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: 1247
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Right on. I've NEVER advocated going for a concealed carry "permit". Permit being short for permission. Since keeping AND BEARING arms is a RIGHT, the need to seek permission from government is null and void. If you, or me, or anybody feels a need to pack heat, then we have the right to do so without government permission. It's that simple. The author makes a point I've been preaching for years. About time somebody else figured it out.
deleted
deleted
At this point in time in history, I no longer care. I just don't. Me, you, all of us, are already guilty of so many crimes we don't even know about, what is one more added to the pile that they could potentially charge any of us with at any time? I mean seriously. When we are afraid to exercise a right without permission, then it's time to reassess reality and to defy the authority that demands permission. They play seriously, no doubt. So should we.
deleted
I honestly and truly believe that the time has passed for us to continue to justify being meek and submissive. We have to stop being afraid of asserting our rights, openly and boldly. The job now is to convince others that this is the case, IMO. There will be no other time in what's left of our country's life where we'll have such a sympathetic audience, or the means to get the word out.
deleted
No question. But it has to start with somebody. That guy in NH that they couldn't find a reason to nail to the wall for exercising his 2a right is a good place to look for an example of how to do this. He made perfect arguments about this very thing. More of us need to get out and start this movement rolling faster.
I had a chief of police tell me shortly after the courts ruling that he felt it was important. I told him it was b.s. I'm not wearing a firearm how important could it be? Lets compare a courts ruling to the Founders vision of inalienable rights. I mean really how smart do you have to be to understand " Shall Not Be Infringed ".
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
Gun owners only have ourselves to blame. Immediately defending someone like Sodini's "right" to purchase and carry even though his purchase and use had 0 to do with any recognizable right has been the norm for any mass killing in this nation. It's INSANE defending a killer as having a "right" up until the point he pulled the trigger. As for fearing "armed robbers". I would bet that if you polled people that the fear of random gun violence would poll very highly as a "fear".
--I Brake For The Invisible
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.
They have recreated what an american is. This is unamerican that is unamerican! History would suggest that they don't know what Americans are. True Americans would have never allowed it to get this far!
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
deleted
It's one of the articles on this very forum. Some radio sneering head was laying into him on a youtube video, and he remained calm. It was, I think, 2 days ago-ish?
BINGO! On the other hand,if the state he was in did not allow open carry he would have been violating the law,and not only arrested but tagged as a "dangerous extremist" by the media. You have to learn to pick your "fights" and to make sure you are in a position to win them. Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
If we can manage to convince a large group of people, say, the entire "tea party/town hall protester" movement, to exercise their rights en masse, the issue of anti-constitutional laws becomes moot. It's now or never. Game time.
Which "swami" do you recommend the state hire to read minds to determine what is in a purchasers mind,and what's with the "recognizable right" BullBarack?
It's also interesting to note that most states have NO laws against open carry. They'll charge you with something else (public intimidation or something like that), but open carry is fully legal in many to most states that I know of. We can leverage that I think.
Which goes a long way towards explaining your thought processes.
"INFRINGED" means "prohibited" not "impeded" as you try to promote it does. "REGULATED" means what? UNregulated? "Disciplined" means what? Helter Skelter? It's not even a matter of a right being "abused"...you aren't even advocating observing it...
--I Brake For The Invisible
He is talking about the man that showed up at a town hall meeting to protest the health care bill while wearing a loaded pistol on his leg. He was "interviewed" (assaulted is a more accurate description) by Miss Chris Matthews on tv over this,and basically handed Missy Chrissy her ass. No matter what the angle of the attack was or how much he was baited,he refused to allow himself to be intimidated or trapped into saying something he didn't want to say,and left Missy Chrissy looking like the fool he was. He even had Missy Chrissy screaming at him and saying "goddamn" on tv,while he remained cool and collected. There was a thread and video of this on LP. I'm surprised you missed it. I don't know what the URL is,but I'm sure you can find it by going to You Tube and typing "Chris Matthews" into the search engine there.
Still on the Sodini-rant? The purchaser of a knife, crowbar, or switchblade ALL have the "right" to own and carry...up to the point they all assault their victims. Same principle. Btw - shall I apply for a "permit" to carry my own hands? They're considered potential "lethal weapons." You'd love Britain - they consider a rolled up newspaper a "lethal weapon."
