Our Rights Shall Not Be Infringed

Sen Doug Whitsett

by Sen. Doug Whitsett

According to our constitutions, each American citizen possesses the unconditional, guaranteed right to own, keep and bear firearms.

The Second Amendment to the Unites States Constitution reads: “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.”

“Shall not be infringed” has clear meaning. It means no government shall encroach upon, interfere with, violate, disobey or disregarded the constitutionally guaranteed right of a citizen to own and bear firearms.

Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution is even more specific: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State…..”

Both of these declarations, of our constitutional rights, are explicit and unambiguous. They are also prescient.

Virtually every mass shooting in the United States, during the past 25 years, has occurred in a gun-free zone. Whether in a school, a government building, a military base or a night club, those areas were each gun free, because politicians passed laws infringing on their constituents’ constitutional right to carry a firearm to defend themselves in those zones.

When confronted with determined killers possessing firearms, those laws have consistently resulted in killing zones rather than safe zones. No one can rationally deny that these deranged killers have sought out gun-free zones for their carnage. The history speaks for itself.

Moreover, every despotic regime in modern history was initiated by first disarming its people. The common pretext is to create a safer society. Once the people have succumbed to the ruse, they are helpless to defend their freedom.

Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the religiously motivated terrorist attack in Orlando, pundits and politicians are once again attempting to convince our citizens that they must disarm in order to be safe from such attacks. We should never forget the folks in that nightclub were totally vulnerable only because they allowed themselves to be disarmed.

The American Lexicographer Noah Webster observed: “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

Also, the British statesman Edmund Burke wrote “The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion.”

So too, Ben Franklin reflected: “They that give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Those statements remain as true today as they were when made during the 1780s. No citizen can ever be free without the means to defend themselves and their families. To give up that means of defense against the aggressive acts of others, or of government tyrants, under any pretense, represents an open invitation to subjugation and tyranny.

Unfortunately, too many among our state and national political leaders mean to be our masters. From their votes and statements yesterday, our president, our governor and both of Oregon’s U.S. Senators appear to believe that in order to be safe from terrorism, we must give up certain of our rights to defend ourselves against extremists and religious fanatics. They do not appear to comprehend that disarming the vulnerable only makes it safer for terrorists.

Our response to any effort to disarm us today should be no different than the answers of our nation’s founders.


Senator Doug Whitsett is the Republican state senator representing Senate District 28 – Klamath Falls

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:56 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, Gun Control | 19 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Obama and Queen Hillary are helping arm more us every time they open their carbon dioxide laden mouths. Most often if Obummer says one thing, the opposite results are most likely. (You can keep your doctor…err if he/she isn’t closing their practice because of my health policies. I guess those stimulus projects weren’t so shovel ready…hee, hee. I have pulled all troops out of Iraq…err, don’t look but I am sending them back.)

    • DavidAppell

      Bob Clark wrote: “every time they open their carbon dioxide laden mouths.”

      Breathing is carbon neutral, dummy.

      • fred291

        Not so:

        C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy
        carbohydrates + oxygen → carbon dixoide + water + energy

        I think you meant that the carbon cycle is neutral because the carbon in the food we eat (the C6H12O6) comes out of the atmosphere and we are just putting back what was there. Nevertheless, if everyone stopped breathing for only one half hour, the greenhouse gas problem would be fixed.

        • DavidAppell


          Breathing does not create carbon. CO2 comes from the air we inhale, or from reactions with the carbon we eat from plants, or from the animals we eat who ate plants.

          Think! If mammals did create carbon, we would in these last hundred millions years have built up enormous CO2 in our atmosphere.

          But that didn’t happen, did it?

        • DavidAppell

          “Nevertheless, if everyone stopped breathing for only one half hour, the greenhouse gas problem would be fixed.”

          Flat-out wrong.

          And also not very intelligent.

        • DavidAppell

          “Nevertheless, if everyone stopped breathing for only one half hour, the greenhouse gas problem would be fixed.”

          Wrong wrong wrong.

          If that were true, the atmosphere’s CO2 content would depend on how many mammals there are on Earth.

          And there is no evidence whatsoever that it does. In fact, atmo CO2 levels were essentially constant for thousands of years before the industrial era.

        • DavidAppell

          “Nevertheless, if everyone stopped breathing for only one half hour, the greenhouse gas problem would be fixed.”

          That’s a ridiculous scenario, but let’s see your proof.

  • Connie Kosuda

    sure hope you did not go to law school, but , now, in this point in our nation’s history, we are not a ‘militia’ and we are not being ‘disarmed’ /

    that is disingenuous, deliberately misleading hyperbole.

    too many weapons, like assault weapons , AK47’s , in the hands of too many deeply disturbed macho morons is the problem.

    limits are intelligent /

    like when one speeds one’s monster truck while hopped up on corn liquor and road kill / enough is enough .

    • Houston, she remains a problem

      Your brain is Red, comrade Kosudaski

    • She bares coccyx shingles

      Kosuda, you’re a dismemberment from any kind of law school, butt savor your auntie US favoring a fanook’n Gnu Whorld Ardor.

  • DavidAppell

    Sen. Doug wrote:
    “According to our constitutions, each American citizen possesses the unconditional, guaranteed right to own, keep and bear firearms.”

    Only in the context of a militia, Doug. Learn to read.

    • Roger Enout

      Tanks a lot, DA proof reader for Sharia.

    • Dave Lister

      We the People are the militia. That’s what it boils down to. All of us who choose the right and responsibility to bear arms are one of the militia. There is no mandated framework for the organization of the militia; it is assumed the citizenry will organize when and as required.

  • Tüvtürk Araç Muayene sitemizi ziyaret etmenizi tavsiye ederiz.

    • Hosen Chi Minth

      Translyvaniated: I dunno know er udder anything but teats for Dems to suckle off me elbow. ~ Demonski Washerwoeman Schnultz forum the Clinton PAC.

  • Colin Yerbluf

    The 2nd Amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to “the people.” That means it’s a collective right, not an individual right.

    • fred291

      That claim isn’t really consistent with the historical record. The collective rights theory seems to have been invented by lawyers sometime during the mid 19th Century based on nothing more than their interpretation of the 5th Amendment’s language, which is confusing, What the Antifederalists demanded and, at the time, everyone thought they got, in return for accepting the Constitution, was an individual right. Besides 33 state constitutions, among them OR’s, unambiguously grant an individual right to keep and bear arms. That doesn’t mean that appropriate regulations to protect public health and safety are out of order. For example, it would be perfectly Constitutional to ban all semi-automatic weapons (just as we ban private ownership of automatic weapons and hand grenades) or all handguns. However, this is a protected right and the regs would be subject to strict scrutiny – i.e., they must be clearly and narrowly specified to do what they are supposed to do and must actually do what they purport to do. BS laws, like the prohibition of ‘assault weapons,’ meet neither test. Many states, including those whose Constitutions grant strong gun rights, license weapons ownership and extensively regulate the terms of licensure. The barrier to so doing isn’t the Constitution, it’s politics, which ultimately means, lack of public support.

  • DavidAppell

    Senator Doug wrote:
    “According to our constitutions, each American citizen possesses the unconditional, guaranteed right to own, keep and bear firearms.”


    The 2A is clearly written in the context of a militia.

    That’s how the founders mean it. Otherwise, why include that clause.

    Huh Doug?

    They could simply have simply written “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    But they didn’t, did they Doug?

    Why not, in your opinion?

  • İstanbul Tüvtürk Randevu sitemizi ziyaret etmenizi tavsiye ederiz.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)