Posted on 04/29/2003 12:52:17 PM PDT by 45Auto
If you wonder at my use of the word "zealot" in the title, I would explain that by saying I feel that the majority of the so-called "defenders and supporters" of the second amendment have long since sold their souls to the powers of government, and those of us who believe it holds the key to freedom, must from this point on be zealots in its defense.
We must face the fact that no one connected to government will be able to prevent the usurpation of our right to own arms sufficient to protect our homes and families. Wake up folks! Government has been involved in a well-planned, incremental approach to the disarming of the citizens of this country for decades.
Billions of dollars and man-hours have been spent through groups such as the National Rifle Association over the past 80 years, lobbying those in government to protect our rights as granted by our creator and enumerated in the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. And what has it bought us?
1934-National Firearms Act
1938-Federal Firearms Act
1968- 68' Gun Control Act
1972-BATF expanded to deal with firearms
1986-Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
1990-Crime Control Act
1994-Brady Bill
1994-Assault Weapons Ban
1998-National Instant Check System
No matter how sweet the prose of the names of these pieces of legislation or how they inflame the passions of the ignorant socialist masses, the fact remains; they are all unconstitutional - and deadly to our freedom.
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. Almost two years ago I wrote of this betrayal. NRA: Pro Second or Government Lapdogs?
We must face the fact that we are wasting resources and time lobbying those in government. They will never turn on the god they worship. Government is the source of their power and wealth. Government, as it becomes more and more corrupt, requires the people not have the means to resist that corruption. Thus, the gradual encroachment on our ability to possess the type weapons necessary to remain free.
We see our military issuing - what one could only assume to be fully automatic AK-47's - to people they do not even know in Iraq, but we here in the US of A are forbidden to own similar rifles. We may have "semi-automatics", but not if they have a bayonet lug or high capacity magazine. This fact speaks volumes. Does an unknown Iraqi policeman have more rights to freedom than we?
If we are so naïve as to place our hopes for adherence to constitutional principles in the republican or democratic party, we should just turn in our firearms now and submit to the tyranny that follows without wasting any more time or resources. How long will it take before we all realize they are players for the government, not the people, and are only distinguishable when they switch their "home and away" uniforms?
Can the facts be painted any more vividly than the White House's support for the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? Just take a look at those who are singing the praises of the Bush Administration. When those who call themselves "conservative" are lauded by the likes of Feinstein and Schumer, its time to seek high ground. Both of these fine representatives of Marxism have said legislation will be introduced to make the AWB permanent and to close the loophole on importation of high capacity magazines. And Bush is now on record in support of this legislation.
Of course, Feinstein must be on the administrations short list of favorites, what with the 600 million dollar government contract to her hubby's business.
In the 2004 Presidential Election, we as Second Amendment zealots are going to be faced with two candidates who support our disarmament. This is the goal of government. Vote for whomever you choose. You still get that which they want you to have.
Republican faithful will preach of how much worse off we will be with the democrat who would disarm us, and besides, there are so many other things that need to be accomplished that only a republican administration can handle. We have found that to include the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II and a run amuck Department of Homeland Security. How much more of this style government can we tolerate and still call ourselves a free people?
Democrats will continue with their Marxist agenda. And, God forbid, should there be another act of terrorism in this country, the cowards will gladly surrender the wisp of freedom we have left if mother government will only let them hide behind her apron.
Trying to secure our second amendment rights through the Congress will be a further effort in futility. We are all familiar with their machinations, and besides, haven't they brought us to the place we are now?
Conclusion
Statistics tell us there are approximately 88 million of us gun owners in this country. Unfortunately, only half of that number might qualify as gun zealots. There are those who place politics above the guarantees of Creator and Constitution. There are those who believe as long as they can participate in their little competitions, whether it be shooting make believe outlaws, clay pigeons or metal gongs, that no one needs an assault rifle. There are those who have been perverted totally out of phase to the original intent of the second amendment and its guarantee against tyranny.
History has been replaced with Social Studies in our public school gulags. A look at a public school textbook for middle school reveals no mention of firearms in the discussion of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is only discussed in the realm of militias and how they were used in the revolution. It further states that because we have organizations like the National Guard there is no need for private possession of firearms!
It is my belief it is now time to either fish or cut bait. The lines have been drawn. We must present a united front. 40+ million Second Amendment zealots could present quite a problem to anyone seeking the presidency, or any other political office. But that will not be accomplished if we continue on the path we have been on for the past 50+ years. Political parties, the NRA and compromise on our God given imperatives are not working. Over 2,000 gun control laws on the books should tell us something. People who write and support gun laws either don't understand the Constitution, hate our guts, or both. You will not secure freedom by trying to appease them.
We have been blessed with one man in this nation who understands the concepts of liberty and freedom and fights for them daily. We Second Amendment zealots must unite behind this man of whom it has been said: "He personifies the Founding Fathers' conception of the citizen-statesman. He made it clear from the start that his principles would never be compromised, and they never were." Another added: "There are few people in public life who through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. He is one of those few."
I speak of none other than Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District of Texas. Former Treasury Secretary William Simon, put it best when he said: "Dr. Paul is the one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.
