Posts Tagged ‘Molon Labe’

Gun ban advocates must decide if they’re willing–and able–to kill 50,000,000+

March 23, 2013

This id from Kurt Hoffman’s Examiner. Kurt is indeed one of the best writers on the internet, and AIRBORNE of course!

A new WorldNetDaily/Wenzel poll finds that only 20 percent of American gun owners would surrender their firearms if ordered to by the government (although an additional 16 percent claimed to be “unsure”–probably not the sort who would be determined enough to face the consequences of defying such an order). From WorldNetDaily:

The scientific telephone survey was conducted March 7-12 and has a margin of error of 2.92 percentage points.

“Among gun owners, 64 percent said they would not relinquish their guns, while 20 percent said they would and another 16 percent of gun owners were unsure on the question,” he said.

In some respects, additional details of the poll carry few surprises. Those who identify themselves as “conservative” are far less likely to surrender their guns than those who call themselves “liberal,” Republicans are less likely to submit to disarmament than Democrats, men less likely than women, whites less so than other ethnic groups, and southerners are less likely than inhabitants of other regions.

But if we step back away from the minutiae of the demographic breakdown, we have somewhere between 64 and 80 percent who will not comply with any confiscatory gun bans. And make no mistake, the specter of confiscatory bans is not “paranoid, right-wing delusion,” as can be seen be seen in the obscenely misnamed “SAFE Act,” in New York, an active program of confiscation of registered firearms in California, and proposals for similar abominations at the federal level:

From Senator Feinstein’s early plans for her “assault weapon” ban, (and remember, that’s “just the beginning”), to the Obama administration’s own National Institute of Justice declaring that “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans cannot accomplish anything without confiscation, to Rep. Eliot Engel‘s (D-NY) perennial confiscatory ban of “armor piercing” handguns, the gun prohibitionist lobby very clearly considers confiscation to be a realistic goal, and not just an abstract fantasy for the distant future.

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry–and armed–Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that’s about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

The WND article quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has sponsored a bill that would ban certain types of weapons, said in Congress last week, “We cannot allow the carnage … to continue.”

She has never seen wholesale “carnage,” but if she really wants a good look, an attempt to disarm the American citizenry would get her a ringside seat for a level of carnage America hasn’t seen since the 1860s–except that there are no ringside seats for aspiring tyrants. She will be in the ring.

Who is going to disarm us? Who is going to kill us, in order to make that possible? Here’s something to think about before you answer. There are not enough jackbooted thugs to make it happen. There are not even enough grave diggers to bury the JBTs who might try. We were ready to rumble as three percent of America’s gun owners. At 20 or more times that, there won’t be enough targets to go around.

Your move, statists. Molon Labe.

SOURCE

Oathkeeper 151: Tells it like it is. No Nuremberg defense allowed!

January 17, 2013

In this video, Oathkeeper151, a New Jersey Police Officer who has been a member of Oath Keepers since 2009, makes it clear that he will not obey orders that violate the Bill of Rights. In particular, he says he will not be used as a tool of oppression against the American people who resist and refuse to comply with infringement on their right to bear arms, such as legislation or executive orders that decree they must register, get finger printed and photographed, like a criminal.

He asks his fellow officers what they are going to do if that happens. Will they keep their oaths? Here is his own description of his video:

In this video I ask my fellow Police Officers what they would do, if they were given an unlawful order. I also touch on the Assault Weapons Ban introduced by Senator Feinstein, and how this bill has the potential of putting us Police Officers in a very bad/even fatal predicament.

I spoke to him on the phone and he made it clear that he is not afraid to take this public stand because this is what needs to happen.  He says the peace officers across America need to stand up and let the people know that they are on the side of the Bill of Rights, and that they will protect the rights of the people. In one of the comments on his video, another officer had this to say:

I’ll lay my badge down, stop doing what I love if someone tries to make me do something immoral or unconstitutional. Good video, take care

Oathkeeper151 agrees. He told me that if there were door to door raids for guns against Americans who refused to comply with registration or bans, he would either defend the people with his badge on, stepping between them and the oath breakers doing the raids, or he would lay his badge down on the table and then go join the people in resisting. He loves his work as a police officer, but his oath, and his responsibility to protect the people of his community, is more important than his job. His oath comes first. The rights of the people come first…. and he is not alone.

 

Molon Labe,

Stewart Rhodes

Founder of Oath Keepers

 

Supreme Court to Hear McDonald v. Chicago — Monumental Second Amendment Case

October 1, 2009

Yesterday when I first read about this I was a bit stunned. It took seemingly forever to get any real Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. This has me a bit frightened for my fellow Americans. The Court showed it’s true colors by making ex post facto law the law of the land earlier this year via the Lautenberg abomination. They made it constitutional to change the rules after the game has been played. Having a sexist that practices mysandry from the bench now on the Court does not bode well at all. As well as the general tendency to vote on laws based in political correctness rather then what is clearly written in the Constitution. Molon Labe anyone..?

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the City of Chicago’s ban on handguns, a case that will test the reach of the Second Amendment.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that: “The Second protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

That ruling shattered years of anti-gun revisionist history and misinformation that claimed the Second Amendment protected a “collective” right of the states to maintain something like the National Guard.

Heller, though, was limited in scope only to Washington, D.C., a federal enclave.  The Court did not address the issue of whether states or localities can prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, or if the Second Amendment was “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court will consider this question in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, a suit filed immediately after the Heller decision.  A lower court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the city, setting the stage for Supreme Court consideration.

The spotlight is sure to focus brightly on new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  In a case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in January, 2009, Judge Sotomayor ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states.

When questioned during her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor argued that she was only following Supreme Court precedent, to which she was bound.  Well, now that she is on the Supreme Court, her hands are no longer tied.

Will she now rule that the Second Amendment should not, unlike many other rights in the Bill of Rights, be incorporated to the states through the Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Also during her confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor was asked a straightforward question by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

“Do you believe,” the Senator asked, “that I personally have a right to self-defense?”

This did not seem to be a particularly difficult question.  Sen. Coburn didn’t even ask about defending himself with a firearm.  He only asked if Americans have a basic right to self-protection.  Her answer?  “That’s sort of an abstract question.”

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a less abstract question.  The right to keep and bear arms is afforded special protection in the Constitution precisely because it is a fundamental right.

It is a right that predates the Constitution because the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights not to create new rights, but to protect old ones — our “unalienable” rights — among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John Dickison, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Pennsylvania, explained an unalienable right this way: it is something “Which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”

And so, if our right to life is a natural right, then the right to self-protection necessarily follows from it.  And self-protection, be it protection from individual criminals or a criminal government, was, to the Founders, synonymous with the right to bear arms.

Interestingly, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in great part specifically to protect the gun rights of freed slaves.  After the Civil War, many states passed laws to disarm blacks who were former slaves, such as Mississippi’s post-war law: No freedman “shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition.”

Proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment argued that the amendment was necessary, in part, to stop the disarming of the freedmen — lest they be little better off than before emancipation.

One hundred years later, in the 1960s, the Deacons for Defense armed themselves and often successfully defended themselves in areas where civil rights were still not adequately protected and blacks were targets of violence.

If the right to keep and bear arms is found not to be a “fundamental” right, people in places like Chicago and New York City will find themselves on a 21st century plantation, treated more like subjects than citizens.

SOURCE

Then from those stalwarts that sold out the people of the United States on GCA 68, and Lautenberg we have this.

Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court’s decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.

“The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along — that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.

In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.

However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don’t prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.

“It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “It’s time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home.”

SOURCE


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 185 other followers

%d bloggers like this: