Liberty Teeth For Turkey Day
Thor H. Asgardson
November 24, 2007
Thanksgiving Day Reflections 2007
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
President George Washington
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances, and tendencies PROVE that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indespensable. The very atmosphere of firearms EVERYWHERE restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of HONOR with all that's good!"
President Geo. Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790
The issue of gun-control, is something the American people can really sink their teeth into this Thanksgiving Day, with full enthusiasm for the ideas of the Founding Fathers.
The Supreme Court--you know, the same people who brought us Kelo v. The City of New London, and the Dred Scott Decision--have announced that they will "decide" whether to circumvent the mandate given by The Father of Our Country, for the American people to possess firearms, "everywhere."
The historic Dred Scott Ruling served to turn back the clock for the rights of African-Americans, ignoring the fact that black men in five of the original States had been full voting citizens dating back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The court obviously made a mistake; so too, with the decison of 1976 to ban handguns in the nation's capital.
George Washington warned us never to let any facet of government deny the American people the right to keep and bear arms. The message is clear; the court has no authority to regulate possession of firearms anytime, or anywhere, as promulgated by George Washington.
The court stated on November 20, 2007, that it is considering a ban on guns in peoples' homes, who live in the nation's capital--a clear violation of President Washington's approval of a well-armed citizenry "everywhere." This question over guns, could become another litmus test of where a presidential candidate stands-- along with his/her illegal alien invasion stance--to define that candidate's suitability as our next president, for the 2008 election.
The American people are looking for a presidential candidate who will defend the interests of the America people--not Mexico; nor the central bankers who have hijacked our government. I think Rudy Giuliani now understands the importance of guns to the average voter.
The Bush administration, which has historically defended gun rights, has yet to weigh-in on the case. Maybe the president is completely absorbed in thinking he should first concentrate on the release and full pardon of U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ramos and Compean.
The law is ostensibly designed to "reduce gun violence," in a city with one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Opponents of the ban, make the case that posession of firearms, will make criminals think twice before pulling out a gun, in the commission of a crime. During the 1990's the murder rate actually went down in D.C., but it is once again climbing.
The issue to come before the justices, is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. This splitting- of-hairs, is nothing more than an attempt to undermine and weaken the sovereign right of a people to defend themselves from a hostile corporate takeover by one world government. For as Thomas Jefferson observed; "...banks are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
The American people have had a bellyful of collectivist theories as of late, for we perceive our government to now be a communist entity, which permits the American nation to be devoured by the corporate carcharodon, and occupied by waves of foreign invaders.
Our form of republic, worships the freedom of the individual to prevail over the state. We do not subscribe to a Hegelian weltanschauung, whereby many an "innocent flower" is crushed under the wheel of the almighty state.
The modus operandi to this erosion of American sovereignty, is the proposed NAU/SPP, combined with the LOST treaty, which will hit our nation with a double whammy, for the final knock-out punch to our superpower status.
Our freedoms are being systematically erased, with the defeat of private property rights under Justice David H. Souter's support for the Kelo v. New London decision. That decision of the Supreme Court, set the stage for the NAFTA Superhighway, which will run roughshod over the rights of Americans in their own homeland. That corridor will be under foreign corporate influence, and will physically impede the migration of the local wildlife--the average American citizen.
The partitioning of our homeland--along with the social upheaval that massive importation of so-called "guest workers" will cause-- will lead to a tangle of squabbling nationalities and the complete balkanization of our country. This will set the stage for the United States to go the way of the old Soviet Union, to morph into a European Union-type arrangement, by forced corporate shotgun marriage between a superpower, and a third world basket case. The Newspeak calls it "harmonization."
Once private property and gun rights are gone; we will see the fulfillment of the prophecy Thomas Jefferson foresaw when he stated:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."--Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter of the Bank Bill (1809)
It is the United Nations, which would give us global taxation without representation, and have us pledge allegiance to the New World Order. It is the United Nations which would cripple the United States as a maritime power, by imposing the Law of the Sea Treaty. And it is the United Nations which has set the precedent for invasion of the sovereignty of any state by the world community, with the invasion of Iraq.
"Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order (referring to the 1991 LA Riot). Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond (i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion), whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg Conference, Evian, France, 1991
The American people have resolved that there will be no more U.N. resolutions imposed on our Manifest Destiny as a people, including U.N. troops in our cities.
Iraq became the new test paradigm for massive interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation, thereby subjecting that country to foreign occupation and influence, as is now the case with the Mexican occupation of American territory. Just karmic desserts.
The American people have declared war and revolution. The Bush administration fulfills police actions, as a bulldog enforcer of U.N. resolutions. Congress no longer declares war.
The nation is occupied by millions of foreign troops, which meddle in the American political process. We are under assault by Mexican shock troops and the supranational agenda of David Rockefeller student, Vicente Fox.
In the final analysis; it will be the United Nations which will triumph as the major components of our freedoms are put on the table for interpretation, one-by-one to be whittled away on a fast-track chopping block.
The meaning is clear for any scholar of law and political science. As George Washington said: "When firearms go, all goes--we need them every hour." Apparently our greatest general was "addicted to" guns--not oil.
Wayne La Pierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association had this to say regarding the controversy: "The American people know this is an individual right, the way they know that water quenches their thirst."
This is a breath-taking question the court has elected to define, at the expense of the personal liberty--and right--of Americans to defend themselves against their own government, and United Nations troops.
The federal appeals court--breaking with the other federal courts, which have examined the issue over the decades--ruled in March that citizens do indeed have the right to keep firearms in their homes, as granted by the Constitution. That court rendered the explicit decison that the Second Amendment right, was an individual one, and not tied to any service in a militia. The court further ruled that the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, was unconstitutional. The court supports reasonable regulations, but not the wholesale ban on guns in our nation's capital. That court maintained that the Supreme Court had gone too far.
The Court has accepted the new case of District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, a 65 year old security guard wants to keep firearms in his home for self-defense. He carries a gun to work, while guarding the federal building which houses administrative offices of the federal court system.
"Heller was one of six plaintiffs recruited by a wealthy libertarian lawyer, Robert Levy, who created and financed the lawsuit for the purpose of getting a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. The appeals court threw out the other five plaintiffs' cases for lack of standing; only Heller had actually applied for permission to keep a gun at home and had been turned down."*
This test case on a 31-year-old prohibition on the ownership of handguns, has been put on the calender for March, and will most likely be decided by June. This new case has provided fodder for the presidential campaign slated for 2008, as it will separate the globalist candidate from the nationalist.
CFR-approved candidates are no longer an option for the American people; they never were.
These are the times that try mens' souls, to the effect that Pat Boone has called for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Boone sees national sovereignty dissolving before our eyes.
The United States is in the midst of world war, and the Second American Revolution, to throw off the tyranny of the Federal Reserve, and those vested interests which flood both hemispheres of the planet with the Third World invasion of First World countries. The corporations would have us pledge allegiance to the "corporate citizenship" paradigm, by privatizing every thing we hold dear.
The stage is set for the conquest of America. It is the equivalent of a giant sequoia, coming under full assault from the logger's axe.
"Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws."
Meyer Nathaniel Rothschild in a speech to a gathering of world bankers February 12, 1912. The following year, the USA subscribed to the 'services' of the newly incorporated Federal Reserve, headed by Mr. Rothschild.
The Greatest Generation was armed to the teeth. Our most worthy opponent, Japan, ruled-out invasion of the American heartland, as Admiral Yamamoto observed in 1941:
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
"The courts choice of words is almost never inadvertent, and its use of the phrase "state-regulated militia" was somewhat curious. The District of Columbia is not a state, and one of the arguments its lawyers are making in their appeal is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to "Legislation enacted exclusively for the District of Columbia."*
My observation is this: If these buildings ostensibly belong to the American people; they fall under the same legislation we live under. The same may be said regarding our money supply, which clearly calls for the abolishment of the private corporation known as "The Federal Reserve," from monopolizing the nation's money supply, to hold us in bondage to usury.
Considering the Bush administration plans to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union; those very guns may soon be called for, to drive the central bankers from our shores, and reclaim our government held hostage to the corporate puppet master.
