“To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens.” That was spoken by Adolf Hitler, one of the twentieth century’s most hideous leaders. These words serve as a dire warning to all freedom-loving Americans. As active shootings have become more and more publicized so has a rising clamor for stringent government action. Screeching fabricated mendacities from between their parched lips, liberal politicians, some openly communist, encourage people to support new Red Flag gun laws. They vigorously insist that these laws will keep Americans “safer”. This is false. Many have been deceived. The danger is real. Common sense refutes their proposed “common sense” gun control laws.
Over and over, the evidence has proven to support the fact that people are indeed safer with the ability to defend themselves rather than relying on the police. Unquestionable illustrations of this exist. The right to bear military arms in order to defend oneself from violent criminals or an over-reaching government is staunchly upheld in the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the term arms is frequently misunderstood, as some assert that the Second Amendment excludes the right for civilians to own military weapons. However, the word “arms” is defined by John Trusler’s 1794 dictionary as; “instruments of offence generally made use of in war…” Noah Webster and Samuel Johnston both define arms as “weapons of offence.” This would appear to indicate that by choosing the word “arms”, the Founding Fathers indeed meant for the people to be armed with military weapons. Fundamentally, the Second Amendment recognizes a pre-existing right of the citizenry to keep and bear tools of war in order to ensure that the military power of the country would always rest in the hands of the people.
In recent years there has been much debate around “Common Sense” gun laws. Prevalent belief expounded by such liberal politicians as Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, and others would have people believe that gun control is about keeping everyone safe and stopping the gun violence which is supposedly decimating massive numbers of the U.S. population. Biased media obscures the truth. Compared to the vast numbers of people killed from heart disease or the many who die from unnecessary medical blunders, the number of people who die from so-called “gun violence” is trivial. So why are so many politicians frantically trying to pass repressive laws limiting Second Amendment rights? One key answer lies in a quote from the communist dictator, Mao Tse Tung: “All political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun; you register and ban the firearms before the slaughter begins.”
Lessons From 1775
Time and time again, history shows that before a political faction attempts to gain absolute and irrevocable control over a people, it first passes laws to neutralize and enslave them. After Hitler took over Germany in 1933, he immediately passed laws disarming all Jews and so-called enemies of the state. On April 19 of 1775, an expeditionary force of British Light Infantry and Grenadiers, the “special forces” of the British military, attempted to seize military weapons, specifically artillery, stored by the colonial militia in Concord. This impulsive act triggered the first key battle of the American War for Independence. Also, in the past few weeks, members of Antifa and various Black Panther-style groups (BLM and NFAC) have swarmed the streets brandishing “evil” AR-15s and other so-called “military-style” rifles. Unsurprisingly, left-wing media have no problem with this, but they eagerly jump on any Conservative-leaning individuals who dare to carry firearms to truly peaceful protests. One reporter almost shouted into the camera as she exclaimed, “you don’t bring guns to a peaceful protest.” Now, they are content to turn a blind eye as radical left-wing extremists’ pillage and burn cities, and murder innocent people in the street.
The situation Americans face today closely mirrors the collapse of Venezuela which occurred a few years ago. After disarming most of the citizens, Venezuelan Dictator Nicolas Maduro allowed gangsters and drug cartels to keep their weapons and destroy any who disagreed with his viewpoint or challenged his authority. Clearly, gun control laws are about power, not saving lives, as politicians could save many times more people by banning cheeseburgers and pharmaceutical drugs than by any of the strictest regulations on firearms.
The Self-Defense Imperative
The ability to protect oneself is imperative. Like water rushing from a broken dam, anti-gun propaganda threatens to strip away this crucial right. Although many people rely on the police for security from violent crime, the fact is that police, however well-intentioned, are unable to protect everyone every minute of the day. As one maxim has it: ‘Police arrive in minutes when seconds count.’ In just one of thousands of similar instances proving the importance of citizens carrying firearms, Jack Wilson, a seventy-one-year-old retired deputy sheriff, became a hero when a shooter, Keith Kinnunen, opened fire on the congregation of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. Kinnunen had already claimed two victims and was raising his shotgun to his shoulder when Wilson fired one round into Kinnunen’s head, ending his life. Seven other armed citizens drew guns on Kinnunen but Wilson acted first. He saved lives. Due to Wilson’s quick thinking and rapid target acquisition, only two people were killed in the five-second attack.
