We Must Become Second Amendment Zealots If We Are To Survive.

Sierra Times ^ | 27 April 2003 | Michael Gaddy

[45Auto]

If you wonder at my use of the word "zealot" in the title, I would explain that by saying I feel that the majority of the so-called "defenders and supporters" of the second amendment have long since sold their souls to the powers of government, and those of us who believe it holds the key to freedom, must from this point on be zealots in its defense.

We must face the fact that no one connected to government will be able to prevent the usurpation of our right to own arms sufficient to protect our homes and families. Wake up folks! Government has been involved in a well-planned, incremental approach to the disarming of the citizens of this country for decades.

Billions of dollars and man-hours have been spent through groups such as the National Rifle Association over the past 80 years, lobbying those in government to protect our rights as granted by our creator and enumerated in the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. And what has it bought us?

1934-National Firearms Act

1938-Federal Firearms Act

1968- 68' Gun Control Act

1972-BATF expanded to deal with firearms

1986-Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990-Crime Control Act

1994-Brady Bill

1994-Assault Weapons Ban

1998-National Instant Check System

No matter how sweet the prose of the names of these pieces of legislation or how they inflame the passions of the ignorant socialist masses, the fact remains; they are all unconstitutional - and deadly to our freedom.

One of the real problems we face as Second Amendment "zealots," is the fact that the largest of our right to keep and bear arms "defenders", the NRA, has supported a great majority of the above listed government infringements on our firearms rights. Almost two years ago I wrote of this betrayal. NRA: Pro Second or Government Lapdogs?

We must face the fact that we are wasting resources and time lobbying those in government. They will never turn on the god they worship. Government is the source of their power and wealth. Government, as it becomes more and more corrupt, requires the people not have the means to resist that corruption. Thus, the gradual encroachment on our ability to possess the type weapons necessary to remain free.

We see our military issuing - what one could only assume to be fully automatic AK-47's - to people they do not even know in Iraq, but we here in the US of A are forbidden to own similar rifles. We may have "semi-automatics", but not if they have a bayonet lug or high capacity magazine. This fact speaks volumes. Does an unknown Iraqi policeman have more rights to freedom than we?

If we are so naïve as to place our hopes for adherence to constitutional principles in the republican or democratic party, we should just turn in our firearms now and submit to the tyranny that follows without wasting any more time or resources. How long will it take before we all realize they are players for the government, not the people, and are only distinguishable when they switch their "home and away" uniforms?

Can the facts be painted any more vividly than the White House's support for the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? Just take a look at those who are singing the praises of the Bush Administration. When those who call themselves "conservative" are lauded by the likes of Feinstein and Schumer, its time to seek high ground. Both of these fine representatives of Marxism have said legislation will be introduced to make the AWB permanent and to close the loophole on importation of high capacity magazines. And Bush is now on record in support of this legislation.

Of course, Feinstein must be on the administrations short list of favorites, what with the 600 million dollar government contract to her hubby's business.

In the 2004 Presidential Election, we as Second Amendment zealots are going to be faced with two candidates who support our disarmament. This is the goal of government. Vote for whomever you choose. You still get that which they want you to have.

Republican faithful will preach of how much worse off we will be with the democrat who would disarm us, and besides, there are so many other things that need to be accomplished that only a republican administration can handle. We have found that to include the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II and a run amuck Department of Homeland Security. How much more of this style government can we tolerate and still call ourselves a free people?

Democrats will continue with their Marxist agenda. And, God forbid, should there be another act of terrorism in this country, the cowards will gladly surrender the wisp of freedom we have left if mother government will only let them hide behind her apron.

Trying to secure our second amendment rights through the Congress will be a further effort in futility. We are all familiar with their machinations, and besides, haven't they brought us to the place we are now?

Conclusion

Statistics tell us there are approximately 88 million of us gun owners in this country. Unfortunately, only half of that number might qualify as gun zealots. There are those who place politics above the guarantees of Creator and Constitution. There are those who believe as long as they can participate in their little competitions, whether it be shooting make believe outlaws, clay pigeons or metal gongs, that no one needs an assault rifle. There are those who have been perverted totally out of phase to the original intent of the second amendment and its guarantee against tyranny.

History has been replaced with Social Studies in our public school gulags. A look at a public school textbook for middle school reveals no mention of firearms in the discussion of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is only discussed in the realm of militias and how they were used in the revolution. It further states that because we have organizations like the National Guard there is no need for private possession of firearms!

