|
The Truth
about the Second Amendment.
by The Conservative
Republican
10/22/09
The Second Amendment is the
instrument that guarantees the peace, freedom and security of the United
States of America. Guns are among other things a tool to keep the peace,
to defend our freedoms, to enforce the law, and to gain the upper hand
for good in bad situations.
The fear that a law abiding
citizen might be carrying a gun keeps robbers, rapists, bullies, and
other evil people from committing their crimes. Law abiding citizens who
carry guns, keep law and order, by the virtue of their act of carrying a
gun. Moreover, the people’s right to keep and bear arms is an assurance
that Government can never become a tyranny; rather government must
remain subject to the people.
In fact as long as
Government fears the ramifications of its actions against the citizens,
Government will be forced to respect the citizens and abide by their
will. The second amendment is one of the checks and balances the
founding fathers installed in the founding documents to ensure that the
Government remains of the people, by the people, and for the people.
As we turn away from God,
and remove Him from every facet of our Government, our Schools, and our
Lives we are becoming more and more ungodly in our values. Thus, ungodly
values lay the groundwork for a soft tyranny to form within Government,
as more and more elected officials who do not have a personal
relationship with, do not honor, and even hate God, are elected into
office (Power).
Our freedoms have been
eroded for decades under the guise of the rule of law, public safety and
security, and the common good; ironically these restrictions and
confiscations of our rights have had the reverse effect, making us less
safe, less secure, making the law less effective. Now in the name of the
rule of law, we allow Government to enact laws that make us all
criminals for doing what is guaranteed to us as free men.
When the Government no
longer fears the citizens, it soon becomes a hard tyranny, limiting the
powers of the people until soon the people have no recourse against the
Government. Once the citizens are subject to the Government, they are no
longer free. In fact this is where we are now; the United States of
America is in the last phase of becoming a Hard Tyranny.
The real reason that
liberals are apposed to guns is that it is a barrier to the full
exercise of their wanton power grab. Liberals fear guns because guns
instill fear in liberalism. It will never be enough to give a little
here or, or take a little there, with regards to our rights and
privileges, Liberals want them all. If they say they don’t, then they
are lying!
They will not be satisfied
until they have destroyed the Constitution, and the United States no
longer exists. Liberals have a lust for power, and they hate everyone
and everything that stands in there way. This is why any real
conservative becomes a target of the liberals in an attempt to destroy
them.
This is why liberals hate
guns, they cannot take complete power as long as citizens keep and bear
arms. I am for the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms by everyone
with no Government interference or control at all. This is the only real
way to guarantee our freedoms.
“When you are forced to
shoot, Shoot to live!”
– The Conservative Republican
Consider this
scenario that is being passed around the internet:
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump
outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear,
you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your
house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down
beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the
chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you
make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to
strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to
the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the
front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call
police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were
outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so
stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never
registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second
burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal
Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you
not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to
manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only
ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the
lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric
vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their
friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them.
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both
"victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline
says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have
been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up, then the international media. The
surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief
is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes
reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past
and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort
in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your
neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney
uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few
months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your
lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger
at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a
picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the
jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth,
Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April,
2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's
own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols
Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to
minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only
to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing
to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later
laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by
private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation
began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael
Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the
streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were
dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun
control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of
all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a
rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a
teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all
gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a
real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media
gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all
handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of
the few side arms still owned by private citizens. During the years in
which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights,
the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be
seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to
people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer
considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers
or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed,
after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We
cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's
neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people
were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the
consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of
his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens
who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local
authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year
prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd
taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the
authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and
licensed. Kind of like cars, Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." --Samuel
Adams
If you think this is important, please show
this to everyone you know. You had better wake
up, because your new president is going to do this very same thing over
here if he can get it done. And there are ignorant people in congress
and on the street that will go right along with him.
|
The Conservative Republican
