Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works

Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works

Posted in the Grimsley Forum

First Prev
of 153
Next Last

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#1 Jan 10, 2011
Mass murderers Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What did these three distinctly different politicians have in common? A strong belief and policies in GUN KONTROL!

Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works


Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#2 Jan 11, 2011
How to prevent mass murder

Breakthrough book provides biblical, constitutional recipe

Posted: January 11, 2011
7:41 pm Eastern
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – When a man-made disaster like the Arizona massacre happens, Americans look for answers.

How can such tragedies be averted – or at least minimized?

How can such attacks be prevented or discouraged?

How can we reduce the carnage tolls when people are driven to mass murder by political or religious fanaticism or psychological disorders?

There is common-sense, tried-and-true biblical and constitutional prescription.

It's found in a one-of-a-kind book written by an extraordinary man who found himself in the unenviable position of being caught up in the largest and bloodiest terrorist attack ever perpetrated on a church.

The simple answer is provided in the title of the book by Charl Van Wyk – "Shooting Back."

But there's much more to the story than armed self-defense. "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense" is a book about bring prepared for the crisis – spiritually as well as physically.

Charl Van Wyk, a South African missionary, implores Americans to recognize that it is time for such preparedness here.

(Story continues below)

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#3 Jan 12, 2011
Alex Jones: A Warning to Enemies of the 1st and 2nd Amendments
January 11, 2011

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#4 Jan 13, 2011
Third gun control bill proposed since Tucson shootings

By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, January 13th, 2011 -- 8:53 am

High-profile gun violence has historically renewed legislative interest in the cause of gun control, and the shootings of twenty people in Tucson, Arizona is no exception -- only this time, the measures face steeper hurdles than before.

Rep. Gary Ackerman, a Democrat from New York, is the third congressman to propose a gun control bill in the wake of the murders on Saturday.(The other two are also New Yorkers.)

His bill seeks to accomplish a goal other gun control advocates have tried and failed to do in recent years: close the "fire sale loophole," which permits unauthorized gun dealers to sell firearms at gun shows and allows buyers to purchase them without an otherwise mandatory FBI background check.

Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old accused of perpetrating Saturday's shootings, purchased his firearm legally, passing an instant background check in a state many consider to have the most lax gun laws in the nation. Arizona does not require a permit for concealed carry.

"After this weekend’s tragedy, it's clear that Congress must close troubling loopholes in federal gun control laws that let firearms fall into the hands of convicted felons, fugitives, domestic violence perpetrators and severely emotionally disturbed individuals," Ackerman said. "Every gun sold should require a background check, period."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken gun control advocate, launched a media campaign though his group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" last year to push lawmakers to close the loophole. But Congress never took up the issue.

Republican Rep. Peter King has put forth legislation sought to ban guns carried within 1,000 feet of members of Congress. Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy announced plans for a measure restricts the buying and selling of high-capacity ammunition clips, like the one purchased legally and used by 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has voiced his support for the same proposal.

Ackerman, King and McCarthy, all New Yorkers, enjoy the support of fellow state lawmakers Bloomberg and Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York's Harlem district.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#5 Jan 14, 2011
Rachel Maddow: Enemy of Liberty and the Bill of Rights

Kurt Nimmo
January 14, 2011

The limousine liberal Rachel Maddow used her MSNBC show Thursday to call for a renewed gun-grabbing effort by the government. After running an emotionally charged video segment of Barry Obama paying tribute to nine-year-old mass shooting victim Christina Taylor Green, Maddow read an anti-Second Amendment screed from her teleprompter.

She also ran a video clip of Robert Gibbs who basically said the tragic event provides the government with an excuse to engage in a fresh campaign of gun-grabbing under the pretext of banning so-called assault weapons and protecting the American people from psychotics like Loughner.

Maddow backed this up with a video clip of Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, stating that Bush the Lesser in 2003 believed gun-grabbing under the guise of getting rid of big bad assault weapons was a reasonable step in the concerted and ongoing effort to chip away at the Second Amendment.

