• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Discussion in 'News & Current Events (Articles Required)' started by Gunny, Jul 17, 2002.

  1. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +88
    Christian
    Married
    February 8, 2002

    An Open Letter to President George W. Bush
    JPFO SUPPORTERS: The following open letter is as much for the people of America as for the politicians to whom it's addressed. Please circulate it far and wide. If you believe it worthwhile, e-mail or fax copies to members of the Bush administration listed in the letter. Their best available contact information is included below.



    AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT GEORGE.W. BUSH
    And key members of the Bush Administration
    Subject: A DANGEROUS GAP IN U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY

    TO: President George.W. Bush ([email protected])
    Vice President Dick Cheney ([email protected])
    Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge (Fax (202) 456-6337)
    Attorney General John Ashcroft ([email protected])
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html#Form)
    Secretary of State Colin Powell ([email protected])
    National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (Fax: 202-456-9290)
    FBI Director Robert Mueller (http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm)

    FR: Aaron Zelman, Executive Director
    February 8, 2002

    An Open Letter to President George W. Bush
    JPFO SUPPORTERS: The following open letter is as much for the people of America as for the politicians to whom it's addressed. Please circulate it far and wide. If you believe it worthwhile, e-mail or fax copies to members of the Bush administration listed in the letter. Their best available contact information is included below.



    AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT GEORGE.W. BUSH
    And key members of the Bush Administration
    Subject: A DANGEROUS GAP IN U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY

    TO: President George.W. Bush ([email protected])
    Vice President Dick Cheney ([email protected])
    Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge (Fax (202) 456-6337)
    Attorney General John Ashcroft ([email protected])
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html#Form)
    Secretary of State Colin Powell ([email protected])
    National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (Fax: 202-456-9290)
    FBI Director Robert Mueller (http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm)

    FR: Aaron Zelman, Executive Director
    Dear President Bush and Administration Decision-Makers:

    I'm writing to alert you to an ominous, potentially tragic gap in your homeland security preparations. This gap could enable terrorists to escape scrutiny and operate anywhere from the largest cities to the deepest part of the American heartland where, as you know, agricultural facilities, dams, and power plants are vulnerable. The gap exists in the millions of square miles of the U.S. that simply can't be safeguarded by federal agents, even with the aid of sophisticated technology.

    Fortunately, you have at hand the one force that can most surely close this dangerous gap: The American people.

    After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Americans living on both coasts were rapidly brought into action as civil defense wardens. They watched the skies and the seas for signs of invasion. They stood guard against spies and saboteurs. Everyone from housewives to retired military men accepted the natural duty of citizens to protect their own country and communities against attack.

    Many of these civilian defenders -- who, after all, were members of the constitutional unorganized militia -- went armed in their duties. They were ready not only to report dangers that they spotted to far-off "authorities," but to personally stand up for their country's safety and security.

    Franklin Roosevelt wasn't the only twentieth-century president to value an armed citizenry. President Theodore Roosevelt, who habitually carried a handgun for self-defense (as did his niece Eleanor), said that only with extensive firearm training could America "defend ourselves, protect others, or preserve peace" in the face of "strong nations" bent on aggression.

    When John F. Kennedy was a candidate for the presidency, he declared, "Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the second amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country."

    What was true against "strong nations" is surely even more true when the enemy is small, hidden groups of men who may be living, planning, and acting out their evil in our neighborhoods. When terrorists are dispersed among us, what better answer than to disperse armed American guardians far and wide among them? If every American is a potential victim of terror, then shouldn't every American be expected and encouraged to defend self, home, family, community, and nation?

    Such widespread self defense is not only common sense, it is also effective national defense.

    There are not enough FBI agents, National Guardsmen, or police to cover every corner of America. No number of surveillance cameras or checkpoints can do that job (although they may help turn the U.S. into a police state in the vain attempt to achieve "security"). Spending $61.8 million on increased FBI surveillance capabilities, or $157.6 million to enhance that agency's computer systems, as your new budget proposes to do, can't protect Americans today, next week, or next month, and may never protect us all.