It is my belief it is now time to either fish or cut bait. The lines have been drawn. We must present a united front. 40+ million Second Amendment zealots could present quite a problem to anyone seeking the presidency, or any other political office. But that will not be accomplished if we continue on the path we have been on for the past 50+ years. Political parties, the NRA and compromise on our God given imperatives are not working. Over 2,000 gun control laws on the books should tell us something. People who write and support gun laws either don't understand the Constitution, hate our guts, or both. You will not secure freedom by trying to appease them.

We have been blessed with one man in this nation who understands the concepts of liberty and freedom and fights for them daily. We Second Amendment zealots must unite behind this man of whom it has been said: "He personifies the Founding Fathers' conception of the citizen-statesman. He made it clear from the start that his principles would never be compromised, and they never were." Another added: "There are few people in public life who through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. He is one of those few."

I speak of none other than Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District of Texas. Former Treasury Secretary William Simon, put it best when he said: "Dr. Paul is the one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

The ball is now in our court. We can continue on the path we have been on, supporting political parties, sending our hard earned dollars to organizations that compromise on every gun control issue, and supporting those in office who promise anything to obtain that office and then sell our Constitution and their principles to the highest bidder, or we can give our solid support to a man who knows no compromise when it comes to the oath he took to "uphold and defend."

40+ million Second Amendment zealots with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer could make a difference. What say ye?

[Dane]

And if that means voting for Ron Paul as opposed to George Bush, that's the way it should go

With Ron Paul as President. sadddam and uday would still be sipping Margarita's along the Tigris.

I know, I know, Ron Paul is against the UN, and yet he sided with pro-UN and anti-Bush democrats in the US Congress about Iraq.

Whew talk about playing both sides of the fence.

[The_Pickle]

A well-regulated (governed or directed according to rule)

militia (a body of citizens organized for military service)

being necessary (logically unavoidable)

to the security (freedom from danger)

of a free State, (State in this incidence means the States that make up the U.S.)

The right (the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled)

of the people (the citizens of the United States)

to keep (to retain in one's possession or power)

and bear (to move while holding up and supporting)

arms (a means, as in a weapon, of offense or defense)

shall not (total prohibition against)

be infringed (encroach upon in any way that violates the law or the rights of another).

Sounds pretty unambiguous to me.

[Dan from Michigan]

Ron Paul voted against a ban on frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Any donation I would make for Paul will be going to someone with a better voting record.

[MineralMan]

"Statistics tell us there are approximately 88 million of us gun owners in this country. Unfortunately, only half of that number might qualify as gun zealots. "

This sentence from the Conclusion of this piece is way wrong. Half? Not nearly. Maybe 2%. Certainly less than 5%. There's the rub, for sure.

It's a mark of zealotry that one believes that they are in some sort of majority position. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One-issue RKBA voters, like the Libertarians, do not make up a large enough group to have any real influence. Sorry to say this, but you can see it clearly in Bush's restatement of his support for the continuation of the AW ban.

Influence _can_ be had, but it will come at the expense of a single-issue litmus test position. Those who have RKBA as their only issue, like the Libertarians, are doomed to be marginalized in election after election.

Another approach is needed.

[Shooter 2.5]

Yesterday, the opponents of the Minnesota CCW law blamed the NRA, Concealed Carry Reform Now and the Republican Party for their loss.

This weekend the NRA stated the Assault Weapons Law will be sunsetted. LaPierre didn't say "maybe". Why are they confident? Because the fight against the Assault Weapons Ban started at the last election and we did very good.

We are on the offense. We are getting the votes. Every time the dem party votes for more gun control or tries to stop pro-gun Bills, they lose more politicians. The forty years of the dem party and gun control is coming to an end.

[Beenliedto]

he sided with pro-UN and anti-Bush democrats in the US Congress about Iraq.

He sided with the Founders in voting against foreign entanglements.

But that's not the point.

The point is that if we intend to preserve any of what's left of the Republic, we have to send a message. And the best way to do that, IMHO, is to make the Second Amendment THE issue. 40,000,000 of us have the ability to do that.

If that muscle were ever flexed, we would not need NRA or GOA to be lobbying for us.

As a matter of fact, if we ever did that, we would strike fear into the hearts of politicians, and perhaps reduce some of the arrogance and corruption which exist at all levels of government.