Drastically opposite was the Las Vegas shooting where more than fifty people were shot before a SWAT team finally arrived at the right hotel room door. Serving to further validate the fact that individuals should not rely solely on police protection during an emergency, this recent example is but one grain of sand on a seashore of case scenario’s which attest that anyone with a shred of “uncommon” sense should equip themselves with the proper tools of defense.
One other agenda that is being promoted by many zealous left-wing radicals is that the Second Amendment only protects citizens’ rights to hunt deer and therefore it doesn’t guard the right to bear military arms. This is simply not true. Instead, the Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights to ensure that Americans, long recognized as some of the most freedom-loving people in the world, could never be denied that vital right to keep and bear military weapons for the defense of family, liberty, and country. If this right were stripped away, Americans would have no choice but to bow before an all-powerful tyranny or be taken as lambs to the slaughter, with no means with which to defend themselves.
America’s founders did not make up the Second Amendment on a whim; they were building on an inalienable, God-ordained right, as stated in the English Common Law. As time progressed, a right that was once in some ways taken for granted is now being mercilessly battered, shredded, and obliterated by power-hungry lawmakers and gullible “Sheeple” masses. Even some, such as the NRA, who support the Second Amendment, seemingly fail to understand that the first and foremost reason the 2nd A was integrated into the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the people would be able to defend themselves with military-grade weaponry against any form of foreign or domestic tyranny, in addition to violent crime.
Left-Wing Illogic
“The Second Amendment only protects people who want all the guns they can have.” Ludicrous statements from radical left-wing lunatics further prove just how ignorant pro-gun-control lobbyists are. “The rest of us, we’ve got no Second Amendment; what are we supposed to do?” Manifesting a classic example of how completely naive liberal politicians are concerning the Second Amendment, this ‘blind leading the blind’ quote from Louise Slaughter is but one in a long line of preposterous statements from socialist legislators. Appallingly, while this caveat was never part of the Second Amendment, numerous Americans fall prey to these atrocious lies. Regardless of popular belief, the American colonists didn’t win the war with Great Britain by hunting venison.
Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s prominent Founders, once stated that a Government powerful enough to gift its citizens with anything they desire would by default also attain the power to take or do anything without check. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, frenzied politicians manipulate many people into thinking that ludicrous laws limiting gun ownership, especially ownership of military firearms, will help stop crime. Failing to assume the responsibility to protect themselves, many petrified people put absolute faith in the power of the police. This is irrational.
Since the majority of gun violence occurs in places where rigid gun control laws have already been implemented, it is logical to search for the truth before carelessly following the words of anti-freedom fanatics. Modern Americans must be prepared to defend their liberty, even if it entails taking up arms against their own government. The Declaration of Independence states that it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes oppressive. Most importantly, the Founding Fathers wisely instated the unassailable right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to ensure that the military power rests with the people to provide citizens with the means to fight back against any encroachments on their liberty and defend themselves from violent crime.
Unfortunately you don’t have to convince the people on this website that every word written is true. The people we need to convince note only don’t read this site, but think we on this site are crazy preppers. We need to figure out how to get our point across to them.
Unfortunately, you’ll never get your point across to the majority of them, because they have already made up their minds, and decided that we are wrong. You’ll never convince them with facts, because they don’t care about facts. For them it’s about the emotional response, and you can’t argue emotions.
At the base of it, it’s about power and control. They will use emotion-based arguments to put you on the defensive, knowing that you can’t use logic against emotion. If you want to “keep and bear” arms in case the government becomes too dictatorial, they will twist this around to; “we gotta have machine guns so we can overthrow the government!” Then you’re labeled as a right-wing kook at best, and a dangerous homegrown terrorist at worst.
There is literally no way to win the argument with the anti-gun crowd. They own the media, and they control the narrative.
It amuses me when one of the arguments of anti-funners…. er. I mean anti-gunners is “Why do you need so many guns?” I would ask them a similar question: “Why do you need so many pairs of shoes, or clothes, or digital music, or amount of food, spices, etc. ?”
