiss the charges.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Supremacy Clause Requires Dismissal of the Charges

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land,” and state laws in conflict with federal constitutional protections must yield. (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.) In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (561 U.S. at 750.) State statutes or their application that conflict with these constitutional protections are invalid.

California Penal Code §25463, as applied to the Defendant, conflicts with federal constitutional protections under the Second Amendment and is therefore unenforceable.

B. California’s Statute Imposes an Unconstitutional Restriction on the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment states: “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.”

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry firearms for self-defense. (554 U.S. at 595.) The Court emphasized that this right is “fundamental” and not limited to service in a militia. (Id. at 628.)

In Bruen, the Court established a framework for evaluating Second Amendment claims, holding that any restriction on the right to bear arms must be consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (597 U.S. ___, slip op. at 15.) Restrictions lacking historical precedent are presumptively unconstitutional. (Id. at 25.)

California Penal Code §25463 criminalizes the act of carrying a firearm in an automobile without regard to whether the firearm is being carried for lawful purposes such as self-defense. This categorical prohibition lacks any historical precedent and fails under the Bruen standard.

C. The Defendant’s Conduct Is Protected by the Second Amendment

The Defendant’s act of carrying a firearm in his automobile falls squarely within the Second Amendment’s core protection of carrying arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to bear arms includes carrying firearms in public for lawful purposes. (Heller, 554 U.S. at 628; Bruen, slip op. at 23.)

Absent a specific showing that the Defendant’s conduct posed a threat to public safety or was otherwise unlawful, the statute’s application in this case is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

D. The Statute Violates the Equal Protection Clause

In addition to infringing on the Second Amendment, the statute also raises concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by disproportionately impacting law-abiding citizens who seek to exercise their constitutional rights.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the charges against him. California Penal Code §25463, as applied, violates the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller, McDonald, and Bruen and is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

DATED: [Insert Date]

Respectfully submitted,

[Name]

[Address]

[City, State, ZIP]

[Phone Number]

[Email Address]

Artificial Intelligence Is Exposing the Incompetence of America’s Politicians

 

The arrival of artificial intelligence (AI) is nothing short of revolutionary, offering society a powerful technological gift. But like clockwork, when transformative innovation arrives, it’s met with fear—mostly by the ignorant. Nowhere is this ignorance more glaring than in Congress, where 535 lawmakers from all walks of life routinely demonstrate their inability to grasp even the basics of the technology reshaping our world.

Let’s not sugarcoat it: a significant number of our politicians are functionally illiterate in critical areas, including technology. This is a group that struggles to comprehend basic legislation, let alone the profound implications of AI. While doctors, lawyers, and scientists are using AI to improve efficiency and accuracy in their fields, Congress lumbers behind, more focused on clinging to power than understanding progress.

Consider this: AI is already outperforming human professionals in many domains. Radiologists—some of the highest-paid specialists in medicine—acknowledge that AI can analyze imaging scans faster and with greater precision than they can. Lawyers are leveraging AI to draft motions, manage discovery, and streamline trial preparation. What used to require years of specialized training can now be accomplished with AI tools by someone with just a basic understanding of the system.

AI isn’t just a productivity booster; it’s an equalizer. It allows ordinary citizens to accomplish tasks with the finesse of seasoned professionals. From writing eloquent letters to drafting complex freedom-of-information requests, AI turns anyone into a literary or analytical powerhouse. It can even generate movie scripts that rival Hollywood’s best.

And while AI once had a reputation for producing inaccurate or clunky results, it’s improving exponentially. Each day, it becomes smarter, more precise, and more accessible. This terrifies politicians. For the first time, ordinary citizens—armed with AI—can outthink, outmaneuver, and outshine the political class.

This fear isn’t about public safety, as lawmakers would have you believe when they cry out for “AI regulation.” No, their panic stems from the loss of control. The truth is, most politicians couldn’t care less about protecting the public. Their real concern is safeguarding their monopoly on power and limiting your ability to challenge their authority.