The ball is now in our court. We can continue on the path we have been on, supporting political parties, sending our hard earned dollars to organizations that compromise on every gun control issue, and supporting those in office who promise anything to obtain that office and then sell our Constitution and their principles to the highest bidder, or we can give our solid support to a man who knows no compromise when it comes to the oath he took to "uphold and defend."
40+ million Second Amendment zealots with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer could make a difference. What say ye?
"How many times has someone, or a group, armed with whatever weapons, successfully held off even a police SWAT team and gotten away? The answer is Zero."
Remember the INS/FBI Elian Gonzalez raid in Florida. Do you think that would have happened, the way it did, if the Florida family was adequately armed? I think, instead, there would have been an honest effort at negotiation.
"One A-10, with a couple of Hellfire missiles would put an end to that fantasy."
I can't remember when the military was last used against the populace. Probably the Civil War. In any case, the use by the Federal Government against the citizens of the US of military equipment of this type would make a radical change in the nature of our government. We would then have truly become a police state. All the more reason I should own a RPG tankbuster today.
"We are long past the point where an armed populace is going to overthrow any government in the USA. It ain't gonna happen. Not now. Not ever."
A few years ago, after an jury verdict in a police abuse case, that was unpopular in some parts of Los Angeles, race riots spontaneously broke out. The various police departments were unable to quell the riots. In some cases, the police retreated out of the riotous areas, leaving the law-abiding population at risk. A few Korean-born shopkeepers were able to protect their inner-city businesses by getting on the roof with legal guns and firing at the rioters. I believe that the Second Admendment (among others) gives me the individual right to protect myself, my family, my business, and my community - especially in the absence functioning law enforcement. It doesn't matter to me if the criminal threatening me is from the inner city or wears a BATF flak jacket.
"The best civilian firearms are laughable, even compared to the firepower a small town SWAT team can bring to the battle."
Read up on guerilla warfare and sniping tactics. One well-placed shot, taking out a field commander is as effective as bloodying the entire opposition. You were correct in an earlier statment - if you get yourself beseiged, you're dead.
Clearly, you have thought about this a lot. 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.
You're either idiots or shills
Really? You g@bl.c were never really with me, IMO. You could really care less who is power due to the electoral system. You just want to perpetually stew in your malcontnent juices, IMO.
Does the Constitution says what form the declaration must take? Or the wording it must contain? NO
Yep, you got that lable. No doubt about that. I guess you are of the contingent that by withholding our vote or voting for some no-name candidate, thus helping the election a Hillary Presidency, will all of the sudden bring up an AK-47 sugar plum popular revolution and a Libertarian Monarchy will be established, and all will be well with the world.
You know, there's nothing more reprehensible than contempt prior to investigation. You don't even know my voting plans, nor do you know the whole of my political philosophy. But just so we're clear, let me put this in layman's terms:
I ain't no Libertarian, monkeyboy.
JMO, but it is time to quit smoking "corn silk".
*TWEET* *throwing flag* Penalty. Personal foul; asinine remark. Ten yard penalty. Still first down.
-Jay
I have a quote for you...
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams
I am actually opposed, as a matter of principle, to the summary execution without trial of trial lawyers. This is despite any benefits which might be obtained by such.
Good it is out in the open.
Thank you for at least being honest, that defeating Hillary or a Hillary wannabe in the electoral arena, is not your goal.
Your goal, IMO, is self-pride and if that means a Hillary Presidency, so be it according to you.
You have made your point known, it is all about you and not about the future of this country, IMO.
I guess I should assume that he's not saying God guarantees us the right to bear arms. 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. The erosion of our 'right to bear arms' is a symtpom of the deeper issue.
Exactly.
An anti-gun prosecutor was assassinated in his home recently. There was much speculation that this might be due to his anti-gun activities.
Our nation's founders understood that it was necessary many times to avoid a open confrontation.
Perhaps someone can bring me up to date on a situation which occurred in the San Francisco east bay area.
A man running a sausage making business armed himself and shot three government inspectors. It seems that he thought he should make the decisions regarding the sausage recipe and not them. I have no direct information to help me decide whether this man was being tyrannized, but I do know that the government cannot withstand losses of three to one to any enemy.
Therein lies the reason for Waco. It was necessary to have an outcome in which more non-government people died than BATF agents. Otherwise, the government would be forced to admit that it is unable to disarm the populace.
Is that assertion to severe to be given fair consideration?
To test the validity of the assertion I would offer a review of a word from the Second Amendment. The word is infringed as it is used in the context of the Second Amendment.
"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 English word infringe is used as an intransitive verb in the Second Amendment meaning to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A review of the intransitive verb encroach in the definition of infringe means to take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily.
Does this meet the criteria for gradually or stealthily?
1934-National Firearms Act
1938-Federal Firearms Act
1968- 68' Gun Control Act
1972-BATF expanded to deal with firearms
1986-Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
1990-Crime Control Act
1994-Brady Bill
1994-Assault Weapons Ban
1998-National Instant Check System
The assertion passes my test and I consider the assertion valid. What is your test?
Your answer is a classic non sequitur. Could it be that those who voted against Ron Paul's rider did so because it was simply redundant? The point is, what passed was, for all purposes, a declaration of war if certain conditions were not met. This country has had several more "wars" than strict "declarations of war." Tell someone who fought in Korea or Vietnam that they are not veterans of a war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.