One of the blessings of Liberty is one does not have to ask permission how much one can own, unlike socialist nations that establish quotas to ensure equal distribution so everyone can equally be the same.
Its not about “need”, though the need is an logical reason. Its about “want”, to pursue one’s idea of happiness as promised in the Declaration of Independence.
What’s ironic is the Left and anti-gunners never question the guards and guns paid by their tax dollars to protect our elected politicians, nor complain that the US military arsenal has enough weaponry to wipe out the planet several times over. But of course, they don’t want to do away with those weapons. They want them available to them as their instrument of force to rule over us when they gain power.
A few thoughts:
1. We are experiencing a well-funded insurgency, not “protests”.
2. 100% agree that we need to defend ourselves.
3. “Tolerance” is what got us here.
Thank you for the article.
SaraSue…
Thanks for your wisdom. Folks on this blog, in the Right side of politics, and Conservative Christians will do NOTHING to save their country. Even Fox News and conservative news medias just say what the LEFT is taking from us and not putting up a fight AT ALL.
One thing we have against us is no Congressional footing to fight. Remember the Right wingers during the Revolution were Congressional leaders funding/promoting a fight against tyranny.
The Civil War both had Right wingers and Left wingers in Congress funding and fighting for their cause.
We, the Right, have no Mayors, no representatives, no school board members, no corporations, no big-tech giants propping us up to fight. However, these Mayors in Portland, St. Louis, NYC, Chicago, and these Representatives – Pelosi, Fienstein, the Squad, Shciff, Biden, Shcummer all prop up these fights to destroy America from an invading army with no Scupples. Federal judges too, for the Left judges (especially in Californication) keep putting down Trump’s conservative edicts.
We have lost, my dear. I am ashamed of even reading these comments anymore, and I hit this blog once in a great while because of the lack of participation in our communities.
I’m ashamed, and we’ve lost Christian America – the principles which made her a beacon on the world stage – a beacon of hope, freedom and big dreams to come true in her Citizens lives.
Respectfully I disagree that we have lost. We “conservatives” have many in politics who are fighting, many organizations, many churches, and many people. There are also many “liberals”, if you will, that are also aghast at what is happening around our country and they are also fighting to bring sanity back to this country. The majority of Americans are fairly quiet and mind their own business, for the most part, but don’t let that fool you. Quiet does not mean acquiescent. It does appear to be very dire out there, but I am very hopeful. There are many more of us than “them”. I frankly cut the cord to cable TV and don’t even own a television. Part of the battle we are fighting is for our minds. What is spewed on the air waves is very disheartening – it’s propaganda designed to demoralize. I like to keep that input to a bare minimum. Keep the faith, pray, and prepare. This old lady ain’t goin’ down without a fight, and there are millions like me.
SS, I must agree with you.
Contrary to some opinions, there are many liberal citizens who love justice more than they love ideology. Case in point is this note from my lefty friends at Veterans for Peace: Well, they’re at it again, looking to cut Social Security and Medicare. You need to call your Senators and Congressperson,( leave them a message if after hours, about the ”Trust Act”. See the list I’ve provided, (save it for those days ahead, if there are some). He’s not the only turd in the pot but, you may remember Mr Romney was interested in doing this during an election cycle back when I could remember more. There’s some Democratic turds in the mix too, (I suggest the bottom link, it will give you the Demo Turds in the House and Senate. Don’t forget to call your friend Chuck Schumer (he’s only worth a paultry $1.1m) ( he must be hiding it) too, Ph# below. Alright, Nancy too, cool$100.6m.
I must admit the distractions of COVID-19 & Race & Job Loss make a great distraction from everything else. Remember, it’s always about the money except when they’re padding the Pentagon budget.
Chuck Schumer————202-224-6542
Nancy Pelosi—————-202-225-4965
1. GOP Coronavirus Relief Package to Include Romney Bill That Would ‘Fast-Track Social Security and Medicare Cuts’
Link: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/24/gop-coronavirus-relief-package-include-romney-bill-would-fast-track-social-security?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=email_this
Contact D.C….your two Senators, Minority of the Senate Chuck Schumer and then call Nancy Pelosi and your DC Representative and let them know you expect them to NOT SIGN the COVID RELIEF PACKAGE that includes any Cuts to Social Security & Medicare!