    But there are 285 million Americans who are on hand now, in every big-city neighborhood, small town, and rural crossroads. Some 80 million of them already own firearms, and millions are prepared to bring their own weapons and ammunition -- at no cost to the U.S. taxpayers -- to defend their homeland.

    The Talmud, the code of Jewish law, states: "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." That's good sense for dealing with terrorists, as well as common criminals.

    Just as a thief avoids breaking into a home where an armed-and- ready resident might be present, terrorists will surely think twice if they know a planeload or an office building full of potential victims might contain even a few who refuse to be victims -- and are armed with the means to enforce their refusal. If every hiker near a vulnerable dam, every farmer at a grain mill, every cleaning lady in a public building were a potential armed defender ... wouldn't terrorists be less inclined to see us and our institutions as easy targets -- as they so clearly did on September 11?

    President Franklin Roosevelt trusted his fellow citizens with the defense of the nation after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Now, after the after the worst attack against the U.S. in its entire history ... I must ask you, Mr. Bush and members of the administration: Why aren't you relying upon the American people?

    Mr. Bush, if you are truly want to be a truly effective defender of your nation, then you will:


    Explicitly recognize and encourage Americans' unlimited right to self-defense and defense of their own communities.

    Encourage citizens to be aware of their rights and responsibilities, particularly their second-amendment rights.

    Immediately instruct the ATF, FBI, and any other federal enforcement agencies to cease prosecuting non-violent Americans for technical violations of firearms laws or regulations.

    Permit and encourage Americans to bear arms on federal lands and in federal buildings.

    Considering that courts have repeatedly declared that government law enforcement has no obligation to protect any individual, encourage states to enable citizens to defend themselves or their communities

    Encourage those with military or police experience to share their expertise with fellow citizens in the form of firearm- training courses and other defense skills.
    I'm not talking about a draft, which would be involuntary servitude. I'm not talking about turning random, shoot-on- suspicion vigilantes loose upon the nation. I'm talking about a committed, educated defense, run by individuals at the community level and peopled by individuals, acting as free, well-trained, and informed citizens.

    I trust that your intentions are good. But as I'm sure many Americans will remind you, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Increasingly, Americans are growing uneasy about the usefulness of government surveillance of ordinary citizens on Main Street, USA.

    Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Ridge, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Powell, Mr. Mueller, Ms. Rice: If you are serious about defending our homeland, I ask you to trust those citizens. Rely on them before you rely on uniformed force or Big Brother technology.

    It won't cost you a thing. It will help keep America free. And it might prevent another disaster whose cost is beyond measuring.


    Sincerely,

    Aaron Zelman
    Executive Director, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

    * * *
    How would America be if we had a president that believed in strict Bill of Rights Enforcement? Read the novel HOPE, by by Aaron Zelman & L. Neil Smith: http://www.jpfo.org/hope.htm "How would you feel if you no longer feared your government...?"


    THE STATE vs. THE PEOPLE, by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman answers the question: IS AMERICA BECOMING A POLICE STATE? We all know that the U.S. is becoming less free. Nobody needs to tell us that. What people may not understand is the inexorable, historic, highly systematic process through which our freedom is being erased. See http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm






    Dear President Bush and Administration Decision-Makers:

    I'm writing to alert you to an ominous, potentially tragic gap in your homeland security preparations. This gap could enable terrorists to escape scrutiny and operate anywhere from the largest cities to the deepest part of the American heartland where, as you know, agricultural facilities, dams, and power plants are vulnerable. The gap exists in the millions of square miles of the U.S. that simply can't be safeguarded by federal agents, even with the aid of sophisticated technology.

    Fortunately, you have at hand the one force that can most surely close this dangerous gap: The American people.

    After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Americans living on both coasts were rapidly brought into action as civil defense wardens. They watched the skies and the seas for signs of invasion. They stood guard against spies and saboteurs. Everyone from housewives to retired military men accepted the natural duty of citizens to protect their own country and communities against attack.

    Many of these civilian defenders -- who, after all, were members of the constitutional unorganized militia -- went armed in their duties. They were ready not only to report dangers that they spotted to far-off "authorities," but to personally stand up for their country's safety and security.

