[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Why do men lose it when their chicky-poo dies?

Christopher Caldwell: How Immigration Is Erasing Whites, Christians, and the Middle Class

SSRI Connection? Another Trans Shooter, Another Massacre – And They Erased His Video

Something 1/2 THE SIZE of the SUN has Entered our Solar System, and We Have NO CLUE What it is...

Massive Property Tax Fraud Exposed - $5.1 Trillion Bond Scam Will Crash System

Israel Sold American Weapons to Azerbaijan to Kill Armenian Christians

Daily MEMES YouTube Hates | YouTube is Fighting ME all the Way | Making ME Remove Memes | Part 188

New fear unlocked while stuck in highway traffic - Indian truck driver on his phone smashes into

RFK Jr. says the largest tech companies will permit Americans to access their personal health data

I just researched this, and it’s true—MUST SEE!!

Savage invader is disturbed that English people exist in an area he thought had been conquered

Jackson Hole's Parting Advice: Accept Even More Migrants To Offset Demographic Collapse, Or Else

Ecuador Angered! China-built Massive Dam is Tofu-Dreg, Ecuador Demands $400 Million Compensation

UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout)

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: Many Gun Owners, the State and Media Agree; 2a Is No Longer Relevant
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy67.1.html
Published: Aug 14, 2009
Author: Michael Gaddy
Post Date: 2009-08-14 07:02:02 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1161
Comments: 80

As a government grows more and more intrusive on individual liberties, that government’s fear of the armed citizen increases exponentially, just as an armed robber fears a well-armed potential victim. Here in America in the last seventy plus years, our government and their stooges in the media have sought to relegate the right of a free people to keep and bear arms into a privilege, subject to government approval, rather than an inalienable right. Sadly, many gun owners have agreed to participate in this madness.

I have been consistent in my objections to asking permission and paying for the privilege to carry a weapon on my person, if and when I chose to do so. Yet, the majority of objections I receive to my position come from people who currently own guns and have jumped at the opportunity for government approval to do what they already have the right to do. Is this not an open acknowledgement to those in power the Second Amendment, and the remainder of the Bill of Rights, mean nothing and are subject to the whim of some elected criminal, bureaucrat, or an agenda wearing a black robe?

When I decided to write this article, I did not contact the government, submit to a background check, submit fingerprints, take a government endorsed writing class and pay for permission. What is the difference in the exercise of my inalienable right to free speech and my inalienable right to keep and bear arms? The difference is: the state currently fears my ability to resist tyranny with a firearm more than with words, but as we can see from the reaction of the government and its media lackeys to the spoken objections to the tyranny of socialized medicine, that is about to change.

In today’s political climate, if one dares to speak out about the intrusion of the state into every crevice of liberty and freedom, they are compared by the socialist mouth organ to Nazis, Hamas and Hezbollah.

If the First Amendment rights follow the pattern of the Second Amendment, only those who have been vetted by the state will be allowed to speak or write publicly, and then only after passing the prerequisite courses, state scrutiny, and of course, pay the required amount for the privilege.

I can see the stooges proudly proclaiming their newly paid-for right to speak and write, just as they do now with their permits to carry a concealed weapon. Then, many will lobby for reciprocity from other states the right to speak or publish, or perhaps even campaign for a national permit to exercise their First Amendment rights.

An American, exercising his inalienable right to keep and bear arms, recently became the focus of the state and the media in New Hampshire near where Obama was to appear. Chris Matthews and other members of the propaganda ministry were apoplectic. How dare anyone other than a government bottom feeder be allowed near the Messiah with a firearm? What would have happened had this man decided to exercise his First Amendment rights at the same time he was exercising his Second?

What did the state and the media fear most about this man with a gun? Was it the man, the gun, the spirit of the man, or perhaps it might have been his ethnicity? After all, according to the media, if he were there to object to the socialist plans of Obama that would reveal his latent racism. We all know, white people concerned about government taking over their health care want to shoot anyone who is only half white.

