We Must Become Second Amendment Zealots If We Are To Survive.

Sierra Times ^ | 27 April 2003 | Michael Gaddy

[El Gato]

of a free State, (State in this incidence means the States that make up the U.S.)

I believe "State" is used in the general sense, referring to not only the States of the Union, but sovereign government in general (in this case a government of free men)

[Dane]

What about when President Bush teamed up with Hillary Democrat Ted Kennedy to pass the Education Act?

Welcome to the real world, where politics, principle, and personalities mesh and determines a person's vote. I wasn't happy with the education bill, but Bush is still a hell of lot better than Gore and Ron Paul.

After 9/11 Gore would be sucking up to the french, un, and saying it was America's fault. Ron Paul would be sending out 18th century sailing ships, "armed" with constitutionally pure "letters of Marque(sp?)".

The fact still remains that self proclaimed "Mr. Constitution", Ron Paul sided with Hillary democrats in his opposition to Bush about Iraq.

[ought-six]

You forgot one more: Bush's apparent willingness to surrender the sovereignty of the United States to Mexican interests. That is truly shameful.

[ought-six]

"We don't have a tyrannical government today."

Oh yeah? When was the last time you were in Chicago?

[PhilipFreneau]

One of the real problems we face as Second Amendment "zealots," is the fact that the largest of our right to keep and bear arms "defenders", the NRA, has supported a great majority of the above listed government infringements on our firearms rights.

I have been saying that for at least a decade. Recently I was asked by an NRA recruiter to join. I told him I would as soon as the NRA started supporting the right to keep and bear arms. He angrily snapped back, "That is what we do! We support the 2nd Amendment." It makes one wonder if everyone in positions of leadership in the NRA is as clueless as that "recruiter".

[Shooter 2.5]

All right, what do you do to protect the Second Amendment?

[ought-six]

"I can't remember when the military was last used against the populace."

Here's a brief historical primer:

1920s and 1930s when federal troops assaulted WWI veterans in Washington DC who were seeking their promised benefits;

1970 when Ohio National Guard fired on and killed students (so what if they were protesting the war: free speech, and all that; they posed no threat to the Guard);

1970s National Guard killed students at Jackson State;

1993 in Waco, of course. Besides FBI and BATF, there were some military troops (not too many, though) present.

[45Auto]

I'd also say that while God created us as creatures who desire and even deserve freedom he makes no guarantees that any one of us will always enjoy freedom.

Which suggests that unless we exercise our RKBA, then we will soon not have it at all. That brings up any even bigger question: will we be forced to use arms to defend our basic freedom even in the US?

[45Auto]

Another approach is needed.

Like, what?

[The Grammarian]

I second that!

[45Auto]

You've already accepted slavery; you might as well put on your own chains, too. If you equate the mere ownership of weapons with criminal behavior, then you are posting on the wrong site. And you have the wrong definition of "criminal".

[45Auto]

Your suggestions to win the war at the ballot box are on the mark. But I believe, without the Second Amendment, the others are meaningless.

Exactly. The vote means nothing without the means to enforce it in the hands of the citizens.

[rightofrush]

(am I the only one who remembers when the Rep.s in Congress PROMISED us that if we gave them the Congress in '94 this Bill would be undone?)

Nope. As a former GOP contributor, I almost enjoy those phone calls and faux opinion surveys.

They give me a chance to also remind them GW, like Clinton, is in bed with the Chicoms, approves of Clinton's egregious EOs, keeps our southern border a sieve for illegals, and sends our jobs to Asia.

[rightofrush]

We have elections every two years, for pete's sake. That's where our power is, not behind a toy "assault rifle."

When paper ballots were used with an oversight of those counting them, this was true.
With programable voting machines, maybe so, maybe not.

[teeman8r]

the un will use small arms as their ultimate reason to preemptively launch an attack on the united states...

we can only hope that a frenchman will be at the helm at that particular time...

jmt, teeman

[PhilipFreneau]

All right, what do you do to protect the Second Amendment?

First, I do not align myself with worthless appeasers that promote such nonsense as "Let's enforce the laws already on the books". Second, I adhere to my oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Third, and foremost, I exercise my RKBA at all times.

I am a firm believer that any law worthy of being law is worthy of an authorizing article of the Constitution or amendment supporting it. Anyone who supports usurpation is my enemy. The sooner we start considering usurpers as enemies, instead of appeasing their sorry butts, the better off we will be.

It is important we understand this important tool of the tyrant. The tyrant always tries to take two steps forward, knowing that he will most likely have to compromise by taking only one step forward. But the tyrant wins every time this occurs: a step forward means we lose power and the tyrant gains power.

[Shooter 2.5]

Oh, uh, that's just peachy but I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't ask what you believe in. I asked what do you actually DO to protect your Rights.

Let me give you an example. You find out that Congress is trying to pass a Bill that will ban military ammunition. They may or may not have the votes because the gun grabbing dems control the House and Senate. You live 1000 miles from Washington D.C. and you have a full time job. The vote is in one month. What are you going to do about it?

[Jay D. Dyson]

Don't feed the troll.

...but-but-but I already touched it and now its mother won't take it back!

Hmmm? Oh yeah...good point...I guess its mother chose not to take it back a loooong time ago.

;)

-Jay

[Zavien Doombringer]

We don't have a tyrannical government today.

I would have to disagree.

Once the government has sherked it's commitment to the people and the Constitution, then it has become a Tyranical Government. We don't have a tyrant king, but the elective legislature has become one big tyrant supressing the people of the United States. I don't care what the 16th Admendment says it's wrong! A progressive income tax (which is listed as a tool for communism on the Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx) supresses the will of the people and the legislation back in 1912 knew this. When the Federal Reserve (not a government agency) started handing money to the government like candy, the debt grew, the government didn't know how to pay it back, so the income tax was imposed on the people (which used to be only on corporations and businesses) to pay the debt back. The Uncontrolled spending still exists as the debt gets bigger, more taxes are going to be taken.

There is more; When was it Constitutional to start the Public School, The welfare and the Social Security? It isn't. You see, the Government is running rampant with out any regard to the Constitution, it has in fact beome Tyranical, you must accept it or face jail time and monetary fines, or posession of your goods!