WE WILL NOT DISARM.
It’s the second stage of a one-two punch where Democrats are putting their new-found confidence to work after the midterms handed them the House on display. On Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi started the legislative process for ending private transfers.
“Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are deadly and dangerous weapons of war that belong on battlefields—not our streets,” Blumenthal bleated, parroting a time-tested gun-grabber talking point. He’s counting on the ignorant – and that’s what you’d have to be to vote for someone like him – being oblivious to the fact that an armed citizenry capable of taking to the field and prevailing over enemies foreign and domestic is exactly what the Founders intended.
It’s also what the Government has previously argued – and the Supreme Court acknowledged – that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. (And for an excellent analysis on why that opinion was correct but incomplete, see colleague Brian Puckett’s excellent “United States v. Miller and Short-Barreled Shotguns.”)
Pennsylvania Continental Congress Delegate Tench Coxe perhaps defined it best when he declared:
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
And it’s not just Congress. Again turning to Puckett we find the opinion of William Rawle, a lawyer that George Washington wanted as Attorney General and author of View of the Constitution, “the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860”:
“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence [sic] by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
Feinstein and her co-conspirators know this, of course, and they know that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure “the security of a free State.” They also know that stands in the way of their goal of attaining unchallengeable power, what German political economist Max Weber endorsed as a “monopoly of violence.”
That’s why she and they are so desperate to disarm Americans who might stand in opposition to their goals. It’s why she declared on national television:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United State for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
And it’s not like the gun-grabbers will stop after that. Don’t forget their original goal, as stated by Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) founder Pete Shields back in 1976:
“The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
Then go back before that, to Sen. Thomas Dodd, principal architect of the Gun Control Act of 1968:
‘I would be for abolishing all guns … I never saw any sense in guns anyway, and I do not go backward by saying so. I hope someday the world will say, ‘Destroy them all.’”
The mask if off for all but those who refuse to see. This is not about “common sense gun safety” or protecting children or anything other than evil creatures in positions of power doing the bidding of those who would see the people disarmed. This is about nullifying any chance of opposition to their agenda of complete domination and control.
A more proper name reflecting on the sponsors of this proposed Intolerable Act would be “The We’re Anti-American Traitors Act of 2019.”
To them I once more turn to Puckett and his Memorandum on Arms and Freedom:
—–
Disclosure: Brian Puckett is a longtime personal friend and colleague with whom I have worked closely on numerous projects, including the Citizens of America media campaign, the Ashcroft Petition to enforce the Second Amendment, and the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regular featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8boz55SoSY
Read description. The truther channels, media, and
politicians are all in on it. they are masons
****stein….
I rest my case.
~ Occams
Let them dream..They’ll go as far as the sane people will allow them to go then who knows;they may find themselves in a situation when traitors to the Constitution have to pay according to it…
Let them push their bull shit…
Almost all mass shootings are completely fake staged hoax events in which nobody died. Jim Fetzer proves it.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that “Where rights (liberty) secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them.” (Miranda v Arizona) What’s that mean? Well, it means that in order to lawfully effect a Right/Liberty protected by our Constitution (nullify it, limit it, license it or restrict it) the powers that be (state or federal) are required to comply with the Constitution’s Article V Amendment process before they expediently make an end-run around our Constitution to take away (or “infringe” upon) your Right of self defense protected by the Second Amendment.
A few elected bozos and the stroke of an executive’s pen doesn’t cut it my friends. Telling you they have the “authority” to by-pass the Constitution by passing some goofy law because ‘they’ voted on it is what’s known as acting under “the color of law.” The color of law is defined as the actions of an ‘official’, be it law enforcement or legislative, purported to be in the conduct of their official duties when, in fact, they have no lawful authority to actually ‘act’ or conduct themselves. An example might be law enforcement making arrests of peaceful protestors or phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue. Another example would be a legislature passing laws effecting areas where they have no lawful authority to legislate.
“Shall not be infringed” means that if they want to “infringe” and expand the government’s authority to nullify, limit, license or restrict that doesn’t exist, they must go through the Article V Amendment process in order to ‘acquire’ the lawful authority to legislate limits, licenses or to nullify your Rights. If they have no authority to pass such a law or ordinance (haven’t complied with the the lawful Amendment process) then the aforementioned Supreme Court stated in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama that the individuals should “engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Without said lawful Amendment the Supreme Court’s Marbury vs Madison comes into play: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
If the Supreme Court’s declarations mean nothing, Hamilton made clear in Federalist 78 that “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Jefferson said much the same thing in 1798 when he said “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” The Supremacy Clause (Article 6 clause 2) codifies this very principle; that any law made by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, is no law at all.
You can certainly choose to allow a government, acting unlawfully, to strip you of your Rights like they were a cheap prom dress or you can/should become a bit more literate. If politicians, judges and law enforcement don’t care to comply with our Constitution (the ‘highest’ law of the land) which they’ve sworn an Oath to, then the People shouldn’t worry about complying with their ‘gun laws’.
Laws that strip citizens under the age of 21 of their right to have long arms as specified by the Militia Laws of the US and several of the States are illegal in that they deprive the young of their right to participate in the Militia.
Comments are closed.
If you enjoy this site, please consider a donation. As a token of our appreciation, access to nearly 3000 preparedness and survival .PDF files will be available for FULL download!
WE WILL NOT DISARM.
Research & References of WE WILL NOT DISARM.|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source
0 Comments