[MineralMan]

"Are you involved in the county political party? Are you working in the primaries to get good people elected. Are you elected good state reps, senators, and county officials that are tomorrows congressman. That's where it starts. In my county, you don't win the primary if you are a gun grabber."

Yep. And you can bet that the "zealots" aren't doing any of those things. You've laid out how this must be done. Watch for the arguments against this sensible way of approaching the problem.

[Beenliedto]

As for Ron Paul, he voted against the ban on firearm lawsuits. He ain't perfect.

Seek the underlying reason for that vote, my friend.

[capitan_refugio]

Well spoken!

(This compliment coming from a person who owns and occasionally flys a relica 1835 Gonzalez, Texas, "Come and Take It" flag.)

[Dan from Michigan]

I saw his reason. The difference between myself and Paul is that I don't chose my support on how things OUGHT to be in a perfect world. I look at how things are, and how to ACHIEVE them.

I fight to win, and if that means cut a few corners to get to get the pro-rights results needed, so be it. The trial lawyers want to litigate gun manufacturers out of business. That needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

[Jael]

40+ million Second Amendment zealots with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer could make a difference. What say ye?

I'm in.

[Liberal Classic]

``Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.''
-- Barry M. Goldwater

[Dead Corpse]

You area liar. This slander I cannot let stand.

This is what Dr. Paul really said on the issue of Iraq.

You are beneath contempt.

[Dane]

He(Ron Paul) sided with the Founders(and anti-Iraq incursion democrats in modern America) in voting against foreign entanglements.

But that's not the point.

Uh yes that is the point, I will wait patiently(probably a period of years) for your diatribe against a "founder", Thomas Jefferson, for attacking the Barbary Pirates.

[sargon]

I voted for Bush because he had not (yet) tainted himself by attacking the Bill of Rights and limited government.

I approve of the President's military conduct with respect to the War on Terror and Iraq.

However, there are SEVERAL issues by which the President has demonstrated his enmity, or at least ignorance, towards Constitutional rights and minimal government.

Among them:

1) The ludicrous Campaign Finance Reform law which he signed.

2) The Orwellian-titled abomination known as the "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act"

3) The administration's PLEDGE to renew the semi-auto ban.

4) Socialist education spending increases. There should be no Department of Education.

So much for "one-issue malcontents", ad so much for the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, among others...

What I have a problem with is people who continually fall into the Hegelian dialectic trap, wherein more and more rights are compromised due to false alternatives, thereby continuously driving America to the left, with more socialism as the inevitable result. And always with the help of voters and politicians in BOTH major parties.

This process continues through administration after administration, whether "conservative" or "liberal"...

Well, I gave Bush a chance, and I'm very unhappy about what I see domestically so far (see above.) He's blown it with paleo-cons and libertarians, I fear. Tax cuts are nice, but I won't ignore the Constitution in '04, where Bush will apparently be "damaged goods."

And this is coming from a libertarian who switched his vote to Bush, in Florida, in 2000.

So, the semi-auto ban, far from being the only issue, will probably be the "straw which broke the camel's back" for many conservatives.

If Bush renews this, he deserves to lose in '04, and he will.

If he's courageous and takes the political heat for not renewing (hopefully Congress will help), then he will be re-elected.

[Dead Corpse]

Do the ends justify the means? Did you throw the baby out with the bath water? Want some more aphorisms?

[capitan_refugio]

We don't have a tyrannical government today. That's just hyperbole on your part. Our Federal, State, and local governments, however, have too much power and too much access into our private lives.

But your point that the Second Amendment was designed to secure the individual right to bear arms, and if necessary, take on an oppresive government, is right on the money. I have been flamed more than one time when I have stated that as a law-abiding U.S. citizen, I should have the opportunity to be armed with firearms similar to the military.

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." (Too long for a tagline!)

[k2blader]

... with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer ...

Here's why I simply don't trust Ron Paul as a "standard bearer."

[asformeandformyhouse]

relica 1835 Gonzalez, Texas, "Come and Take It" flag.

I know I'm not supposed to covet, and I hope i don't sound like a spoiled child but; "I WANT ONE!".

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Do you really want me to dig up his set of talking points that sounded like they came straight from a committee meeting between Jacques Chirac, Baghdad Bob and Hussein?

Hell, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman have a greater understanding of foreign policy than Ron Paul, and now you're flacking for his stupid mouth?