Avatar of David

Upholding The Second Amendment

0 rating, 0 votes0 rating, 0 votes (0 rating, 0 votes, rated)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...

January 17, 2013 in Resistance

by

*This article is dedicated to “Our Republic” and to Mark Kessler Chief of Police and author of the ordinance.

Below is a presentation intended for local government with respect to The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance.

 

I wish to thank everyone for being here tonight, and from viewing the recent discussions of previous town hall meetings.  This one that I am about to present is a deviation from all of them.  It would certainly leave most people with the impression that this is something that you will only find in an historical documentary from an audience standpoint, but quite the contrary, I believe that we are experiencing an historical moment which is comparable when cities and towns during the days of abolition stood up and said “No.” “No” to those who wished to apprehend runaway slaves, and therefore saying “No” in the spirit of a free people.

And I will be discussing here tonight by how this proposal “The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance” is saying “No” we will not stand for the idea of “Guilty until proven innocent” and allowing for the infringement of the Second Amendment by merely allowing a few to decide what or how  a citizenry can use a firearm to defend themselves with, and I will get into the reason at the very end as to why we should never allow this in particular.

First I will begin with the discussion of the official cover story of Sandy Hook which is also being used as a basis to decide how a citizenry can defend itself.  Quite simply the new assault weapons ban would ultimately demand all owners of firearms to be fingerprinted like suspected criminals, ban many types of firearms and reduce magazine capacity.  Clearly the criminals would be quite happy with that idea since they would look at law abiding citizens to be easy victims to target. I would like to refer to an article from Infowars titled “Satire:  Mexican Drug Cartels Thank Obama For Gun Control Push“.  Of course, it is not a real letter, but the spirit of it is very true and very real, and in it, it states:

“…As you know, we are making inroads on US soil.  We’ve set up significant operations in the Southwest, one area where armed citizens can be a bit of trouble to us, especially if they own land we cross or are adjacent to.

We view their disarming with a positive attitude.  I would say your basic gun-grabbing strategy is primarily aimed at the American West.  The border states need to be cleaned out.  The fewer people there who have guns (particularly those with high-capacity clips), the easier it is for us.

But since our drug trafficking lines take in most of America, wherever citizens aren’t armed we’re generally in better shape…”

So, basically in other words, a well armed citizenry especially possessing assault rifles with high capacity clips would present a problem for the drug cartels and the gangs that would subcontract for them.

And from that I conclude is this:  “The only thing that deters a criminal is the criminal’s perception of a citizenry that can deter them.”  For example, if “Sandy Hook” actually did happen (since I already have questions regarding its authenticity) according to the official cover story,  “Would Adam Lanza dare invade an elementary school knowing that he would have been quickly met with a barrage of return gun fire from staff?”

Now, I will focus more on the merit of the official cover story.

From this report of Full Disclosure hosted by Benn Swann, he refers to the withholding of the security footage of Aurora Colorado involving James Holmes and Sandy Hook Elementary School allegedly involving, of course, Adam Lanza, plus there was a suspect being walked out of the woods and placed into the front of the police car, but this person is never mentioned in the official cover story.  Also, there is another source titled “The Sandy Hook Shooting – Fully Exposed” that provides the same statement of unreleased video footage; also, it mentions the involvement of crisis actors which begins to point to the possibility if the entire official cover story as being completely false, and no more true than acting associated with wrestling entertainment.  And also, here is another article that I came across claiming that the security footage of the incident was never released to the public unlike “The Columbine Shootings” which was released immediately.  And if you read the article there is a White House petition available at the end of it which demands the release of the Sandy Hook security footage to the public as the crime was happening since for example it is now being mandated that owners of assault rifles in New York state must register them with the State Police; in essence, the owners are guilty until proven innocent.  Well, I feel it is fair to expect those who are withholding the Sandy Hook security footage to be guilty as long as they continue to withhold it from the public.  At this point, I can only wonder what it would show:  Just Adam; perhaps others, or maybe nothing at all.

Now, the first basis has been established of why we should not uphold either any executive order or legislation that would solely use the Sandy Hook official cover story to justify regarding a citizenry as guilty until proven innocent, and therefore, the ratification of “The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance” would make it clear that we are saying “No.”

Next, I will state four main points of which I have used to justify voting against any legislation designed to limit the citizen’s ability to defend themselves that is granted in the Bill of Rights of which a fictitious letter from a drug cartel to the President was mentioned earlier in which the spirit of it is very true and very real in that a well armed citizenry presents an adverse environment to the drug dealers and gangs.

(1) The frequency of preventing crimes with firearms is greater than the frequency used to commit them.  The source to refer is produced by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz from the Journal of Criminal Law of Northwestern University School of Law in which it states that firearms are used in defense as much as 2.5 million times per year in this country; you can find this in “gunowners.org“.

(2) Crimes are lower in areas in which citizens are well armed.  To start, one can compare George Soros’ Open Society Report page 3 with the FBI’s recent crime statistics, and it turns out that Maine had substantially fewer violent crimes than Massachusetts which has stricter gun control laws with respect to the Open Society Report.  I think the FBI reported roughly 700 violent crimes for Maine compared to nearly 13,000 for Massachusetts.  From that, I think: I would prefer the lifestyle of Maine a bigger state with less crime.

(3) Violent crimes are more frequent in countries in which citizens are not well armed.  Referring to an article, violent crimes are more frequent per capita in England than the United States, and it is also illegal to own semi-automatic weapons and handguns over there; therefore, such gun control is likely to have the same effect here since there is no reason why we (The United States) would be such an exception.

(4) The major cause of unnatural death, especially in the last century, is “Democide” meaning “Death By Government“.  And for my final point not mentioned on the major networks, the “Genocide Chart” for those infamous dictators – Hitler, Stalin and Mao, the chart indicates a disarmed population associated with their genocidal campaigns; I guess: it would have been difficult for the Nazis to have exterminated six million Jews if they were well armed.

And from the presentation of Democide, I will refer to two quotes,  “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun” and “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and fearful master”.  Now what do they possibly mean?  From the first by a Chinese dictator (Mao-Tse-Tong) an armed citizenry has political power, and from the other quote by one of our nation’s founders, I believe, George Washington, Government tends to act without restraint such as the mass murder of its citizens.  And from this I conclude the following:

The sovereignty of federal, state and local governments are necessary to limit the power of any of them, and today we (referring to local government just like state government) have the power under The Bill of Rights – X Amendment to say “No” when an unconstitutional law is passed, and the reason for the Second Amendment with respect to a militia necessary for the security of a free State is that the State’s ability to defend itself from unconstitutional or tyrannical encroachments on The People rests on the citizenry; so, that is the reason why there is a need for a citizenry to be able to defend itself like the infantry, for it would be easy for a tyrannical government to impose its will upon The People if they are rendered defenseless to it.

And as I mentioned earlier from the last key point about Democide, “Death By Government“, referring to the Genocide Chart for regimes such as Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China,  certainly serves as an excellent example corroborating the concept that various types of government sovereignty within a country are necessary for a balance of power between the governed and those that govern.

And by my final basis with respect to government sovereignty, ratifying this ordinance would preserve our system of checks and balances of Our Constitutional Republic not only within a particular government (such as federal, state and local) but also between them.

My best wishes for a majority vote to pass the ordinance, thank you; you have been a terrific audience and God Bless America.


Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article:

2 responses to Upholding The Second Amendment

  1. OUTSTANDING Document David!! Kudo’s to you and Mark Kessler!!!!!

    This will be of great benefit to all Patriots and freedom Fighters!

    Thank you Sir!

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.