According to Maddow and MSNBC – part of the NBC “family” owned by death merchant General Electric – Bush supported “common sense restrictions” on the Second Amendment.

Maddow cites Bush’s sell-out of the Bill of Rights to claim that gun-grabbing is “mainstream” and is supported by both parties that are in fact the same political party consisting of state-worshipping political hacks, opportunists, and hired guns for the banksters and multinational corporations.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical,” explained insider Carroll Quigley.

Maddow said “we have to decide as a country”– she means the establishment must pass down authoritarian gun-grabbing mandates through its hand-picked political class –“if we are going to keep to the mainstream, centrist, George W. Bush and Barrack Obama included consensus on gun control that some restriction are okay or whether we are going to reject that long-held consensus.”

In other words, are “we”(the elite) are going to reject the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and all the writings and proclamations of the founders.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#6 Jan 15, 2011
Several Quotes taken from the (extremist) Founders concerning an armed citizenry

Thomas Jefferson
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”–Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”–Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in “On Crimes and Punishment”, 1764

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny –Thomas Jefferson

“And what country can preserve it’s liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, 1787

“The Constitution of most of our states, and the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves: that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

Samuel Adams
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”–Samuel Adams

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”–Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”— Samuel Adams, 1776

Benjamin Franklin
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”–Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755 <>

Noah Webster
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”–Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#7 Jan 15, 2011
Several Quotes taken from the (extremist) Founders concerning an armed citizenry

Tench Coxe
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”–Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe, in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.” Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

John Adams
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense.” John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88

Alexander Hamilton
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Richard Henry Lee
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

Patrick Henry
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Every man who is able may have a gun.”–Patrick Henry, During Virginia’s ratification convention, 1788

James Madison
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, The Federalist No. 46
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”–James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

George Mason
“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”–George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention, 1788

Thomas Paine
“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them.”–Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

George Washington
“A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”–George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790

“To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”–George Washington, The Federalist No. 53

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#8 Jan 18, 2011
Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians

VATICAN CITY (CNS)-- The Catholic Church's position on gun control is not easy to find; there are dozens of speeches and talks and a few documents that call for much tighter regulation of the global arms trade, but what about private gun ownership?

The answer is resoundingly clear: Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.

But you won't find that statement in a headline or a document subheading. It's almost hidden in a footnote in a document on crime by the U.S. bishops' conference and it's mentioned in passing in dozens of official Vatican texts on the global arms trade.

The most direct statement comes in the bishops' "Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice" from November 2000.

"As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer -- especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner -- and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns."

That's followed by a footnote that states: "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society."

That in turn reiterates a line in the bishops' 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse, which called "for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society."

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#9 Jan 19, 2011
Dangerous Anti-government Revolutionaries!!!

Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Milo Nickels
Activist Post

Anti-government sentiment is not cause for fear, a sign of insanity, or a precursor of tragedy. Quite the contrary. Anti-government sentiment signifies attentiveness, understanding, and a love of liberty. If you truly value freedom, then you absolutely must distrust and despise government with every fiber of your being. Why? Government has no ability, whatsoever, to give freedom to anyone. Government can only take freedoms away. Our founding fathers fully understood this fundamental truth.

They did not view government as a potential source of good, but as a necessary evil. Although they understood that limited government would be necessary to protect individual citizens from each other, they also understood that the Constitution would be necessary to protect all citizens from the government.

Our founding fathers knew that if they did not restrain the government with the constitution, then nothing would stop it from taking all of our liberties away. This is simply the nature of the beast.

Many people mistakenly believe that the first Amendment grants us freedom of speech. This is dead wrong. The first amendment tells the government that they are not allowed to take that freedom away.

