We Must Become Second Amendment Zealots If We Are To Survive

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
http://www.sierratimes.com/gaddy.htm

We Must Become Second Amendment Zealots
If We Are To Survive.
By Michael Gaddy

If you wonder at my use of the word "zealot" in the title, I would explain that by saying I feel that the majority of the so-called "defenders and supporters" of the second amendment have long since sold their souls to the powers of government, and those of us who believe it holds the key to freedom, must from this point on be zealots in its defense.

We must face the fact that no one connected to government will be able to prevent the usurpation of our right to own arms sufficient to protect our homes and families. Wake up folks! Government has been involved in a well-planned, incremental approach to the disarming of the citizens of this country for decades.


Billions of dollars and man-hours have been spent through groups such as the National Rifle Association over the past 80 years, lobbying those in government to protect our rights as granted by our creator and enumerated in the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. And what has it bought us?

1934-National Firearms Act

1938-Federal Firearms Act

1968- 68' Gun Control Act

1972-BATF expanded to deal with firearms

1986-Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990-Crime Control Act

1994-Brady Bill

1994-Assault Weapons Ban

1998-National Instant Check System


No matter how sweet the prose of the names of these pieces of legislation or how they inflame the passions of the ignorant socialist masses, the fact remains; they are all unconstitutional - and deadly to our freedom.


One of the real problems we face as Second Amendment "zealots," is the fact that the largest of our right to keep and bear arms "defenders", the NRA, has supported a great majority of the above listed government infringements on our firearms rights. Almost two years ago I wrote of this betrayal. NRA: Pro Second or Government Lapdogs?

We must face the fact that we are wasting resources and time lobbying those in government. They will never turn on the god they worship. Government is the source of their power and wealth. Government, as it becomes more and more corrupt, requires the people not have the means to resist that corruption. Thus, the gradual encroachment on our ability to possess the type weapons necessary to remain free.


We see our military issuing - what one could only assume to be fully automatic AK-47's - to people they do not even know in Iraq, but we here in the US of A are forbidden to own similar rifles. We may have "semi-automatics", but not if they have a bayonet lug or high capacity magazine. This fact speaks volumes. Does an unknown Iraqi policeman have more rights to freedom than we?


If we are so naïve as to place our hopes for adherence to constitutional principles in the republican or democratic party, we should just turn in our firearms now and submit to the tyranny that follows without wasting any more time or resources. How long will it take before we all realize they are players for the government, not the people, and are only distinguishable when they switch their "home and away" uniforms?



Can the facts be painted any more vividly than the White House's support for the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? Just take a look at those who are singing the praises of the Bush Administration. When those who call themselves "conservative" are lauded by the likes of Feinstein and Schumer, its time to seek high ground. Both of these fine representatives of Marxism have said legislation will be introduced to make the AWB permanent and to close the loophole on importation of high capacity magazines. And Bush is now on record in support of this legislation.


Of course, Feinstein must be on the administrations short list of favorites, what with the 600 million dollar government contract to her hubby's business.


In the 2004 Presidential Election, we as Second Amendment zealots are going to be faced with two candidates who support our disarmament. This is the goal of government. Vote for whomever you choose. You still get that which they want you to have.


Republican faithful will preach of how much worse off we will be with the Democrat who would disarm us, and besides, there are so many other things that need to be accomplished that only a republican administration can handle. We have found that to include the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II and a run amuck Department of Homeland Security. How much more of this style government can we tolerate and still call ourselves a free people?


Democrats will continue with their Marxist agenda. And, God forbid, should there be another act of terrorism in this country, the cowards will gladly surrender the wisp of freedom we have left if mother government will only let them hide behind her apron.


Trying to secure our second amendment rights through the Congress will be a further effort in futility. We are all familiar with their machinations, and besides, haven't they brought us to the place we are now?


Conclusion

Statistics tell us there are approximately 88 million of us gun owners in this country. Unfortunately, only half of that number might qualify as gun zealots. There are those who place politics above the guarantees of Creator and Constitution. There are those who believe as long as they can participate in their little competitions, whether it be shooting make believe outlaws, clay pigeons or metal gongs, that no one needs an assault rifle. There are those who have been perverted totally out of phase to the original intent of the second amendment and its guarantee against tyranny.


