"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

An Armed People Are A Free People

Will Malven
2/07/2013

Those of us who believe fervently in the "armed citizen" aspect of the 2nd Amendment understand that our Founding Fathers intended that our citizenry be so well armed with weapons equal to those possessed by any standing army that the mere fact that they were so armed would be a deterrent to any acts intended to usurp power or limit their constitutional freedoms and rights.

This man, a legal immigrant and AN AMERICAN BY CHOICE also understands what is at risk when our government begins contemplating the greater restriction of firearms held by the general public.



What more can one say?

 He referenced the Department of Homeland Security who has classified a rifle of caliber 5.56mm with a 30 round magazine as "suitable for self-defense:

Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation

Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Location: ICE-OAQ-MS
Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011
Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

Synopsis: Added: Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am

This announcement is being placed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) paragraph 5.207.  It is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items.  5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense.  This announcement constitutes the only solicitation and proposals are being requested.  See attachments for complete details.
 So the DHS believes that an AR-16 (not AR-15, but AR-16) "select-fire" is "suitable for personal-defense."  Why is this true for people in our government and not for the average citizen?  In what way are DHS employees more suited to be so armed than are law-abiding citizens?

Once again we see a government that is determined to ensure that it's own soldiers (whether military or para-military "civilian enforcement") are better armed and better protected than the citizens they serve.

He also cites U.S. vs. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which in part states:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
---------snip------------------
The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-
'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts)'.
 There is a great deal more in Miller, but this will provide a taste of what it says.  If you want more, follow the link above to the actual ruling.

Mr. Han also mentions Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

Under the dissent written by Justice Brennan with the concurrence of Justices Marshall and Powell, Section III, in part states:
[8] These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia")

In other words, IT'S NOT ABOUT HUNTING.

Again and again we see that throughout our nation's history, the 2nd Amendment has been viewed through with a view towards having a citizenry as well armed as the standing armies, armed with modern weapons the equal of any possessed by our nation's military and certainly equal to any possessed by any civilian para-military force such as the police SWAT teams or the DHS.

Use these sources, use this material and fight against these efforts to usurp power from the people and abridge the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Remember also, it's not about being armed well enough to fight against a tyrannical government, it's about having a civilian populace that is so well armed that the government will never even consider attempting to become tyrannical.  The pro-Second Amendment effort is about DETERRENCE, NOT CONFLICT.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

If you like it SHARE IT!  Link it on your forums and email it to your friends.

This is a battle that must be won.  Those on the left who seek to control us and strip us of our rights will NEVER give up their efforts, no matter how bleak their prospects may seem.  We must match them effort for effort and enthusiasm for enthusiasm.

No comments:

Post a Comment