    Franklin Roosevelt wasn't the only twentieth-century president to value an armed citizenry. President Theodore Roosevelt, who habitually carried a handgun for self-defense (as did his niece Eleanor), said that only with extensive firearm training could America "defend ourselves, protect others, or preserve peace" in the face of "strong nations" bent on aggression.

    When John F. Kennedy was a candidate for the presidency, he declared, "Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the second amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country."

    What was true against "strong nations" is surely even more true when the enemy is small, hidden groups of men who may be living, planning, and acting out their evil in our neighborhoods. When terrorists are dispersed among us, what better answer than to disperse armed American guardians far and wide among them? If every American is a potential victim of terror, then shouldn't every American be expected and encouraged to defend self, home, family, community, and nation?

    Such widespread self defense is not only common sense, it is also effective national defense.

    There are not enough FBI agents, National Guardsmen, or police to cover every corner of America. No number of surveillance cameras or checkpoints can do that job (although they may help turn the U.S. into a police state in the vain attempt to achieve "security"). Spending $61.8 million on increased FBI surveillance capabilities, or $157.6 million to enhance that agency's computer systems, as your new budget proposes to do, can't protect Americans today, next week, or next month, and may never protect us all.

    But there are 285 million Americans who are on hand now, in every big-city neighborhood, small town, and rural crossroads. Some 80 million of them already own firearms, and millions are prepared to bring their own weapons and ammunition -- at no cost to the U.S. taxpayers -- to defend their homeland.

    The Talmud, the code of Jewish law, states: "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." That's good sense for dealing with terrorists, as well as common criminals.

    Just as a thief avoids breaking into a home where an armed-and- ready resident might be present, terrorists will surely think twice if they know a planeload or an office building full of potential victims might contain even a few who refuse to be victims -- and are armed with the means to enforce their refusal. If every hiker near a vulnerable dam, every farmer at a grain mill, every cleaning lady in a public building were a potential armed defender ... wouldn't terrorists be less inclined to see us and our institutions as easy targets -- as they so clearly did on September 11?

    President Franklin Roosevelt trusted his fellow citizens with the defense of the nation after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Now, after the after the worst attack against the U.S. in its entire history ... I must ask you, Mr. Bush and members of the administration: Why aren't you relying upon the American people?

    Mr. Bush, if you are truly want to be a truly effective defender of your nation, then you will:


    Explicitly recognize and encourage Americans' unlimited right to self-defense and defense of their own communities.

    Encourage citizens to be aware of their rights and responsibilities, particularly their second-amendment rights.

    Immediately instruct the ATF, FBI, and any other federal enforcement agencies to cease prosecuting non-violent Americans for technical violations of firearms laws or regulations.

    Permit and encourage Americans to bear arms on federal lands and in federal buildings.

    Sincerely,

    Aaron Zelman
    Executive Director, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    what a GREAT IDEA, give the populace guns to shoot suspicious looking people with!
     
  3. mac_philo

    mac_philo Veteran

    +4
    Atheist
    The article clearly stated that nobody would be 'given' a gun. "No cost to US taxpayers."

    Those who procure guns without taxpayer help are not 'given' guns. The constitution tells government it may not abridge the right to own guns. Our government is not in a position to grant or withhold guns--it is, legally, none of its business.
     
  4. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +88
    Christian
    Married
    Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
    11 November 1938

    With a basis in § 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and § 9 of the Fuhrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten- German districts of 1 October 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1331 ) are the following ordered:


    § 1
    Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.


    § 2
    Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
    § 3
    The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.


    § 4
    Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.


    § 5
    For the implementation if this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.


    § 6
    This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.


    Berlin, 11 November 1938
    Minister of the Interior

    Frick
     
  5. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +88
    Christian
    Married
    Fall 2001 The Bill of Rights Sentinel

    The Six Things Americans Should Know
    About the Second Amendment

    by Richard W. Stevens

    The text of the Second Amendment:

    A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

    A. The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both exist before and outside of secular government.

    1. Torah: Exodus 22:2.

    2. Talmud: Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994, 2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).