History has been replaced with Social Studies in our public school gulags. A look at a public school textbook for middle school reveals no mention of firearms in the discussion of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is only discussed in the realm of militias and how they were used in the revolution. It further states that because we have organizations like the National Guard there is no need for private possession of firearms!


It is my belief it is now time to either fish or cut bait. The lines have been drawn. We must present a united front. 40+ million Second Amendment zealots could present quite a problem to anyone seeking the presidency, or any other political office. But that will not be accomplished if we continue on the path we have been on for the past 50+ years. Political parties, the NRA and compromise on our God given imperatives are not working. Over 2,000 gun control laws on the books should tell us something. People who write and support gun laws either don't understand the Constitution, hate our guts, or both. You will not secure freedom by trying to appease them.


We have been blessed with one man in this nation who understands the concepts of liberty and freedom and fights for them daily. We Second Amendment zealots must unite behind this man of whom it has been said: "He personifies the Founding Fathers' conception of the citizen-statesman. He made it clear from the start that his principles would never be compromised, and they never were." Another added: "There are few people in public life who through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. He is one of those few."

I speak of none other than Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District of Texas. Former Treasury Secretary William Simon, put it best when he said: "Dr. Paul is the one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

The ball is now in our court. We can continue on the path we have been on, supporting political parties, sending our hard earned dollars to organizations that compromise on every gun control issue, and supporting those in office who promise anything to obtain that office and then sell our Constitution and their principles to the highest bidder, or we can give our solid support to a man who knows no compromise when it comes to the oath he took to "uphold and defend."

40+ million Second Amendment zealots with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer could make a difference. What say ye?
 
No matter how sweet the prose of the names of these pieces of legislation or how they inflame the passions of the ignorant socialist masses, the fact remains; they are all unconstitutional
Not AGAIN!!! When are authors like this going to wake up and actually read the Constitution they cite so blithely? The Constitution grants to the Supreme Court the final arbitership of deciding whether or not a given law or regulation is Constitutional. The Supreme Court has not ruled any of these laws to be unconstitutional. Unless and until it does so, they have Constitutional force and effect! That's the way it is. For decades - centuries! - the Court has ruled, and the Legislature and Executive have enacted laws and regulations that rely on the fact, that regulation of Constitutional rights does not equal infringement of Constitutional rights. That's the law of the land, and it governs everything we do in this country. There's no way around it without ignoring the Constitution itself.
 
Why worry about what the Constitution says? The Constitution is a dead letter; as a contract it never had the first smidgen of legal authority.

My rights aren't derived from any piece of paper. 'Regulation' of my rights may or may not be 'constitutional,' but I stopped caring about that long ago. What I do care about is that the various governments and legal bodies are regulating away my rights, and constitutional or not, that does make me very upset.

The article is not technically correct on every point, but the main thrust is dead on; if the shooting community wants to have any shot at retaining our ability to own firearms for a generation plus, we need to look at some fairly radical tactics. Among them, kicking the GOP to the curb.

- Chris
 
Here's an amusing comment on the Second Amendment...

as taken from a US Treasury website.

In a time such as today when the United States has no need for a militia, many people see this as an outdated amendment that no longer serves a purpose.

Fortunately, they go on to state:

However, on the other end of society lie those who adamantly stand by the second amendment, the NRA society. They see the second amendment like all of the other parts of the Bill of Rights, as expressions of individual rights that are basic to what American culture stands for. Over the years, however, gun-violence and gun carrying has also become part of American culture. To them, the idea of a collective right is fraudulent because the Founders used the word "state" when a collective right was in question. In the above quote that basically is the second amendment, "State" is only used to signify the end result of firearm ownership, not the actual right itself. This ideal was reinforced by the 1990 Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs. Vrdugo-Urquidez. The Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right held by "the people," which the court defined as all "persons who are part of a national community." All five relevant Supreme Court decisions since then have judged the second amendment to be an individual right, not a collective one.

http://www.itds.treas.gov/Firearmindustry.htm#stats
 
we need to look at some fairly radical tactics

How's this for radical: find someone who you know that you have somewhat of a good rapport with, and take them shooting! Let them have a good time, (this is most important), and plant a few seeds as to why a flash suppressor as opposed to a compensator does not make one a criminal. Now you have a potential convert on your hands, as well as an outlet to a score of other contacts within his sphere who might be potential RKBAers.