Many people mistakenly believe that the second amendment exists only to protect hunters so that they can feed their families. They are dead wrong once again. Our founding fathers expected our government to overstep its bounds, and the second amendment was intended to be our insurance policy to rise against those encroachments. The second amendment is a direct extension of the Declaration of Independence where it states: secure [our unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

How do we abolish a government without arms? Our founding fathers were not liberal, government-loving, boot-lickers; they were revolutionaries. They completely and necessarily distrusted the government and hated tyranny. They expected that government would always try to steal freedom, and they expected people to rise up against the government whenever that happens.

Indeed, our government was founded on the expectation that it couldn't be trusted.

Look at where we are now. Our government wants to pass laws where we can't speak out against it, wants to limit our second amendment rights, and they use the mainstream media to convince the masses that hating the government makes people crazy.

If our founding fathers were alive today, they would be labeled as dangerous, extremist threats to our national security.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#10 Jan 19, 2011
WARNING: Disturbing Graphic Images

Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control

Jan 18, 2011

In this powerful documentary produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, you will learn how governments have historically deprived people of firearms … and then wiped them from the face of the earth.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#11 Jan 20, 2011
Obama May Call For Gun Control During State Of The Union

Steve Watson
Thursday, January 20, 2011

Democratic Party donors, members of Congress and gun control groups are being urged to lobby the president to speak on gun control laws during the upcoming state of the union address, according to an investigative NBC report.

“There’s a major push to get [Obama] to say something on this,” said Chad Ramsey, legislative director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading gun control group.“We’ve been told he will say something, but we’re not sure how strong it will be.”

It is believed that Obama will be asked to expand on his apparent support for a bill introduced by Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York that proposes a ban on the sale or transfer of high-capacity gun magazines, as reportedly used by Jared L. Loughner two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, a major new scientific research poll indicates that Americans’ opinion on gun laws have not altered significantly at in the wake of the Tucson event, despite intense media demonization of second amendment rights.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#12 Jan 25, 2011
Pathocracy: Tyranny at the Hand of Psychopaths

Jack Mullen
Activist Post
January 25, 2011

Many decades would pass trying to get the work published (and many attempts were made by groups to destroy it). But, finally, in 1998, circumventing attempts of Zbigniew Brzezinski to stop the publication, Lobaczewski’s book Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil for political purposes was published. The book begins with an examination of prisoners, much like Cleckley’s work covers, but this time scientists correlated the behavior of psychopaths with the depravity of massively oppressive political regimes; the results of which culminated in a new science he called Ponerology, the study of evil in man. Political Ponerology, then, is the nature of evil in politics.

It is time that humanity faces what it already knows: Historic suffering throughout the ages is related to the evil of the psychopath.

We must never consent to being disarmed. Thomas Jefferson said:“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Next, I call on psychology and psychiatry professionals to make claims regarding the mental health of members of government — it is incumbent on those qualified to take a stand against a rising, bloody, tyranny. The facts speak for themselves: mental health must be called into consideration based on the actions of our leaders in recent years.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#13 Jan 25, 2011
It is very profound isn't it.

To see it laid out, the reason why a people's own government is always their worst and most lethal enemy.

Knowing that our government from top to bottom has had enough time now to fill up with psychopath's, we can now understand completely that WE THE PEOPLE are being governed by a small minority who are quite literally certifiably insane.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#14 Jan 27, 2011
Obama to Deliver Gun-grabbing Speech Soon

Kurt Nimmo
January 27, 2011

Prior to his SOTU, it was reported Obama would mention gun control. He didn’t, although he did preface his speech with a tribute to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the wounded Arizona representative who has become a poster child for professional gun-grabbers.

Earlier this week, legendary gun-grabber New York mayor Michael Bloomberg called for a strict national background check system and additional restrictions on gun shows.

“President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence – which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson,” complained Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest anti-Second Amendment group.

Now administration officials say Obama will address the issue soon. In the next two weeks, Newsweek reports, the White House will unveil a brand spanking new gun control effort designed to strengthen previous anti-Second Amendment laws on the books.