2. McConnell’s COVID Response: Cut Social Security
This link is from the group “Social Security Works” and can be counted on for clear info.
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2020/07/23/mcconnells-covid-response-cut-social-security/
“Democrats must stand united and unequivocally reject any package that includes the TRUST Act.”
Carry on in grace
@ RS, an example about politicians, chicago’s mayor Lorie Lightfoot wanted more police protection for her neighbor hood and residence, but the supervisor in charge refused because he didn’t have enough men for all the other stuff ( read s— ) that was going on in the city, He was transferred and demoted .
Actually, based on gun and ammo sales for the past year, I’d say more and more people are coming over to our side. Even progressive libs that I know personally who’ve never owned a gun in their lives now have an arsenal of their own.
The more they riot, the easier the idea of self defense is to sell.
Meanwhile, I see several civil suits arising from red flag gun law enforcement, including wrongful death suits. Municipal insurance premiums are about to go up again. You can’t fix stupid, but you sure can pay a lot for it.
I also think the sales of guns and ammo in recent months is a significant factor in future events. I seriously doubt a majority of new gun owners will vote in November for the candidates that want to take their guns away. Admittedly, not all new gun owners are conservative, and some of the new gun owners are surely Antifa or supporters, and just want to gear up. One thing I don’t see in the riots, is the liberal progressive snowflakes being “triggered” by rioters next to them carrying guns openly.
I wished I believed that but there are A LOT of Dems with guns who will argue with you. They want theirs, and kept in secret, but don’t want you to have yours. Even the old schools, like my dad, who own them will not say anything against the party. Silence is even worse in many cases.
A friend met an older couple who recently moved to the south from a nanny-state up north. They wanted to buy a handgun but were sure that long waiting periods, one-gun-per-month and other such nonsense was the norm here too. Imagine their surprise when they walked into a gun store, picked out a handgun, got the background check done and walked out in less than an hour. Now they are scrambling to find more ammo so they can get a few more range sessions under their belt. We are slowly gaining some pro-gun allies!
“To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens.” That was spoken by Adolf Hitler,
Source of that quote?
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Adolf-Hitler-Once-Said-To-Conquer-A-F34ZRBK9DE7Q
Doesn´t look like a reputable source to me
I held that opinion, also, ThoDan. So, I asked Grandpa Google.
Found this: Hitler said: “To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”
This quotation has often been attributed to Adolf Hitler, along with the words: “This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration!”
Variations of these statements have been repeated countless times on internet forums and even printed on T-shirts and car bumper stickers.
But there is no evidence that the Nazi leader ever really said either of these things.
The only properly-sourced Hitler statement on gun control we can find is this: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
The context is important here. Hitler was specifically talking here about how the Nazis would subdue the population in the parts of Russia and eastern Europe they had just conquered.
That’s not generally what gun lobbyists have in mind when they talk about Nazi Germany.
The usual argument is that Hitler introduced gun control to tighten his grip over the civilian population of Germany and allow him to commit the atrocities of the Holocaust.
Wayne La Pierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, put it like this: “The German police state tactics left its citizens, especially Jews, defenseless against tyranny and the wanton slaughter of a whole segment of its population.”
The truth is more complicated. The Nazis did enact a gun law, but only in 1938, five years after they were voted into power.
By that time Hitler was firmly in control of most arms of the German state. Gun legislation had clearly paid a negligible part in the process of consolidating power.
And the Nazi laws actually weakened existing gun controls for most civilians. The 1938 statute superseded a law passed 10 years earlier by the Weimar government (readers of German can look at the original documents here).
The new law lowered the minimum age of gun ownership from 20 to 18, relaxed the rules on who needed a permit to own weapons and applied only to handguns, effectively removing existing restrictions on rifles, shotguns and ammunition.
Jews were expressly banned from owning weapons and there were reports of police disarming Jews shortly before Kristallnacht, a wave of attacks on Jewish homes and businesses in November 1938.
So it is possible to argue that the Nazis pursued a policy of disarming the Jewish population as a precursor to mounting attacks on Jews.
