SUBHEAD: A free people should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence.
By Mac Slavo on 24 January 2013 for SHTF Plan -
(http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/intent-a-free-people-should-have-sufficient-arms-and-ammunition-to-maintain-a-status-of-independence-from-any-who-might-attempt-to-abuse-them_01242013)
Image above: "Nation Makers" by Howard Pyle, the legendary local artist, part of the collection at the Brandywine River Museum. This is Pyle's imagined vision of Gen. George Washington leading armed militia into battle. From (http://www.unionvilletimes.com/?p=3403).
But those who support dismantling our rights under the U.S. Constitution rarely cite our Founders’ reasoning for this fundamental law of the land – whether due to ignorance or because it doesn’t play into their ideologies of an all-knowing, benevolent centralized government.
The following compendium of quotes from our Founders are so clear and succinct that even the most outspoken of gun grabbers would find it impossible to argue the original intent of this essential Constitutional Amendment.
Via Infowars:
Video above ":Founding Fathers Battle Gun Grabbers From the Grave". From (http://youtu.be/Yx4xjxmPwQo)
By Mac Slavo on 24 January 2013 for SHTF Plan -
(http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/intent-a-free-people-should-have-sufficient-arms-and-ammunition-to-maintain-a-status-of-independence-from-any-who-might-attempt-to-abuse-them_01242013)
Image above: "Nation Makers" by Howard Pyle, the legendary local artist, part of the collection at the Brandywine River Museum. This is Pyle's imagined vision of Gen. George Washington leading armed militia into battle. From (http://www.unionvilletimes.com/?p=3403).
“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.”We’ve all heard the argument from those who would disarm America that the Second Amendment is an archaic law that should be repealed, or at the very least re-written. They say that you should turn in your ‘militarized assault’ firearms because they are not necessary for sporting, hunting or personal defense. They tell us that the protections afforded by our right to bear arms are ambiguous and unnecessary in our modern-day society.
– George Washington
But those who support dismantling our rights under the U.S. Constitution rarely cite our Founders’ reasoning for this fundamental law of the land – whether due to ignorance or because it doesn’t play into their ideologies of an all-knowing, benevolent centralized government.
The following compendium of quotes from our Founders are so clear and succinct that even the most outspoken of gun grabbers would find it impossible to argue the original intent of this essential Constitutional Amendment.
Via Infowars:
“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
– James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?”
– Patrick Henry
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
– George Washington
Those who would supplant our right to bear arms – the one Amendment that makes it possible to ensure the authority of all the others – are no different than dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people – all of whom had no means of defending themselves when the henchmen of tyranny kicked in their doors.
Video above ":Founding Fathers Battle Gun Grabbers From the Grave". From (http://youtu.be/Yx4xjxmPwQo)
2 comments :
I don't understand the point of this debate. It seems like a dead horse. Right now only really large and powerful countries have the military power to stand up to the US government. How could ordinary people, even banded together, have "sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence"? I don't see how this small distinction makes a difference. Can anybody clue me in? =)
I wouldn't say this is a debate exactly. It appears to me to be an argument (attempt to persuade someone of something).
In this case using the founding fathers own words as evidence that a fundamental principle of individual rights was that that an enemy (including our own government) should not easily use intimidation or force to reduce individual freedom.
I do believe that historically dictatorial governments do not cherish an armed civilian population.
I also believe that Americans have used arms to decimate indigenous populations as individuals, and worse, as a function of government.
We have instilled in our population the notion that a gun can solve any social problem. That's a pathetic view of our humanity.
Our Department of Homeland Security is beefing up its ability to control and contain American citizens.
See
http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2012/03/feds-hunkering-down-upheaval.html
http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2012/09/dhs-to-rescue.html
http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-pivot-point.html
Disarming the American people while continuing a monstrously sized military (with nowhere to go but home) is bad juju.
IB Publisher
Post a Comment