The Obama White House will use the mentally deranged accused Giffords shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, to push for background checks, although in order to avoid the impression that Obama is exploiting the Arizona shooting for political gain the White House will dedicate a separate speech to the issue.

Obama’s handlers expect increased activity on the issue of background checks soon.“It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill,” Obama adviser David Plouffe told NBC News.

The NRA has remained suspiciously silent on Obama’s plan to move on the Second Amendment in the coming weeks.

In the past, the NRA has teamed up with Democrats to pass gun control legislation. For instance, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the NRA worked with notorious gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. to pass a background check bill.

Last year, McCarthy introduced The No Fly, No Buy Act (H.R. 2401), a bill that will merge the TSA’s no-fly list with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. It was created in November of 1993 when the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act), Public Law 103-159, was signed into law. Permanent provisions of the Brady Act went into effect on November 30, 1998, and required the U.S. Attorney General to establish NICS.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#15 Feb 3, 2011
Obama gun ban? Not so outrageous now

Posted: February 03, 2011
10:45 pm Eastern
© 2011

After more than two years of relative quiet regarding gun-control issues, the Obama administration, through its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, has begun laying the groundwork for a massive gun ban.

Last week the ATF released a "study" discussing the suitability of certain "non-sporting" shotguns for importation and sale in the U.S. The "study" suggests that shotguns with military-type features are not suitable for sporting purposes and therefore do not qualify for legal importation.

Unfortunately this "sporting purpose" language appears in several places in federal gun laws. These laws have been used successfully to ban several specific styles of shotguns in the past – not just banned from import or banned from sale, but banned from possession without special government permission and taxes.

The Armsel Striker and its various derivatives, for example, were little-known, repeating, 12-gauge shotguns capable of firing 12 shots as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger. In 1994 the ATF declared that these shotguns and their clones were not suitable for sporting purposes.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#16 Feb 3, 2011
Yes the ATF would love to make WE THE PEOPLE and our arms look bad.

" U.S. Senator to ATF: Are You Negligent in the Death of a US Border Patrol Agent?

Illinois Gun
February 3, 2011

What started out as an internet rumor in a forum for disgruntled ATF employees over problems with the ATF operation “Project Gunrunner” has now been picked up by Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa and maybe on its way to becoming a full blown scandal.

In a January 27, 2011 letter to Kenneth Melson Acting Director of the ATF, Senator Grassley said that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had received numerous allegations that the ATF sanctioned the sale of hundreds of weapons to suspected straw purchasers who then allegedly transported those weapons throughout the southwest border and into Mexico.

Grassley said in his letter; I am specifically writing you concerning an ATF operation called “Project Gunrunner”. There are serious concerns that the ATF may have become careless, if not negligent, in implementing the Gunrunner strategy.

One of those Allegations, is that an individual was allowed to make a cash purchase of three firearms in Glendale, Arizona on January 16, 2010. Two of those firearms were later alleged to have been used in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.

On January 31, 2011 Grassley wrote a second letter to Acting ATF Director Melson this time excoriating him on the conduct of Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the ATF’s Phoenix office over the questioning of one of the individuals that had spoken to Senators Grassley’s Staff concerning “Project Gunrunner”

Grassley informed the Director that Whistleblowers are some of the most patriotic people I know.
He further reminded the Director that obstructing a Congressional investigation is a crime. Additionally, denying or interfering with employees’ right to furnish information to Congress is also against the law. Federal officials who deny or interfere with employees’ rights to furnish information to Congress are not entitled to have their salaries paid by taxpayers’ dollars. Finally, ATF personnel have Constitutional rights to express their concerns to Congress under the first amendment.

When the story first came to light it was thought to be hoax, but second amendment writer David Codrea decided to investigate the claims; what he found was some startling revelations.

Chatter in the forum at claimed the ATF “Walked” over 500 AR type guns into Mexico with the knowledge of the ATF Phoenix office.

The guns in question were said to be from Tucson and Phoenix cases and were “Walked” to Mexico without the knowledge of the Mexican government.

