About Us
Class Schedule
Register for a Class
Pay for a Class
Student Information

With a business like this one sooner or later the subject of gun control and the Second Amendment is bound to come up.  I want to make our position on that debate clear from the start.

We believe that our right to defend ourselves is established from a source far above what any government can rightfully claim. The founders of this nation recognized that and you can see that view acknowledged in the Second Amendment, which means what it says in plain English.

Evidence of that view is available in the Federalist Papers and other statements made in print and in lively debates by the founders of the country and in our view should be clear to any fair minded person based on an examination of the record and common sense.  Check out this website to see what the founders thought about an armed populace.  You might notice in reading the material on that website that the founders insisted not only that people be armed but that they also be proficient in the use of firearms.  While it is true that at least to some extent we still have the right to keep and bear arms it is also true that many of those who exercise that right are definitely not proficient in their use.

If anyone can find evidence that the majority of those men felt that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to private citizens please use the Contact Form to send me a reference. 

People today can debate how the Second Amendment should be interpreted today but they cannot logically argue based on the record against its intent at the time the Constitution was ratified.  Just for the record, the Bill of Rights does not grant us rights.  What the Bill of Rights does is to limit the power of the federal government.  It was created by the representatives of the people (most of whom at that time actually tried to represent their constituents) in order to gain enough support to form a workable government.  Without those ten amendments (all of which address individual rights and place limits on the federal government) the Constitution would not have been ratified at all.

Nor in our view is the Constitution a flawed document (currently popular terminology).  The founding fathers had enough foresight to provide a means for changing the Constitution should it prove to be lacking at some point in the future.  We can still do that today by amending it just as has been done seventeen times in the past (not counting the Bill of Rights which would elevate the count to 27).  Perhaps we would be better off today specifically and not exclusively with respect to the Second Amendment if elected officials at the national level were to adhere to their oath of office and actually support and defend the Constitution rather than ignore it.  Perhaps the country would be better off if we were to require those who take the oath of office to actually support and defend the Constitution in order to adhere to that oath.

Watch this YouTube video in which Dr. Susan Gratia-Hupp testifies before a US Senate committee and attempts to educate the committee members about what the Second Amendment means.  Click on Video to watch it.  Senator Schumer apparently does not like what she says but he has the good sense not to challenge it.  How could he?  She is right and he knows it