What a masterstroke it was for the state to get Boobus to admit the only rights he has are those subject to the "reasonable" restrictions of his masters. The precedent has been set and we have agreed; you must submit yourself before the god called government, pass their background checks, take their approved qualification course, submit the required monies and wait for your ID card certifying you have permission from the state to exercise at least one of your former inalienable rights!

If you, and/or a member of your family, are assaulted by a madman with a weapon while in a restaurant, on a school campus, in church, at the mall, in a bank, in the parking lot where you shop or work, in a carjacking or a mugging, or visiting Obama’s home town, you must remember, the only people allowed to defend their lives and those of their loved ones are those who have been sanctioned by the state to do so. That is freedom in America today, granted by the state, bought and paid for.

Through our inactions and apathy we have acknowledged the state to be the masters of our lives; perhaps we can apply for the privilege of having our own health care, the right not to be forcibly injected by some vaccine whose side effects are worse than the disease or the right not to be imprisoned in a FEMA camp. Remember, we traded our rights for security. It is turning out to be one heck of a bad bargain.

Resistance, anyone?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

#11. To: Ada (#0)

When I decided to write this article, I did not contact the government, submit to a background check, submit fingerprints, take a government endorsed writing class and pay for permission. What is the difference in the exercise of my inalienable right to free speech and my inalienable right to keep and bear arms?

The difference is you won't get arrested for committing a felony that can get you up to one year mandatory jail time in some states for writing a article,and you won't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself in court for doing so.

There is NOTHING in my CCW permit that negates the 2nd Amendment as the 2nd Amendment only recognizes the right to own or possess firearms,not carry them in a unrestricted manner anywhere you go.

Granted,that is VERY open to argument since the SENSE of the 2nd Amendment seems to be clear that carrying is a part of owning or possessing. After all,what good are arms to a militia that has to leave them at home when called up?

Still,the whole "carry a gun anywhere you want" seems to be a States Rights issue instead of a federal issue,and some states WILL give a squeaky-clean citizen a huge fine and even jail time for merely carrying a concealed weapon without a permit,and drop those same charges against a actual criminal like a armed robber or murderer.

I have carried a gun my entire life for the most part. This includes carrying one in my own state before they started issuing CCW permits. It was no big deal locally because all the local cops knew I carried it and they also knew I was carrying it strictly for self-defense and that no innocent persons were at risk from me having it on me. They knew me and none of them felt the least bit threatened about me having a gun on me. Hell,I even had a Highway Patrolman take his new Berretta out of his holster and hand it to me to look over one day after he was first issued it and I saw him and asked "New gun?" Which kinda freaked out a couple of the tourists that were in that garage waiting to get their car fixed. Cops who are afraid of you don't hand you their pistols to look at.

The problem was when I would leave this local area the cops there didn't know me,and if I had to pull the pistol or revolver for a self-defense purpose or to stop somebody else from getting hurt, I would have gotten arrested myself and most likely gone to jail over it due to both my attitude (I have a RIGHT....)my lack of political connections,and my lack of funds to hire a lawyer. THIS is why I applied for and got a CCW permit. Well,that and the fact that the local sheriff came to visit me and insisted that I be at the sheriff's office the first day they were accepting permit applications to apply. He even told me he would fingerprint me himself. He also told his secretary when I came in the office that day to be fingerprinted that I had his permission to buy anything I wanted including machine guns,and to just go ahead and fill out the papers for me anytime I ask and that he would sign them.

BTW,not really wanting to change the subject,but THIS is a subject that needs discussion,not CCW permits. Machine guns ARE the weapons most protected by the 2nd Amendment since they are the arms carried by the typical infantry soldier. Yet in some states you can't even legally own one even with a Class 3 permit unless you are a corporation. That's right,corporations can own them in all 50 states,but individuals can't. How is THAT for upside down when a actual individual can't and a imaginary individual can?