Which goes a long way towards explaining your thought processes.
It's now or never. Game time. I pretty much agree. How ironic would it be if the clumsy,incompetent,and stupid would-be dictator in office now turned out to be a gift in disguise?
And even further, your's...
--I Brake For The Invisible
There was a thread and video of this on LP. It was truly amazing watching an unhinged Crissy frothing and spewing all over his "guest." Good description of the action, and well worth checking out for yourselves - it is unbelievable that MSNBC continues Matthews to allow belittle and impugn or abuse his "guests"; Then again, the leftist NBC received a billion dollars from 0bama's gubmint...But I'm sure NBC's not a propaganda organ of 0bama's and the Dems, and there is no conflict of interest. NOPE.
I THINK you may be wrong about this. There are states with open-carry laws on the books,but I doubt there are any states other than states with CCW permits that have laws against open carry. They just have laws against carrying a weapon,period. As far as I know,the only time arrests have been made and convictions handed out for "public intimidation" were cases where the gun owner displayed the gun to negate a threat. The most famous case of this I know of happened a couple of decades ago in NYC. A elderly black woman from NC had been taking the bus to NYC to visit relatives over the years,and at least once she got mugged by teen black males after leaving the bus station. The next time she took the bus to NYC she slipped her dead husbands 32 breaktop Iver Johnson revolver in her purse,and when she left the bus station that time and the boys approached her and tried to rob her,she pulled the gun out of her purse and pointed it at them. They ran away and found a cop to report her to,and the cop arrested her for carrying a concealed weapon,carrying a unregistered weapon,public intimidation,and everything else he could think of. Somebody reported this to the NRA,and they sent a couple of high-dollar lawyers to NYC to represent her in court,and the charges got dropped.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Maybe in NYC,but not in America. "REGULATED" means what? Evidentially you think it means whatever you want it to mean,AND it's meaning will vary according to context. In the context of the 2nd Amendment,it means the training of the militia,and has nothing to do with regulating their weapons.
--I Brake For The Invisible Why? Are you mad about me running over the invisible?
deleted
Read it with the same irony - which isn't what Mrs. Sneak does on Wednesday's, btw - that Frost often uses......
--I Brake For The Invisible
And since you ascribe NO meaning to them it is more than you... That said...I ascribe the meanings as they were known to their originators with "infringed" meaning "prohibited" not "impeded"...
--I Brake For The Invisible
As far as I know, the local cops had no problem with him and stated as much. It's hard to press it far beyond that. I guess we should see if there is more to this of course.
Only if it's premeditated. -- The Invisible Have Rights Too
There is a gotcha in 2A. "Well regulated" = "Well trained" So yes, the Goobermint can require a Permit or other Certification that you have indeed been trained but that is about the extent of it IF one reads 2A as written and adheres to the letter of it. After all, they're just ensuring you have your training in the event you are called up for militia duty. On the other hand, we can parse the sentence by saying that bit is just preamble and that you have to be able to have a firearm in order to train with it so you are fit for duty. Chicken-egg issue. Which comes first? Of course, going that route, then Government has to provide training or permit you to seek out your own. It is a minefield but in my strict constructionist mind, 2A can only be parsed those two ways and it does NOT allow for restrictions on the type of arms that may be 'kept' or 'born', but an argument can be made to limit to what an 18th Century infantry unit would use, updated to the modern age, of course, which includes automatic rifles, howitzers, backpack nukes, etc.
Chris Matthews represents ALL the MSM and their devious desire to see Americans disarmed. He said what they all wanted to say and his tantrum was the total of their evil thoughts focused on one man who stood up and strapped his RIGHT onto his leg in full view of the whole world.
_________________________________________________________________________ deleted
Sneak-a-nary Rant = salient point to which he has no logical retort. The purchaser of a knife, crowbar, or switchblade ALL have the "right" to own and carry...up to the point they all assault their victims. ALL have other PRIMARY uses...can you jimmy open a door or cut your meat with an M-16?