It is conceivable that the American military could come back from Iraq, to occupy the United States government, which has been seized by the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization serves the central bankers, not the American people.
"The people will be crushed under the burden of taxes, loan after loan will be floated; after having drained the present, the State will devour the future."
Fredric Bastiat
Why else would there now be talk about disarming our troops when they get back?
As things now stand; the Bush administration has allowed the occupation of American soil by a thirty-million-man-Mexican occupation army. Along with those "guest" worker/invaders, came al-Qaeda operatives, and international organized crime cartels. That army has paraded half-a-million strong in the streets of Los Angeles--and other major cities-- to hoist the banner of "Reconquista" over American territory.
The land of the cowboy and Indian, has become a graffiti-marred drive-by shooting gallery for gangland turf warfare.
Those guns will also be needed if an open shooting war breaks out between the United States and Mexico, for American citizens will not stand idly by, to witness terror at the hands of MS-13, Mexican Mafia, Mexican soldiers and police, and gang-bangers. For these forces have promised the "Reconquista" of America, "...by any means necessary."
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
James Madison
Like Pakistan; the United States may soon need to come under martial law, although not quite the way the Bush administration or Henry Kissinger would imagine martial law being imposed--by the government.
The state of our Union, is that the United States government no longer listens to, nor represents the will of the American people. That is why we are in the midst of the Second American Revolution. Soon it may be necessary for the American military to come back from Iraq, to occupy the United States government itself--and drive out the Mexican occupation army--until consent of the governed can be restored to the people by our military. What better liberator, or lover of country is there than the United States military?
This writer trusts the American military--not our communist government. The Marxist agenda of our elites is to disarm the American people, so that we will not be able to resist the coming New World Order of Big Brother.
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
Vladimir I. Lenin
"We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road."
Mikhail Gorbachev 1987
Lest it be imagined that the non-violent Satyagraha philosophy supports the ban of firearms; one need merely look at what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had to say regarding the matter:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
The Second Amendment allows no demarcation line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms, as was the express wish of our founding fathers.
Washington mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, speaking at a news conference in a District office building, called it "the most important court case the District of Columbia has been involved in, and possibly the most important decision a city or state has been involved in for decades."
Rudy Giuliani sued the gun industry for letting criminals get guns, when he was mayor of New York. He stated in a recent interview with The Associated Press that the case "is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them."
Giuliani now supports the Second Amendment, which gives citizens the right to own handguns and is not, as he previously asserted, limited to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias.
The Second Amendment reads: "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."
Despite this crystal-clear national protocol; Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, alleging that such an act was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital. Hogwash! All that action accomplished, was to give the criminal class a free pass.
The Supreme Court last examined the Second Amendment nearly seventy years ago in United States v. Miller; a 1939 decision which stated that the right to bear arms should be understood in connection with service in a militia. The decision suggested, without explicitly deciding the issue which is on the table once again.
The City Council adopted the ban, citing that it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense."
John Adams, A defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States of America(1778)
Therefore, there is no need to justify their use in a "purely urban environment"--or anywhere else for that matter-- considering the fact that it is up to the individual's discretion. The American people are not required to legitimize the peoples' liberty teeth, nor answer to the authority of a city council.
Dick Anthony Heller sued the District, after it rejected his application to keep a handgun in his home for protection. Heller rightly asserted that this ruling "amounts to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."
If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.
The District of course is attempting to claim the restriction is justified, as the original intent of the founders applied only to militia service. It also argued the ban is constitutional because it merely limits the choice of firearms, not total prohibition from residents owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses are allowed guns for protection.
But this is the problem; the court imagines it has the authority to "allow" anything in regard to the right to bear arms. It is not the court's jurisdiction, but that of the Constitution, and the Father of Our Country--the original lawgivers.
The city of Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as our nation's capital.
Four states-- Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York-- urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
There were 135 firearm-related homicides in the capital in 2006. How many of those could have been thwarted had the victims possessed guns in their homes?
The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted but that the ban went too far.
