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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children


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: 1132
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 # 65.

#65. To: Ada, Jethro Tull, christine, Cynicom, swarthyguy, Esso, SCPO Blackshoe Retired, Rowdee, SonOfLiberty (#0)

Every time I bring this up folks ignore it but here I go again:

At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights there were already laws prohibiting concealed carry, based upon a universally accepted principle that "If a man be armed then let the world know it."

Back then even slightly off-in-the-head people required firearms to survive, but you may not want to rent such people a room or sell them a horse or provide them with liquor or allow them to conceal a weapon in a pub known for spirited (pun intended) political discussions.

You could not deny a man's right to self defense unless he had already committed some heinous act of violence even though it was a safe bet that such a person was destined for the big house or the gallows. But, because "the constitution is not a suicide pact" one man's 2A right did not automatically strip others of the right to know just who they were dealing with. And at a time when only 'scape gallows and ne'er-do-wells had any reason to conceal weapons, well that's the reason that those laws in existence were never challenged or overturned because of the bar against federal mischief regarding firearms.

Nowadays one simply must conceal a firearm or crooks, minority racists and gun haters will call the police and falsely report that you brandished a weapon (which they saw and can now describe) and with no witnesses to dispute a false police report you go to jail and become a felon. Also, crooks and murderers will back shoot you if they see you're armed so you may actually endanger yourself exposing your sidearm and forfeiting the element of surprise "for the convenience of the state".

But if the state simply regards a CCW as a certificate of proficiency and established identification and no one was ever denied for political reasons (remember the first of such laws were to keep blacks from carrying guns) and if we weren't suspiciously waiting for the states to build a database only to later spring the trap, it would be much more difficult to argue with "If a man concealeth ye olde flintlock then let us maketh certain that he be not a person prohibited"

And let's face it folks, there are countless people who should not be permitted to carry firearms concealed or otherwise. But the good reasons for these laws (that have existed since ratification) are clouded by cops who simply want a monopoly on the use of deadly force. I dare say that many cops wouldn't enjoy being cops anymore if any ol' person can carry a firearm. And, corrupt big city politicians like the power to hand out permits to their cronies, and the state has simply ignored the logic behind the laws and substituted their own agenda when regulating the carry of firearms.

I received a CCW in Iowa in 1977 when they first passed their CCW law. I went to classes for five days at night and at the end of the classes the instructor didn't even wait for my prints to clear in WASHINGTON. The next day my permit was in the mailbox. But, the whole purpose of this law was to keep the inner city darkies from legally carrying guns. And "WHY?" you ask. Perhaps because as former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said, "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!".

So, much of our unhappiness and billion dollar background check database is simply because we lack the political courage to state the obvious: The Bill Of Rights was written by white people FOR white people and Africans who still refuse to assimilate and aspire to success in our society are messing things up for the law abiding majority.

What if blacks prove time and again that they cannot peacibly assemble without violence. Are whites supposed to forfeit their right to do so? Well, under the current law the answer would have to be yes. Laws cannot be passed for blacks only so we all forfeit the right to gather in public just to keep the nigs from rioting.

Jefferson and Lincoln correctly observed that we cannot live in the same society under the same laws with Africans. The answer should be obvious why. White folks generally think that murder is an unspeakable crime and the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for it, while many blacks think it's okay to "kill dat mutha cause he dun made me mad but you can't execute me for it. I waz mad den and I ain't mad now so I prolly won't do it no mo."

And if not for the fact that our cities are war zones brimming with black crims how many of us would apply for permits?

We may not admit it but fear of black criminals is a major reason for the passage of shall issue laws in so many states. The law won't stop blacks from carrying guns, but the state likes having the means to prosecute after they draw chalk lines around the bodies.

We Americans zealously defend our 2A rights, but we shouldn't be so inflexible that we don't understand the real reasons for the fear and the regulatory schemes that exist today. And, should the state have the power to ascertain that I'm not the same HOUNDDAWG Q. Schwartz who murdered his family in another state a few years back before allowing me to carry in their state? Or, should known crazies and violent ex cons have a right that is so absolute that it preempts even the most reasonable rules of safety and survival for the rest of society?

Years ago my brother wore an exposed .38 snubbie on his hip as he walked all over Norfolk, VA and once when he was heckled by a group of car club thugs that were parked in a donut shop parking lot, he got angry and drew and fired at them from over a hundred yards away.

Should my brother have an absolute right to carry an exposed firearm when he clearly did not have the mental skills to defend his right or the maturity to ignore hecklers and his response was to recklessly fire in their direction?

Thank G_D he didn't hit anyone. But there are perhaps millions like him who would use a firearm to settle every minor dispute with little thought for the consequences. And where deadly force is involved the people of some jurisdictions (a Southern gas station on a back road where Northern Mafioso and Black/Cuban drug mules stop to fill up and make fun of the locals) may think it wise to put their citizens' safety first and be less concerned about some damned Yankee from a violent city culture and his "right to go armed" without anyone having a word to say about it.

And that is why those state, county and municipal laws against concealed carry were never overturned immediately after the ratification of the federal Bill Of Rights. Criminal laws were by definition state laws (except for those against federal employees or those committed on federal land) so the feds shouldn't have the power to deprive us of our rights, and any carefully tailored laws regulating the carry of firearms should be state laws. That is how the founders intended it. But, when the states refuse to issue "certificates of proficiency and positive ID" for any reason to any citizen then they have exceeded their authority to act in defense of citizens and they become our enemy because they would deprive us of a right for reasons that cannot be reconciled with our rights.

Strong govt breeds weak citizens and sadly millions of Americans are simply weak and unqualified for the privilege of defending our rights while exercising their own. Those who wish to keep our rights had better see to it that the enemies of freedom don't forfeit our rights for us. We should support the prohibition against carry by the mentally disordered and known violent convicts because they have no sense of responsibility toward us or our rights. Just what obligation do we have to guarantee their right to injure or kill our people while they're actively working to forfeit the rights of the law abiding?

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2009-08-15   6:28:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 65.

#70. To: HOUNDDAWG (#65)

Perhaps because as former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said, "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!".

So, much of our unhappiness and billion dollar background check database is simply because we lack the political courage to state the obvious: The Bill Of Rights was written by white people FOR white people and Africans who still refuse to assimilate and aspire to success in our society are messing things up for the law abiding majority.

Jefferson and Lincoln correctly observed that we cannot live in the same society under the same laws with Africans. The answer should be obvious why. White folks generally think that murder is an unspeakable crime and the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for it, while many blacks think it's okay to "kill dat mutha cause he dun made me mad but you can't execute me for it. I waz mad den and I ain't mad now so I prolly won't do it no mo."

Just look at Africa and those people's propensity to kill their neighbors endlessly in perpetual 'civil wars' and rioting. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree even when an ocean and a couple of hundred years separate them from their homeland.

X-15  posted on  2009-08-25 09:08:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: HOUNDDAWG (#65)

But, the whole purpose of this law was to keep the inner city darkies from legally carrying guns. And "WHY?" you ask. Perhaps because as former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said, "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!".

did Kweisi get any blowback from the black community for that statement?

christine  posted on  2009-08-28 10:42:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 65.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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