--I Brake For The Invisible
Matthews questioned him well. He also said that he supports owning firearms. What he doesn't support is stupidity...appearing at a presidential rally openly carrying and displaying a sign advocating bloodshed would be an example of stupidity, btw...
--I Brake For The Invisible
Comments (41 - 80) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Ada (#0)
#3. To: SonOfLiberty (#1)
#4. To: Eric Stratton (#3)
I agree, but the problem is that the FedGov and StateGovs take their laws too seriously. LOL
#5. To: SonOfLiberty (#4)
#6. To: Eric Stratton (#5)
#7. To: SonOfLiberty (#6)
#8. To: Eric Stratton (#7)
#9. To: Ada (#0)
#10. To: Ada (#0)
Many Gun Owners, the State and Media Agree; 2a Is No Longer Relevant
#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?
#12. To: SonOfLiberty (#6)
I honestly and truly believe that the time has passed for us to continue to justify being meek and submissive. We have to stop being afraid of asserting our rights, openly and boldly. The job now is to convince others that this is the case, IMO. There will be no other time in what's left of our country's life where we'll have such a sympathetic audience, or the means to get the word out.
#13. To: SonOfLiberty (#8)
#14. To: Eric Stratton (#13)
#15. To: SonOfLiberty (#8)
That guy in NH that they couldn't find a reason to nail to the wall for exercising his 2a right is a good place to look for an example of how to do this. He made perfect arguments about this very thing.
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
#17. To: war (#10)
Immediately defending someone like Sodini's "right" to purchase and carry even though his purchase and use had 0 to do with any recognizable right
#18. To: sneakypete (#15)
#19. To: war (#10)
--I Brake For The Invisible
#20. To: sneakypete (#17)
#21. To: Eric Stratton, SonOfLiberty (#13)
That's a good point, have you got the specifics on that? Link i.e.?
#22. To: war, Ada (#10)
Immediately defending someone like Sodini's "right" to purchase and carry... It's INSANE defending a killer as having a "right" up until the point he pulled the trigger.
#23. To: sneakypete, war (#19)
--I Brake For The Invisible
#24. To: SonOfLiberty (#16)
If we can manage to convince a large group of people, say, the entire "tea party/town hall protester" movement, to exercise their rights en masse, the issue of anti-constitutional laws becomes moot.
#25. To: sneakypete (#19)
Which goes a long way towards explaining your thought processes.
#26. To: sneakypete, Eric Stratton, SonOfLiberty (#21)
He is talking about the man that showed up at a town hall meeting to protest the health care bill while wearing a loaded pistol on his leg. He was "interviewed" (assaulted is a more accurate description) by Miss Chris Matthews on tv over this,and basically handed Missy Chrissy her ass. No matter what the angle of the attack was or how much he was baited,he refused to allow himself to be intimidated or trapped into saying something he didn't want to say,and left Missy Chrissy looking like the fool he was. He even had Missy Chrissy screaming at him and saying "goddamn" on tv,while he remained cool and collected.
#27. To: SonOfLiberty (#18)
It's also interesting to note that most states have NO laws against open carry. They'll charge you with something else (public intimidation or something like that),
#28. To: Ada (#0)
#29. To: war (#20)
"INFRINGED" means "prohibited" not "impeded" as you try to promote it does.
#30. To: war (#25)
And even further, your's...
#31. To: SonOfLiberty (#14)
#32. To: sneakypete (#30)
#33. To: sneakypete (#29)
Evidentially you think it means whatever you want it to mean
#34. To: Eric Stratton (#31)
#35. To: sneakypete (#30)
Are you mad about me running over the invisible?
#36. To: Ada (#0)
#37. To: sneakypete (#21)
He was "interviewed" (assaulted is a more accurate description) by Miss Chris Matthews on tv over this,and basically handed Missy Chrissy her ass. No matter what the angle of the attack was or how much he was baited,he refused to allow himself to be intimidated or trapped into saying something he didn't want to say,and left Missy Chrissy looking like the fool he was. He even had Missy Chrissy screaming at him and saying "goddamn" on tv,while he remained cool and collected.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#38. To: sneakypete (#21)
#39. To: F16Fighter (#22)
Still on the Sodini-rant?
#40. To: X-15 (#37)
.
.
.