    3. Roman Catholic Doctrine: Christian doctrine has long asserted the right and duty of self defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas Aquinas).

    4. Protestant Doctrine: Individual has personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644] 1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36.

    B. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government, and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.” Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in the University of Virginia.

    C. Christian religious thinkers, such as Samuel Rutherford (in Lex, Rex, 1644) argued that man’s rights come from G-d. Using Biblical principles and examples, they argued against the notion that kings ruled by divine right. To be legitimate authorities, all governments must uphold man’s rights and do justice. Otherwise, the people owe a lawless and tyrannical ruler no allegiance at all.

    D. Cicero, Rome’s leading orator, had early argued that the right to self-defense was natural and inborn, and not a creation of the government. The right to use weapons was a necessary part of the right to self-defense — any view to the contrary was silly nonsense. [Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right (1984), p. 17, fn 76-77.]

    E. The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect.

    F. The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, indicated that the word “people” in the Second Amendment referred to individuals, not to states. [494 U.S. 259 (1990)] (This was not a holding or ruling of law, but an observation by the Court).

    SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

    A. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

    B. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”

    THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.” The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

    A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

    B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

    C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

    D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

    E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

    F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ... and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

    FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700’s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

    A. Examples:


    New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”

    Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty...”

    New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 also contained a detailed preamble and explanation of purpose for its right to a criminal trial in the vicinity where the crime occurred.

    The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution, all contained preambles or explanations of the right of freedom of speech and debate in the state legislatures.

    The New Hampshire Constitution also gave an explanation, right in the text, for why there should be no ex post facto laws.
    B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.

    FIFTH: Before the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment, many states enacted laws that made it illegal for slaves and for free black people to possess firearms (unless they had their master’s permission or a government approval). [See list, with sources in law reviews, in Gran’pa Jack No. 4]

    A. The Second Amendment did not protect black people then, because (1) it was understood to limit the federal government’s power only and (2) black people were not considered citizens whose rights deserved to be protected. [Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Judge Taney observed that if blacks had the privileges and immunities of citizenship, then they would be able to freely possess and carry arms ... unthinkable to Southern slave owners.)] [Halbrook, pp. 98, 114-15]

    B. The Second Amendment was designed by people who did not want to become slaves to their government, but they were unfortunately and tragically willing to permit private slavery in some states. Now that slavery is abolished, however, all citizens of all races should enjoy the Second Amendment’s legal protection against despotic government.

    SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]

    A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unless they have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See ... Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]

    B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).

    C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings exten-sively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.

    Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die ... unless the people are armed.

    CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

    As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

    (1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;

    (2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;

    (3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?

    (4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?

    And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.

    Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.

    The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and bear arms — is in your hands.


    The Bill of Rights Sentinel, Fall 2001, pp. 31-33
     
  6. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +88
    Christian
    Married
    "Gun Control is a Prelude to Totalitarian rule..."
    --Theodore Haas


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The articles below are designed to help you to avoid being murdered. By the most likely murderer. Your Government. In 1992, Robert F. Melson, Professor of Political Science at Purdue University, commented that:

    "Since the Second World War many more people have been killed as victims of domestic massacres and partial or total genocides than by international war. State-perpetrated massacres are a greater danger to the world community than war itself."

    But Professor Melson does not explain why such events are becoming more frequent. We can explain this. Professor Melson's excellent study overlooks two key factors. First, in recent decades, common technologies have boosted governments' powers over citizens. Second, enforcement of "gun control" laws makes citizens more vunerable than ever to this enhanced government power. Presently, we cannot abolish government. To prevent further genocides we can -- and must -- abolish "gun control".

    You must use the tools below -- these ideas -- if they are to help you to save your life. You have to use these tools -- the facts and insights in these books & articles -- to change your community, your state, and your country. We cannot wait for someone else to make the difference. It is up to us.


    Holocaust Survivor Denounces Anti-Gun Movement

    Knowing How to Shoot

    LETHAL LAWS!

    Say "YES" to Genocide ... or ... Say "NO! to Genocide

    Gun Control's NAZI Connection!