AI, however, is protected by the First Amendment—a fact that infuriates those on the political left, who have a long history of attempting to suppress free speech and dissent. We must remain vigilant in defending our right to access and use AI tools. It’s not just about embracing innovation; it’s about protecting individual freedom from those who would rather see us powerless and dependent.

When politicians claim they need to “regulate AI for your safety,” don’t be fooled. Their motives are self-serving. They’re not afraid of AI itself—they’re afraid of you wielding it.

The Veterans Administration and Exceptional Medical Care

Chicago, IL – My journey with the Veterans Administration (VA) began at 615 W. Van Buren St. on June 24, 1968. That day, I responded to an unmissable “invitation” from President Lyndon B. Johnson to join the military—a calling I couldn’t refuse without serious consequences.

Growing up in a wonderful and free nation, I made the conscious decision to do my part in defending the way of life I cherished. From there, my journey took me through the gates of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, where eight grueling weeks of basic training awaited. While the experience was tough, the promise of free lifetime healthcare was part of the commitment we made. At 20 years old, however, thoughts of future medical care felt distant and almost irrelevant; back then, I believed I was invincible and that longevity was a given.

Decades later, time has brought its share of age-related medical challenges, and I’ve been amazed by the VA’s steadfast commitment to veterans. The medical care I’ve received has been nothing short of extraordinary, delivered by exceptional professionals who genuinely care about our health and well-being.

Today, I’m proud to say I belong to an exclusive group of individuals receiving the finest medical care available. No insurance plan, HMO, or private program compares to the comprehensive and compassionate services the VA provides.

The Veterans Administration has honored the promise it made to me so long ago, exceeding all expectations. At the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, the physicians, nurses, and staff—many young enough to be my children—serve with incredible dedication, respect, and compassion. Although most of them haven’t personally experienced military service, they embody the values of service and care that make this institution a crown jewel in the healthcare industry.

The VA has truly delivered on its commitment to those who served, and I couldn’t be more grateful.

American comedy and the first amendment to the United States Constitution

In the 1960s, patrons of Chicago’s Rush Street Gate of Horn nightclub often attended not just to enjoy Lenny Bruce’s provocative humor but also to witness his frequent arrests by the Chicago Police Department’s vice control division. Dubbed the “father of dirty jokes,” Bruce’s performances were notorious for his dropping F-bombs and always being greeted with handcuffs. Audiences would pay their cover charges, order drinks, anticipating watching his arrest go down and the club’s closure for the evening

Today, Lenny Bruce in reality would seem like an altar boy compared to comedians like Nikki Glaser. Glaser is renowned for her candid and humorous discussions of the most intimate human sexual experiences, fearlessly addressing topics that many shy away from. Fortunately, in the current era, such openness doesn’t result in a police action. Reflecting on this, one might question how discussing sex—a fundamental aspect of human existence—was ever criminalized.

It’s remarkable that it took nearly two centuries for the courts to fully embrace the freedoms promised by the First Amendment.

Can American journalism be saved?

The state of American news has plunged to depths unimaginable, transforming once-reputable institutions into crude propaganda mills. Yet, amidst the rubble, the Internet offers a faint glimmer of hope. So long as free speech survives, Americans might yet find a way to access honest reporting.

In this new landscape, figures like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson have emerged, breaking away from the stranglehold of corporate media. Their intelligence and wealth afford them the resources to hire field producers and broadcast their own narratives, free from the constraints of traditional networks. Others are sure to follow, perhaps even at the local level. Yet, the real challenge lies in creating a sustainable system to fund these independent voices—a sponsorship chain to support the production of credible news.

The days when news was controlled by those who could afford to buy ink by the barrel are fading. But the basic truth remains: someone must pay for content creation. In New York City, for instance, there’s a vlogger named Cash Jordan, carving out a niche with his straightforward reporting. Untethered from local government’s influence, he speaks plainly about the realities around him.

What the American public craves is simple: unvarnished truth without the suffocating fog of propaganda. Slowly, the tide seems to be turning. Perhaps there is still a path toward journalism that informs rather than manipulates, though it will not be an easy road.