The NRA’s
foundation sits on quicksand
Barry Bright
Jan. 16, 2008
Someone
or their website made me aware of a very telling quote the other day, about
the organization “Liberal” freaks love to hate, and the
newswhores love to whine about.
Yeah, that ‘special interest group,' the National Rifle
Association, that represents millions of gun owners, and of course the gun
industry, whose only combined purpose is to kill little children on inner
city streets or with handguns hidden in nightstands.
That’s pretty funny, since if one really looks at their
recent record,
and a quote by one of their own officers, a different conclusion might be
reached:
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable,
enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”
- NRA Vice President Franklin L. Orth
As if that admission isn’t damning enough, they sent out an email
this week in belated support of the plaintiff against Washington D.C., a
case they originally opposed.
The
U.S. Supreme Court may sometime this year decide, probably not once and
for all, and maybe for the evil ones, whether or not our ‘right to keep and
bear arms,” is an individual right, or
how ‘individual’ whatever clique of authoritarians are in charge at the
moment decide it might be.
Here’s how the NRA describes their ‘position’:
“The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The
Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding
citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing
this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is
unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these
types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to
criminal attack.”
Now that sounds all cozy for the politically correct duck hunters,
unless the powers who want to always be decide to outlaw hunting web-footed
muck eaters because they’re ‘endangered’ or the noise is disturbing the
worms or the funding for post-traumatized retrievers runs out. It might even
sound good in the nearly fifty states that offers ‘shall issue’ permission
to defend oneself.
But if one looks at history and the reason the Founders wrote the
Second Amendment, it’s a position built on quicksand in a bathtub with the
fruit bars and traitors who write our laws standing by with the drain plug
chain in their hands.
In several cities and a few states right now if you use an
‘illegal’ handgun to save yourself, a loved one or a friend from attack or
just your property from thievery you are ‘unlawful.’
In fact after the
idiotic Brits surrendered their guns and thus their remaining Liberties
a few years back their evil “Liberal” government passed another law
demanding that their sheeple endure what ever criminal attack is at hand
until the bobbies arrive. One farmer found out he didn’t have a ‘right’ to
defend his own home and spent more time in prison than the burglar.
All this makes one wonder about a few things:
When the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were shooting Nazis, was that a
‘lawful purpose?’
When the
Branch
Davidians shot back at the BATF Nazis, what few of them did, was that a
‘lawful purpose?’
When the Canadians refused to go along with their commie
government’s gun registration scheme they were breaking the ‘law.’
When the militia on April 19, 1775 stood at Concord Bridge and on
the Lexington Commons they were breaking British law. That's what the Brits
should have done a few years back, to the “Liberal” freaks who told them
they had ‘no right to self defense.’
The ‘unlawful’ use of small arms, weapons, was why the Second
Amendment was written. It wasn’t, and isn’t, for shooting ducks or the
common burglar. Those are incidental to the right, our most basic right, to
kill the bastards when they go too far.
One wonders if the Supreme Court is capable of issuing a ruling
similar to this one:
The
right of a citizen to bear arms,
in
lawful defense
of
himself
or
the State,
is absolute.
He does not
derive it
from the State
government.
It is one of the high powers" delegated
directly
to the citizen, and `is
excepted out
of the general
powers of government.'
A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair
it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
- Cockrum v.
State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
Apparently our traitorous lawmakers have been ignoring that one for
many years. What if the SCOTUS throws this political football back at the
lower courts and some black-robed “Liberal” shyster gets to issue his evil?
There is
no limit to their evil,
or their insanity. A few of the Brits are
coming to realize this truth. If we do not get in their face sometime in
the near future and refuse, with force, to put up with their garbage any
longer they will rule every aspect of our lives and there will no action we
can take without seeking some form of ‘permission’ from them.
The ‘them’ includes
the Republicrats as well. Their actions in our ‘post 9/11’ Amerika prove
them to be little better than the other wing of our socialist government.
When we refuse to register or turn in our guns to the demagogues in
our government we’ll be breaking ‘the law,’ and using our weapons for an
‘unlawful purpose.’
Too many people in the NRA leadership obviously don’t get it. Or
maybe some of them don't want to get it. Our enemies have infiltrated most
every organization in this country, why not the NRA?
Will they ‘get it’ when it matters? Or will they tell us to
‘comply’ with the law when the only ‘lawful purpose’ remaining is to turn
them in? Will they then turn out the lights at their headquarters and go
home to live in slavery?
What are their plans for such a time? Do they have any politically
correct answers for such an occasion? Do they have the courage to make them
public? Ask
them. I
already have and
got no
real answer.
One thing is for certain, if there is no answer to that ultimate
question, there’s no point to having an NRA, unless all one wants to do is
kiss “Liberal” ass and shoot ducks.
Blacksburg
Willowtown Photography Home