Whether that means that the crimes of the Holocaust would not have happened if more Jewish citizens had been armed is highly debatable. Like all questions of hypothetical history, it’s impossible to answer.
Here is the source: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/shot-down-the-myths-distorting-the-gun-debate
Let our passion and commitment carry the day. We have no need for spurious quotes.
Carry on in grace
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/to-conquer-a-nation/
ThoDan: It really doesn’t matter who actually said this. It could have been Hitler or Mussolini, or Mao, or Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky, or even Castro or Pol Pot. Even if it was none of these, it is still an “undeniable truth of life” (thanks Rush Limbaugh). Literally, the first actions, by all wanna be dictators, is to disarm those citizens who are unwilling to be forced to live under dictatorship. Civilian disarmament has happened in country after country after country. This too is an undeniable truth of life.
The second civilian disarmament I know of happened during WWI in the conquered parts of France followed after WWI in the Entente controlled parts of Germany.
Weapon Permits were forced upon Germany in the Versailles Treaty.
The first civilian disarmament was Hideyoshi’s disarmament of the peasants in Japan
Understand that I come from a very pro-2nd Amendment point of view. When arguing gun rights with liberals, it is best not to give them points to claim victory. Misquoting a source will do just that.
While I expect that Mao Tse Tung would have agreed with the sentiments, it appears that the author misquoted Mao. According to everything that I can find on the internet, what Mao actually said was, “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
I will admit that I have not done an exhaustive search, but the only thing that I can find that contains the quote used by the author is an internet meme that someone created. (“It must be true because you can’t say things on the internet that aren’t true, right?”) I would be happy to hear from a reader that I simply overlooked the quote from Mao used by the author.
Admiral Yamamoto is frequently quoted as saying, “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” I expect that Yamamoto would have readily agreed with any person who said this, but there is no proof that he, himself, ever said this.
Finally, Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as saying, “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” The problem is that there is no evidence that Jefferson ever said this.
When debating a pro-gun point with a liberal, there are plenty of pro-2nd Amendment quotes from the Founding Fathers we can use, so it’s better to use those sentiments than to give liberals a “gotcha” opportunity.
That was a honest question, the writer is one of the few here who did get it right that Hitler abused the gun laws in germany not invented them.
I doubt that Yamamoto agreed with this.
Personally i believe the 2nd amendment should give the goverment a “well trained” militia
Well said Joshua G. And Mr. Lone Canadian a quick comment on the anti-gun crowd. Very true, they leotards do control the media hence the narrative. But, and this is the key, “WE CONTROL THE GUNS” …… Hence Mao is right, “All political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun”. I read a short time ago that the number of “hunting licenses” sold in the US is greater than all the personnel of all the armies in the entire world. And every one of them gotta gun, or bow, or both.
That is the truth of history from the very beginning since God created man. All political power, in whatever form you find it, whether modern times or since the beginning when the tribal chief had control, has come at the end of controlling arms in all their forms. When you get right down to it when Sam Colt made everyone equal, so has the right to keep and bear arms, it has leveled the playing field. Long live the Republic!
One argument my brother uses quite often against the left is this, “How many people have died trying to escape Socialist/Communist countries to get to the Western Democracies? How many people have died trying to flee a Democracy to get to a Socialist/Communist country?” but alas, I agree you can’t talk reason with the left, they have none.
I have been a Jeremiah crying out from the desert regarding the need for people to obtain guns and ammunition while they could. Last year at this time, Palmetto State Armory was selling Federal Lake City 5.56 ammunition for $.30/rd, exactly half of the current price. Federal offered a $50.00 rebate and shipping was FREE.
If a person can even find an AR15 now, the price is around twice last year’s standard retail price. In July last year, however, Palmetto State Armory had a sale in which it offered a complete AR15 lower receiver for $99.00, and a complete upper receiver for $180. In other words, it was a complete AR15, less rear sight, for $279.00!