    Dial 911 and DIE!

    Education Beats Lobbying!

    JPFO asks NRA Questions

    JPFO's Executive Director speaks to NRA Board

    Should they have fought back? NEW!
     
  7. Raging Atheist

    Raging Atheist god told me he doesnt exist

    223
    +0


    YEEEHAW! SADDLE UP THE POSSIE!

    AH YES! the same people responsible for japanese internment camps, paranoia and blind prejudice... GO USA!  As for these alleged "spies" and "saboteurs" show me one example... can't?  Probably because there weren't any and the rampant militancy being talked about here was the result of ignorance and riot-reasoning
    a different time and a different place which bears no relevance... why don't you ask us to sharpen stick to defend ourselves from foreign tribes?

    Yeah, and he got shot dead.  Lot of good it did him.  Perhaps if he had been packing a glock he could have defended himself... :rolleyes:

    No, it isn't.  Its a bunch of yokels running around looking for arab-lookin' guy to shoot at.  Think I'm stereotyping?  Visit montana some day and take a long hard look at the supposed "defenders" of our country...

    hahaha... are you kidding? terrorists would love this... we wouldnt need terrorists if every hitchiker and cleaning lady was packing a sawed off... and the heck wants to pick up a hitchiker whose bearing arms? stupid stupid stupid...

    CUZ WE'RE A NATION OF MORONS! 

    perfect! so that guy with a full automatic weapon who put a couple holes in my house cuz he didnt target practice facing away from the city wouldn't be prosecuted? stupid stupid stupid...

    FEDERAL BUILDINGS ARE PRIMARY TARGETS OF TERRORISTS! "Yes, Mr. Mohammad, you may enter the Pentagon with an uzi... but only if you're going to defend america with it...":rolleyes:

    ordinarily I wouldnt respond to such things, because I assume they're jokes, but gunny appears to be taking this seriously... remember gunny, not all of america has your proficiency with a rifle...
     
  8. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +88
    Christian
    Married
    RA, My One Nation under God isn't included in your blanket generalzation.


    But, hey if we were pond scum and chimps I guess the logic fits, lol, at least for some.

    GySgt James
     
  9. MARANATHA2002

    MARANATHA2002 Member

    149
    +0
    Gunny

    As you can see, there are some, who will never learn from history, and through their ignorance, may politically dooming us all. Peace, but not yet.
     
  10. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    your right marantha, the dark ages obviously haven't taught us anything about the dangers of religion and politics
     
  11. MARANATHA2002

    MARANATHA2002 Member

    149
    +0
    I was thinking more in line with gun control policies and what history has taught us on what happens when these policies are implemented. You and your countrymen may regret the day you allowed your government to systematically remove your civilian population’s offensive ability to say no to your government, if they ever become tyrannical. That is a big chance you are taking, and we are too far away to help. Peace, but not yet.
     
  12. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    fair enough, I guess my post was tangential. I don't agree that relaxing gun control laws is a good thing
     
  13. strathyboy

    strathyboy Active Member

    761
    +1
    I'd just like to note that making policy based in any way on the actions of Hitler is generally seen to be a bad move. I would refrain from using it to justify gun control, since there were many other factors involved then that are not involved now.
     
  14. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +88
    Christian
    Married
    Amen, to that, MARANATHA2002


    GySgt James
     
  15. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +88
    Christian
    Married
    Issue noted: That you would refrain. Thankfully, the founding fathers had the insight and wisdom concerning the right to bear arms.


    GySgt James
     
  16. TC

    TC New Member

    58
    +0
    Great thread, Gunny! One of the best books I have is a thin one put out by the JPFO, comparing weapons permits, line by line, of the U.S's and the Reich's.

    The disturbing thing is that people think history won't ever repeat itself. In your quote by JFK, it is apparent that he didn't see the danger the founding fathers did. While technology has changed drastically since the founding of this nation, the hearts of power-mongering men have not. As long as men control government, the threat of tyranny will always be present.
     
  17. MARANATHA2002

    MARANATHA2002 Member

    149
    +0
    Very well said TC. Peace, but not yet.
     
Loading...