However as the story progressed Sources came forward and were willing to provide testimony and documentation supporting the original accusations provided they received Whistle Blower Protection. That’s what prompted contact with Staffers of Senator Grassley and others in the Senate Judicial Committee.

Jeff Knox another respected second amendment writer has also picked up the story and is asking the questions, did the ATF smuggle guns to Mexico to justify its budget and could this be the end of the ATF if the link to the border agent’s death are true?

The ATF has a history of corruption and abuse. The memory of Ruby Ridge and WACO is still in the hearts and minds of many Americans and if this latest scandal is proven to be true then its time for Congress to make a decision on the future of this rogue agency.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#17 Feb 3, 2011
You know after thinking a little more carefully about our Constitution, and it's clear as day recognition of the inalienable right to keep and bear ARMS by WE THE PEOPLE, another thought occurred to me.

The U.S. Government does not have that right! Not any further than the prescribed militia and Navy anyways. How-about that!

WE THE PEOPLE can simply take away the governments guns at every level.

I say let's get started!

We make them trade in their arms in forced exchange for gag rubber chickens as their weapons.

Tyrannical government solved.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#18 Feb 10, 2011
You Should Have a Gun

February 10, 2011

You should have a gun. You really should.

Politicians and news personalities and other talking heads will often tell you that you shouldn’t have a gun. They’ll tell you that guns don’t need to be useful beyond the narrow scope of hunting and personal defense. They’ll tell you that the Second Amendment must have limits so that criminals and maniacs and terrorists can’t have high-capacity magazines and machine guns.

But hunting and self-defense are two secondary reasons why the government isn’t permitted to infringe on your right, as an American citizen, to bear arms. In fact, let’s review the exact text of the Second Amendment right now:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn’t say anything about hunting. It doesn’t say anything about personal defense either. It contains two major parts: a justification of the right, and an unqualified declaration of the right.

The justification explains that the importance of this right is that is allows for local, organized defense (though nowhere does it restrict the right to this purpose). It is not referring to the National Guard of each state. It is referring to civilians maintaining the ability to organize themselves into effective military units if the need should arise.

The declaration does not specify what kind of arms, nor does it provide any room for exception to the rule. The word infringe does not include any connotation of flexibility. It means,“to encroach upon,” with its origins in a Latin word meaning “to damage, break off.” Any baby-step in the direction of restricting possession and carrying of arms of any kind is an infringement of the right.

It is not an oversight that the amendment was written this way. The founders of the United States were rebels and revolutionaries. Access to weapons is what allowed them to defend their country from the theft and oppression of George III.

It’s important to note here that monarchy was a very long-standing form of government as of the late 18th century. The founders were educated people who were facing massive disillusionment with a system that had been in place from time immemorial.

The Second Amendment is a recognition that even the most trusted, powerful institutions around us can turn out be destructive elements that need to be stood down. They knew it could happen even in this well-considered arrangement they had created themselves.

That is why the people of the United States have a right—second only to free speech, free religion, free assembly, and redress of grievances—to own and to carry weapons of their choosing, with no limits. Everything from slingshots to missiles to laser rifles is forbidden to the government to restrict. And that right exists primarily so that we may defend ourselves against the government if it becomes necessary, with the same level of force that the government can employ.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#20 Feb 17, 2011

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#23 Mar 2, 2011
bump 4th attempt

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 153
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grimsley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Simple Question 1 hr EEE 11
ANYONE KNOW ASHLIN FROM MONTEREY or cookeville 1 hr Hahaha 3
Twin Lakes continues to be unfair 1 hr EEE 3
Dr. Kelly Allardt, TN 1 hr EEE 9
Old train depot (Dec '14) 1 hr EEE 4
just another day in the USA 2 hr Green Hornet 007 226
Brittany diamond 3 hr Deanna 4

Grimsley Jobs

Personal Finance

Grimsley Mortgages