As late as last November, JWR reported, “I just got word that Palmetto State Armory (one of our affiliate advertisers) has started their week-long Black Friday sale. They have their 16″ Mid-Length 5.56 NATO 1:7 Nitride Classic Upper with Bolt Carrier Group & Charging Handle in Flat Dark Earth (FDE) on sale for just $219.99. To find this, type “5165457990” in their search box, to find this item. Meanwhile they have match complete lowers on sale for $129.99. Just type “7779346” in their search box, to find this item. If you slap that upper on that lower then–aside for a magazine and a rear sight (or optic)–you’ll have a complete M4gery for less than $350! That is a great deal. If you can afford to, then I recommend that you buy several sets.”
While most people who read this blog tend to be very well prepared regarding arms and ammunition, I am quite confident that many readers ignored JWR’s advice and rue their decision now.
As election day approaches, the current violence will likely get worse. The Left will not accept defeat under any circumstances and, if there is any hint of voter fraud with mail-in voting (and how can there not be?) neither will the Right.
Spicy times are coming. Are you ready?
Several typos in your moniker and the unusual addition of Mann causes me to double check/ask if you are okay?
I have no idea how the Mann got there.
Please point out the typos.
Krissy,
I figured out what you were talking about, i.e., the typos in my “moniker.”
I am one of those people referred to by others as being “technically challenged.” Sometime in the past, I carelessly typed Survovormann instead of Survivormann. Now, when commenting on articles, Sovovormann pops up as a suggested name. Unless I am watching carefully, I can accidentally select it. I wish I knew how to get rid of this option.
As for choosing the “99” part of my nom de plume, that was because the first 98 were taken. 🙂
Actually, it was just me being overly concerned because a friend of my folks just had a small brain bleed and mini stroke and then I worried about you when I saw the little errors. Sorry! I won’t do that again.
So happy it’s just annoying tech stuff. I am also in the technically challenged club. Completely understand.
Blessings to you and your family this week,
Krissy
Don’t be giving “them” any ideas about banning cheeseburgers. Great essay. Thanks
I agree with everything, except one. I wouldn’t use the example of the Last Vegas shooting when speaking about whether a citizen gun owner could have intervened. The shooter was barricaded on a shooting platform dozens of stories above the crowd. Even trained snipers with accurate scopes would have great difficulty in that high of an angle (not impossible, but a citizen with a handgun? Impossible). There are times when a specialty team is needed.
Otherwise thank you for the article and insight.
“Like water rushing from a broken dam, anti-gun propaganda threatens to strip away this crucial right.”
Ahem, the Second Amendment (which approaches the status of Holy Scripture for some) merely enumerates a PRE-EXSISTING right. It guarantees absolutely NOTHING. There are ONLY three inherent rights every human is born with. They are life, liberty, and property. They CAN NOT be taken away by some government or badged agent of the State.
The right of self-defense is derived from the three basic, unalienable, rights. Hence they can not be transferred, taxed, stripped away, or otherwise molested by “government”.
Again the Second Amendment is just ink on paper that enumerates a pre-existing right. If the ink on paper were to magically disappear, the right remains.
It is time to come to grips with the fact that if one refuses to surrender the hardware with which one effects one’s self-defense, one will eventually be hunted down by agents of the State.
Make peace with it and stand in the breach.
No one else will.
There are ONLY three inherent rights every human is born with. They are life, liberty, and property
Tell that to the slaves of Patrick Henry.
I can’t. They are dead and have been for some time.
An unnecessary but interesting tidbit on the subject of the armed citizen-
The US constitution gives Congress the sole authority to grant letters of marque. These are licenses to engage in privateering, that is attacking the shipping of an enemy power. In order to to this, citizens or corporations would need to have small warships. Imagine owning your own PTboat or Coast Guard cutter.
If only this much energy was spent on spreading the Gospel of Jesus and praying for the enemy to have a change of heart… The Lord want every last soul to call upon His name, even the crazy Left.
Very well done. Nice article one of the best in recent weeks. Imagine how the crime rate in Chicago would drop if they did not have such restrictions on firearms for the public.
Every law is enforced at the barrel of a gun .Even the most mundane seemingly insignificant law can get you shot,even here in the USA. Say you dont want to wear your seat belt…on principal…a cop pulls you over, just for that as your only offense..you get a ticket. A year later he pulls you over again…the unpaid ticket is now a warrant for your arrest…you resist…he shoots you dead,as he drives away on his motorcycle with no seat belt & no helmet…..so you can be murdered over a seat belt..in America..so Mao was correct !
