PDA

View Full Version : There can be no compromise on our constitutional right to bear arms




Brian4Liberty
10-07-2017, 10:53 PM
There can be no compromise on our constitutional right to bear arms (http://bangordailynews.com/2017/10/05/opinion/there-can-be-no-compromise-on-our-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms/)
By Eric Brakey • October 5, 2017


Well, that didn’t take long.

Mere hours after the Las Vegas massacre — a horrible act of pure evil that claimed the lives of 59 of our fellow Americans — political and media elites were already out in full force, blaming the attack on regular Americans who cherish our Second Amendment rights.

Social media swelled with left-wing vitriol, while the mainstream media filled with preachy do-gooders blaming the victims and calling for an end to our rights. One CBS vice president asserted that those killed in Vegas didn’t deserve our sympathy because “country music fans are often Republican gun toters.” Even Hillary Clinton popped in, using the tragedy to criticize common-sense legislation in Congress to legalize hearing protection devices.

And we wonder why Americans feel so divided.

As a lawmaker and candidate for the U.S. Senate, I recognize the need for compromise and understanding. I also take seriously the oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution.” There are many policy areas appropriate for elected leaders to compromise, but their oath to defend the essential cornerstones of our free society — the constitutional liberties of the American people, including our Second Amendment — is not an area where we should ever tolerate compromise.

As the communist ruler Mao Zedong (infamously responsible for the deaths of 45 million of his own people) wrote, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” His dark observation explains why, throughout history, every would-be ruler’s first act is disarming those he seeks to rule.

Throughout history, humanity had known one power structure: authoritarianism. Kings did as they saw fit, and their subjects accepted that or faced the consequences. The king would never allow his subjects to own firearms. Only his military and hand-picked elites could be trusted with such power. How would the king rule a people who could stand up for themselves? How could he take the fruits of their labor? How could he dictate their religion? How could the king ensure obedience?

Rejecting the rule of kings, our Founding Fathers committed our new nation to a brilliant and radical experiment that turned this cruel pyramid on its head. Our American experiment asserts that “We the People” are better off when power is entrusted into the hands of common citizens, not the rule of kings.

In America, many constitutional rights and responsibilities rest with common citizens, including our rights to vote, speak and pray. But our founding generation knew that declaring these rights meant little if we could not defend them. So, in our Constitution, they enshrined one essential liberty necessary to defend all others: the right to keep and bear arms to protect oneself and one’s community.

To the founders, a “well regulated Militia” didn’t mean soldiers commanded by a government. The militia meant common citizens who are disciplined and proficient, and our founders called for every willing household to have weapons and to be trained in their use should the worst occur.

In America, power and liberty rest with the people. Should a tyrant ever attempt to seize that power from us, the Second Amendment ensures the little guy has the ability to stand up for himself. Without that right, all other American rights are ultimately at risk.

So, every time political elites feed us the story that we little guys must surrender this right because we cannot be trusted, we must remember that the Second Amendment is the right that defends all others. We must hold firm and not allow our rights to be trampled.

We must also remember to arm ourselves with respect, kindness and fact. While political and media elites politicize tragedies and stoop to fear-mongering, name-calling and hyperbole to advance their agendas, we must do better. Many of our friends and neighbors are justifiably scared, but they are good people. While the elites would prey on their fears to seize our freedoms, it is up to those of us who value liberty to win the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens with reason, compassion and understanding.

And win we must. For to lose the right that defends all others is to watch all American liberty be lost.

Eric Brakey is a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. He currently represents District 20 in the Maine Senate.
...
More: http://bangordailynews.com/2017/10/05/opinion/there-can-be-no-compromise-on-our-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms/

goldenequity
10-08-2017, 07:28 AM
Seems fair to me. I want one. :D


Chris Matthews: "Republican Gun ‘Fanatics’ Believe Everyone Has a Right to Own Tanks"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j6ZR5l5X1M

ChristianAnarchist
10-08-2017, 08:39 AM
Seems fair to me. I want one. :D


Chris Matthews: "Republican Gun ‘Fanatics’ Believe Everyone Has a Right to Own Tanks"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j6ZR5l5X1M

Of course you do. You can also own fighter planes (many do own P-51's, Bearcats, and even jets). Why would someone say you can't own them?

timosman
10-08-2017, 09:07 AM
What are they trying to distract us from?:confused:

A Son of Liberty
10-08-2017, 09:53 AM
"Constitutional right".