The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all. I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”
Ronald Wilson Reagan
Justices to Weigh Ban on Handguns by Linda Greenhouse, New York Times News Service
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
President George Washington
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances, and tendencies PROVE that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indespensable. The very atmosphere of firearms EVERYWHERE restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of HONOR with all that's good!"
President Geo. Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790
The issue of gun-control, is something the American people can really sink their teeth into this Thanksgiving Day, with full enthusiasm for the ideas of the Founding Fathers.
The Supreme Court--you know, the same people who brought us Kelo v. The City of New London, and the Dred Scott Decision--have announced that they will "decide" whether to circumvent the mandate given by The Father of Our Country, for the American people to possess firearms, "everywhere."
The historic Dred Scott Ruling served to turn back the clock for the rights of African-Americans, ignoring the fact that black men in five of the original States had been full voting citizens dating back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The court obviously made a mistake; so too, with the decison of 1976 to ban handguns in the nation's capital.
George Washington warned us never to let any facet of government deny the American people the right to keep and bear arms. The message is clear; the court has no authority to regulate possession of firearms anytime, or anywhere, as promulgated by George Washington.
The court stated on November 20, 2007, that it is considering a ban on guns in peoples' homes, who live in the nation's capital--a clear violation of President Washington's approval of a well-armed citizenry "everywhere." This question over guns, could become another litmus test of where a presidential candidate stands-- along with his/her illegal alien invasion stance--to define that candidate's suitability as our next president, for the 2008 election.
The American people are looking for a presidential candidate who will defend the interests of the America people--not Mexico; nor the central bankers who have hijacked our government. I think Rudy Giuliani now understands the importance of guns to the average voter.
The Bush administration, which has historically defended gun rights, has yet to weigh-in on the case. Maybe the president is completely absorbed in thinking he should first concentrate on the release and full pardon of U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ramos and Compean.
The law is ostensibly designed to "reduce gun violence," in a city with one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Opponents of the ban, make the case that posession of firearms, will make criminals think twice before pulling out a gun, in the commission of a crime. During the 1990's the murder rate actually went down in D.C., but it is once again climbing.
The issue to come before the justices, is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. This splitting- of-hairs, is nothing more than an attempt to undermine and weaken the sovereign right of a people to defend themselves from a hostile corporate takeover by one world government. For as Thomas Jefferson observed; "...banks are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
The American people have had a bellyful of collectivist theories as of late, for we perceive our government to now be a communist entity, which permits the American nation to be devoured by the corporate carcharodon, and occupied by waves of foreign invaders.
Our form of republic, worships the freedom of the individual to prevail over the state. We do not subscribe to a Hegelian weltanschauung, whereby many an "innocent flower" is crushed under the wheel of the almighty state.
The modus operandi to this erosion of American sovereignty, is the proposed NAU/SPP, combined with the LOST treaty, which will hit our nation with a double whammy, for the final knock-out punch to our superpower status.
Our freedoms are being systematically erased, with the defeat of private property rights under Justice David H. Souter's support for the Kelo v. New London decision. That decision of the Supreme Court, set the stage for the NAFTA Superhighway, which will run roughshod over the rights of Americans in their own homeland. That corridor will be under foreign corporate influence, and will physically impede the migration of the local wildlife--the average American citizen.
The partitioning of our homeland--along with the social upheaval that massive importation of so-called "guest workers" will cause-- will lead to a tangle of squabbling nationalities and the complete balkanization of our country. This will set the stage for the United States to go the way of the old Soviet Union, to morph into a European Union-type arrangement, by forced corporate shotgun marriage between a superpower, and a third world basket case. The Newspeak calls it "harmonization."
Once private property and gun rights are gone; we will see the fulfillment of the prophecy Thomas Jefferson foresaw when he stated:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."--Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter of the Bank Bill (1809)
It is the United Nations, which would give us global taxation without representation, and have us pledge allegiance to the New World Order. It is the United Nations which would cripple the United States as a maritime power, by imposing the Law of the Sea Treaty. And it is the United Nations which has set the precedent for invasion of the sovereignty of any state by the world community, with the invasion of Iraq.
"Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order (referring to the 1991 LA Riot). Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond (i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion), whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg Conference, Evian, France, 1991
The American people have resolved that there will be no more U.N. resolutions imposed on our Manifest Destiny as a people, including U.N. troops in our cities.
Iraq became the new test paradigm for massive interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation, thereby subjecting that country to foreign occupation and influence, as is now the case with the Mexican occupation of American territory. Just karmic desserts.
The American people have declared war and revolution. The Bush administration fulfills police actions, as a bulldog enforcer of U.N. resolutions. Congress no longer declares war.
The nation is occupied by millions of foreign troops, which meddle in the American political process. We are under assault by Mexican shock troops and the supranational agenda of David Rockefeller student, Vicente Fox.
In the final analysis; it will be the United Nations which will triumph as the major components of our freedoms are put on the table for interpretation, one-by-one to be whittled away on a fast-track chopping block.
The meaning is clear for any scholar of law and political science. As George Washington said: "When firearms go, all goes--we need them every hour." Apparently our greatest general was "addicted to" guns--not oil.
Wayne La Pierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association had this to say regarding the controversy: "The American people know this is an individual right, the way they know that water quenches their thirst."
This is a breath-taking question the court has elected to define, at the expense of the personal liberty--and right--of Americans to defend themselves against their own government, and United Nations troops.
The federal appeals court--breaking with the other federal courts, which have examined the issue over the decades--ruled in March that citizens do indeed have the right to keep firearms in their homes, as granted by the Constitution. That court rendered the explicit decison that the Second Amendment right, was an individual one, and not tied to any service in a militia. The court further ruled that the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, was unconstitutional. The court supports reasonable regulations, but not the wholesale ban on guns in our nation's capital. That court maintained that the Supreme Court had gone too far.
The Court has accepted the new case of District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, a 65 year old security guard wants to keep firearms in his home for self-defense. He carries a gun to work, while guarding the federal building which houses administrative offices of the federal court system.
"Heller was one of six plaintiffs recruited by a wealthy libertarian lawyer, Robert Levy, who created and financed the lawsuit for the purpose of getting a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. The appeals court threw out the other five plaintiffs' cases for lack of standing; only Heller had actually applied for permission to keep a gun at home and had been turned down."*
This test case on a 31-year-old prohibition on the ownership of handguns, has been put on the calender for March, and will most likely be decided by June. This new case has provided fodder for the presidential campaign slated for 2008, as it will separate the globalist candidate from the nationalist.
CFR-approved candidates are no longer an option for the American people; they never were.
These are the times that try mens' souls, to the effect that Pat Boone has called for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Boone sees national sovereignty dissolving before our eyes.
The United States is in the midst of world war, and the Second American Revolution, to throw off the tyranny of the Federal Reserve, and those vested interests which flood both hemispheres of the planet with the Third World invasion of First World countries. The corporations would have us pledge allegiance to the "corporate citizenship" paradigm, by privatizing every thing we hold dear.
The stage is set for the conquest of America. It is the equivalent of a giant sequoia, coming under full assault from the logger's axe.
"Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws."
Meyer Nathaniel Rothschild in a speech to a gathering of world bankers February 12, 1912. The following year, the USA subscribed to the 'services' of the newly incorporated Federal Reserve, headed by Mr. Rothschild.
The Greatest Generation was armed to the teeth. Our most worthy opponent, Japan, ruled-out invasion of the American heartland, as Admiral Yamamoto observed in 1941:
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
"The courts choice of words is almost never inadvertent, and its use of the phrase "state-regulated militia" was somewhat curious. The District of Columbia is not a state, and one of the arguments its lawyers are making in their appeal is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to "Legislation enacted exclusively for the District of Columbia."*
My observation is this: If these buildings ostensibly belong to the American people; they fall under the same legislation we live under. The same may be said regarding our money supply, which clearly calls for the abolishment of the private corporation known as "The Federal Reserve," from monopolizing the nation's money supply, to hold us in bondage to usury.
Considering the Bush administration plans to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union; those very guns may soon be called for, to drive the central bankers from our shores, and reclaim our government held hostage to the corporate puppet master.
It is conceivable that the American military could come back from Iraq, to occupy the United States government, which has been seized by the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization serves the central bankers, not the American people.
"The people will be crushed under the burden of taxes, loan after loan will be floated; after having drained the present, the State will devour the future."
Fredric Bastiat
Why else would there now be talk about disarming our troops when they get back?
As things now stand; the Bush administration has allowed the occupation of American soil by a thirty-million-man-Mexican occupation army. Along with those "guest" worker/invaders, came al-Qaeda operatives, and international organized crime cartels. That army has paraded half-a-million strong in the streets of Los Angeles--and other major cities-- to hoist the banner of "Reconquista" over American territory.
The land of the cowboy and Indian, has become a graffiti-marred drive-by shooting gallery for gangland turf warfare.
Those guns will also be needed if an open shooting war breaks out between the United States and Mexico, for American citizens will not stand idly by, to witness terror at the hands of MS-13, Mexican Mafia, Mexican soldiers and police, and gang-bangers. For these forces have promised the "Reconquista" of America, "...by any means necessary."
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
James Madison
Like Pakistan; the United States may soon need to come under martial law, although not quite the way the Bush administration or Henry Kissinger would imagine martial law being imposed--by the government.
The state of our Union, is that the United States government no longer listens to, nor represents the will of the American people. That is why we are in the midst of the Second American Revolution. Soon it may be necessary for the American military to come back from Iraq, to occupy the United States government itself--and drive out the Mexican occupation army--until consent of the governed can be restored to the people by our military. What better liberator, or lover of country is there than the United States military?
This writer trusts the American military--not our communist government. The Marxist agenda of our elites is to disarm the American people, so that we will not be able to resist the coming New World Order of Big Brother.
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
Vladimir I. Lenin
"We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road."
Mikhail Gorbachev 1987
Lest it be imagined that the non-violent Satyagraha philosophy supports the ban of firearms; one need merely look at what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had to say regarding the matter:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
The Second Amendment allows no demarcation line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms, as was the express wish of our founding fathers.
Washington mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, speaking at a news conference in a District office building, called it "the most important court case the District of Columbia has been involved in, and possibly the most important decision a city or state has been involved in for decades."
Rudy Giuliani sued the gun industry for letting criminals get guns, when he was mayor of New York. He stated in a recent interview with The Associated Press that the case "is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them."
Giuliani now supports the Second Amendment, which gives citizens the right to own handguns and is not, as he previously asserted, limited to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias.
The Second Amendment reads: "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."
Despite this crystal-clear national protocol; Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, alleging that such an act was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital. Hogwash! All that action accomplished, was to give the criminal class a free pass.
The Supreme Court last examined the Second Amendment nearly seventy years ago in United States v. Miller; a 1939 decision which stated that the right to bear arms should be understood in connection with service in a militia. The decision suggested, without explicitly deciding the issue which is on the table once again.
The City Council adopted the ban, citing that it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense."
John Adams, A defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States of America(1778)
Therefore, there is no need to justify their use in a "purely urban environment"--or anywhere else for that matter-- considering the fact that it is up to the individual's discretion. The American people are not required to legitimize the peoples' liberty teeth, nor answer to the authority of a city council.
Dick Anthony Heller sued the District, after it rejected his application to keep a handgun in his home for protection. Heller rightly asserted that this ruling "amounts to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."
If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.
The District of course is attempting to claim the restriction is justified, as the original intent of the founders applied only to militia service. It also argued the ban is constitutional because it merely limits the choice of firearms, not total prohibition from residents owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses are allowed guns for protection.
But this is the problem; the court imagines it has the authority to "allow" anything in regard to the right to bear arms. It is not the court's jurisdiction, but that of the Constitution, and the Father of Our Country--the original lawgivers.
The city of Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as our nation's capital.
Four states-- Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York-- urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
There were 135 firearm-related homicides in the capital in 2006. How many of those could have been thwarted had the victims possessed guns in their homes?
The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted but that the ban went too far.
The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all. I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”
Ronald Wilson Reagan
Justices to Weigh Ban on Handguns by Linda Greenhouse, New York Times News Service
Print
Email