If a cop shoots you dead because you resist arrest over a seatbelt, only if evidence and testimony is falsified, can he drive away on his motorcycle without fear of prosecution.
If you are “murdered over a seat belt,” it is because you resisted arrest and attempted to take his weapon, or otherwise caused him to be in fear of his life. (Even taking his taser is not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force in Atlanta, if recent events are any indication. “Rayshard was killed for simply sleeping in his car!”)
If your position is that all cops will lie and will violate the law, then that is simply your opinion.
Yep.
Every one seems to get their emotional engine revving first and their brain second.
To that let me say your article was good but flawed in that the emotional engine was revved up and the vehicle sped off before knowing an important principle in play that is successfully hidden by the liberals, the media, and by ignorance of just about everyone in this REPUBLIC (sorry libs America is NOT a democracy.
The “Bill of Rights contained 12 articles of amendment; 11 have been ratified so far, and one is left and still open for ratification; which needs to be ratified, or fail in ratification by the will of the people of the union. I bet not many that read this blog saw that one coming.
Back to the Bill of Rights, how many are aware that a majority of the States of the union which, at the time the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, made the Bill AND all of its amendments mandatory to be ratified, as contingent to their ratification of the Constitution for the united States of America?
That with out it being ratified in full their vote of yes was null and void??
How many here understand the real intent (INTENT) of the Bill?? Anyone? I hear a lot of bantering by true patriots across this Republic but very little well educated and meaningful remarks and statements about its true intent.
I’m willing to bet that no one on this blog and a fair number of left wing ding dongs have any doubts about the author of this blogs intentions.
What is the intention of the Bill of Rights? Where can you fined a reliable source to get that knowledge? Strangely enough the Congressional Record is a somewhat decent source.
Here is a copy of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights from the Congressional Record website and it clearly spells out the intent of the Bill. I will detail the important features of the preamble that clearly define the intent of the Bill;
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Here folks is where the lie begins in the note below posted on the Congressional record at the end by someone in government who posted the actual preamble:
(Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”)
The truth is that all 12 amendments proposed were sent to the States for ratification, but the first two amendments were “Laid before the Congress” for further resolution, said resolution never having been compiled. They are still in play since the original second amendment is now the 27th amendment having passed ratification in 1987 as I recall. The original first amendment to the constitution is still open for ratification by the states of the union.
See if you can figure out what it is. What would happen if it was or was not ratified in accordance with article 5 of the Constitution? What significant difference would it make in YOUR life?
As to the intent, it seems I cannot underline or highlight in this section so I’m going to post the word from the preamble in case you may have missed them:
” …declaratory and restrictive clauses…” what are the declaratory clauses ( the term amendment can be substituted here) and what (or who) are being restricted?
Here’s a very important principle here folks: Our rights don’t come from anything man has written or legislated into being. They come from our Creator God Jesus Christ the Lord. So at this point all (ALL) gun control laws enacted at any government level are a probing action by the enemy of freedom. IF the left finally “Repealed the lie of the so called second amendment, which in reality is the fourth amendment, then at that time Government at all levels will have simply and openly declared war upon a free people. At this point the enemy of freedom is simply eating away at our God given Rights and committing a probing action by its infantry scouts to measure our defenses and willingness to protect our flanks and our freedom(s).
So, good article, close but no home run yet. Batter up …
*“To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens.” *
Actually no. You just need to make sure that peoples with guns are blindly on your side. They would disarm the others and serve as your regime militant support (until they would became redundant, and you would disarm them also using the power of military). Worked quite good in Soviet Russia after Civil War. There were a lot of peoples with arms here, but the majority of them were on Bolshevik’s side, so disarming everyone else wasn’t a problem.
The point of this small history lesson is, that all this “arm/disarm” talks is meaningless. The question is – does regime have the support of majority? Because if it have, no disorganized minority, even armed, would be able to do anything against it (unless supported by outside intervention – but in that case most of armed peoples would probably support the regime to oppose the foreign meddling).
“Gun control” is always about “CONTROL.” Of the nanny state micromanagers, over the independent, fend-for-themselves types, who want to be left ALONE.