It is very important to make sure that this person is able to tap into your network of RKBA shooters, who will also be able to work their little acts of evil on him. It is best if this person already has 1) a pro-freedom leaning, and 2) he has pain. When I mean pain, I mean that he has been directly or indirectly done over by govt., and he's arngy about it. The more angry someone is, the more willing they will be to take action.

This is not very time intensive to do, because you're generally going to go to the range anyway, and you are probably going to hang out with friends/shooting buddies anyway, so what's one more for the ride?

Every one of you that claims to give half of a pound of camel dung about the Second Amendment should have a list of at least 6 people who are targets, and a plan of how you want to introduce them to shooting. If bringing them is not a feasable option for you for whatever reason, then you shod be putting your grey matter to work to come up with other ways to get people into the fold.

Among them, kicking the GOP to the curb

Amen, brother! If the GOP thinks it can give RKBAers the ham sandwich in the hopes of getting the soccermom vote, then we have to show them that we are not going to support them. It's very foolish on their part to scarifice someone who is somewhat leaning in their direction for someone who they have very little chance with.

At the same time, I think that we should be reaching out to Republicans and Democrats alike, and doing our part to bring the RKBA message to them. They represent numbers to the parties, and if their core base is willing to desert them over an issue, they will adapt in order to retain market share. Do you think the Democrats are going to spit in the face of NOW, or teacher's unions? If RKBA becomes an important issue to a large percentage of the population, both parties will quietly drop it because they don't want to rock the boat, especially with their own behinds in it.
 
I agree, if everyone took just 2 other "new" people out to shoot... gave them the lowdown on what's up, I'm sure we could more than double our numbers. I have sucessfully converted 4 people in the last 6 mos. to being pro-gun, pro-liberty, pro-2nd advocates. I'm working on 2 more right now. I hope to have converted at least 20 by the next election in 2004. And they WILL vote. They DO call and write their reps., I make sure they know about the issues facing US.
Party - shmarty.... I AM A ONE ISSUE VOTER! If you support my right to retain the ability to remove an oppressive govt., defend my life and the lives of others, you will have my vote.
There it is.
 
[blockquote](preacherman) Not AGAIN!!! When are authors like this going to wake up and actually read the Constitution they cite so blithely? The Constitution grants to the Supreme Court the final arbitership of deciding whether or not a given law or regulation is Constitutional. The Supreme Court has not ruled any of these laws to be unconstitutional. Unless and until it does so, they have Constitutional force and effect! That's the way it is. For decades - centuries! - the Court has ruled, and the Legislature and Executive have enacted laws and regulations that rely on the fact, that regulation of Constitutional rights does not equal infringement of Constitutional rights. That's the law of the land, and it governs everything we do in this country. There's no way around it without ignoring the Constitution itself.[/blockquote]
Are you being sarcastic? The Constitution does no such thing. It was John Marshall who I believe was the first justice to ever write of the notion that unconstitutional laws must not be enforced by the Court.

Further, there's this speech by Breyer from Dec. 2001 at Harvard where he talks about jurisprudence. The crux of one answer to a question was that language, history, tradition, precedent, and consequences matter in making decisions. The bottom line is that every single firearms law would be reasonably judged unconstitutional based on those factors, and the fact that the Court has never taken up a non-racially-motivated firearm law and ruled definitively on it means that my statement is virtually irrefutable until the Court does decide such a case. :)

There is a further fundamental problem with your presumption that laws are valid until the Court rules. If the Congress were so corrupt that they passed more horrific laws each year than could be gutted by the Court, I suppose the laws the Court doesn't get to would just have to be valid indefinitely?

The speech is online at http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/webcasts/index.html
(Dec 11, 2001). The conlaw issues really only come up in the last 10-12 minutes of the speech.
 
Perhaps it is a good time to let the Republican party know that elephants aren't the only ones with long memorys.
I think most of them want to support us, but that could change if Dubya really wants to turn on us after we supported him.
Write to your congresscritters and let them know what you really think, regarless of their party or leaning. Even Feinstein should know that not everyone in Kali agrees with her.

As to taking someone shooting, I have found my SKS to be an excellent tool for this purpose. At $2/box we can all afford to let someone shoot and I haven't yet met anyone who didn't absoutely enjoy it.

A coment afterward like "you know, some people in congress would outlaw these things" might go a long way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top