:lol:

Not worth the paper it's written on, and no self-respecting individualist would ever reference a "constitutional right".


There is no such thing as a "constitutional right". There are constitutional "privileges"... certainly no such thing as a constitutional right.

Brian4Liberty
10-08-2017, 10:27 AM
What are they trying to distract us from?:confused:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514783-Imran-Awan-Still-Has-A-Copy-Of-Congressional-Data-Linked-To-Wasserman-Schultz

DamianTV
10-08-2017, 02:20 PM
https://youtu.be/FOwy9OWfnAM

CaptUSA
10-08-2017, 07:03 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEsE6BNbTgk

ChristianAnarchist
10-08-2017, 08:05 PM
"Constitutional right".

:lol:

Not worth the paper it's written on, and no self-respecting individualist would ever reference a "constitutional right".


There is no such thing as a "constitutional right". There are constitutional "privileges"... certainly no such thing as a constitutional right.

Correct. The ONLY legitimate source that rights can come from is an authority that's higher than man. Whoever "created" us is the only one who could "author" our rights...

AZJoe
10-09-2017, 01:18 PM
Why there can be no compromise on the right to bear arms:

"Genocide is a human rights violation that dwarves all other crimes. If we are to be serious—and not merely sanctimonious—about human rights, then we must be serious about eradicating genocide. Jay Simpkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice have shown that a well-armed population which is prepared to resist is much less likely to be murdered by its government than is a disarmed population. If the people of the world were better armed, many fewer people would be the victims of genocide." - David B. Kopel, Book Review: Lethal Laws. by Jay Simpkin, Aaron Zelman, & Alan M. Rice, Jews for The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc., 2872 South Wentworth Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207, (414) 769-0760, 15 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 355, 397-398 (1995)

"In the twentieth century, the United States government forced 100,000 United States citizens into concentration camps. In 1941, American citizens of Japanese descent were herded into concentration camps run by the United States government. Like the victims of other mass deportations, these Americans were allowed to retain only the property they could carry with them. Everything else—including family businesses built up over generations—had to be sold immediately at fire-sale prices or abandoned. The camps were “ringed with barbed wire fences and guard towers.” During the war, the federal government pushed Central and South American governments to round up persons of Japanese ancestry in those nations and have them shipped to the U.S. concentration camps. ... the incarceration of Japanese-Americans continued long after any plausible national security justification had vanished. ... what if the war had gone differently? What if a frustrated, angry America, continuing to lose a war in the Pacific, had been tempted to take revenge on the “enemy” that was, in the concentration camps, a safe target. Would killing all the Japanese be a potential policy option? In 1944, by which time America’s eventual victory in the war seemed assured, the Gallup Poll asked Americans, “What do you think we should do with Japan, as a country, after the war?” Thirteen percent of Americans chose the response “Kill all Japanese people.” - David B. Kopel, commenting on whether a tyrannical or genocidal government could occur in America in Book Review: Lethal Laws. by Jay Simpkin, Aaron Zelman, & Alan M. Rice, Jews for The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc., 2872 South Wentworth Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207, (414) 769-0760, 15 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 355, 381-382 (1995) citing Gallup Poll released Dec. 20, 1944, question 2, in 1 The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971, at 477 (1972).

[G]enocide has cost the lives of more innocents this century than all the soldiers killed on all sides in all the world’s wars in the same period.... [Genocide] has overtaken countries both rich and poor, urban and agrarian. Most of the people who were murdered by their own governments in this century would undoubtedly have said, before the fact, that their becoming the victims of any such wholesale mass-atrocities was a simply unthinkable eventuality. - Don B. Kates, Jr. and Daniel D. Polsby, Of Genocide and Disarmament, 86 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 247, 255, 250 (1995).

shakey1
10-09-2017, 03:04 PM
... & they just keep hammering away at every opportunity (shooting).

https://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/640/Misc/Experts-Agree-Gun-Control.jpg