Back to the subject:

Of course that has all changed now because all the local cops that knew me back then have all retired,and been replaced by 20-something buzz-cut "Professional Law Enforcement Officers from other areas and states who don't know me and who would try to arrest me if they spotted my gun. In other words,I now need my CCW permit to keep from getting arrested right here where I live. I have already had a couple of run-ins with these bozos and had to tell them they had no bleeping authority to do what they were trying to do. They are all in LOVE with the idea of making drug busts,and love to do stuff like pull right up to within inches of your rear bumper to see if they can spook you into changing lanes quickly without giving a turn signal or doing something similar to give them a reason to stop you,where they then find "probable cause" to search you and your car "for officer safety". Nobody searches either me OR my car without a warrant,and even then they will be facing a possible lawsuit if I can find a hungry lawyer. I also ain't accepting any "reckless driving/rapid lane changes" ticket after some bozo speeds up to within inches of my rear bumper and then sits there. I had a few words with the local sheriff over this,and I don't imagine that will be happening to me anymore. I think I may even be on a "do not stop" list now,because this happened again just two days ago,and after pulling up behind me where I stopped (which is where I was going anyway),I just got out of my car and stared at the cop in the unmarked car,and saw him talking on his radio. I am guessing he was calling my license number in,but don't know this for sure.I do know I was pissed about this yahoo riding my bumper and was going to give him hell about reckless driving,but he just put his car in reverse and left without saying a word to me.

This type of crap SHOULDN'T happen to anybody.

OK,back to the CCW permit discussion. I don't see it as a substitution for the 2nd Amendment,I see it as an addition to it. Our right to own or possess a firearm is a recognized right,and our right to carry one in stores,theaters,shopping centers,etc,etc,etc is arguably a right that can be regulated by the individual states. If getting a CCW permit is what you have to do to protect yourself while avoiding arrest,you are a fool if you don't. OR maybe rich enough to want to be arrested so you can fight the case all the way to the state supreme court and get the law overturned. Which of course means if the cops ever did arrest you for carrying concealed without a permit,they would drop the charges the instant they found out you have the money and the will to fight the law. The last thing the courts want is laws like this challenged in a meaningful way because they know they would lose.

Meanwhile I carry WITH a CCW,and can now legally carry concealed not only in my home state,but is most other states while I am traveling. This expansion would have never been possible without the overwhelming number of citizens applying for CCW permits and then lobbying their congresscritters for expanded carry rights.

For example,I can legally carry a concealed handgun while traveling through Wisconsin,yet a resident of Wisconsin would be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in his or her own town because Wisconsin does not issue CCW permits to anybody but cops,lawyers,and judges. MAYBE if the people in Wisconsin that share the same views on CCW permits that the author of this article does would change their minds and lobby for a CCW permit law,they would have this same right?

And the FACT is that the more states that have CCW laws with typical citizens carrying firearms (there are 48 now),the more used to the idea of others carrying guns becomes to the typical citizen,and the less likely they are to vote for gun-grabbing lying politicians in the future. The gun-grabbing politicians really aren't the ones we have to worry about. The typical citizen who knows nothing about guns other than what the gun-grabbers have told him or her and whose only experiences with guns has been seeing criminals carry them on tv and in the movies are the ones we have to worry about. Once these people see that regular people like them and their neighbors carry guns and that crime goes down when people carry guns,the gun-grabbing politicians will lose their votes.

You can't win the argument if you aren't taking part in it,and you can't convince the general public that they have been lied to about the danger of "non law enforcement professionals" carrying guns unless you are out there with the ability to prove to them that they have been lied to.

sneakypete  posted on  2009-08-14   9:54:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 11.

#56. To: sneakypete (#11)

Granted,that is VERY open to argument since the SENSE of the 2nd Amendment seems to be clear that carrying is a part of owning or possessing. After all,what good are arms to a militia that has to leave them at home when called up?

All new stations on tv have to have a FCC license to broadcast their news on the airwaves. Does having that FCC license negate their First Amendment rights to Freedom of the Press? According to the logic in the top article, the answer is a resounding, YES!

Others can play this game too, you fascist pigs, (not you sneakypete).

PaulCJ  posted on  2009-08-14 14:06:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]