Thread: 2nd Amendment and Guns and Ammo — Same Issue Today as in Colonial Times

2nd Amendment and Guns and Ammo — Same Issue Today as in Colonial Times

By Clash Daily / 13 January 2013 / 7 Comments
By Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry, US Army Ret.
Clash Daily Guest Contributor

On April 19, 1775, a British Expeditionary Force set out to capture and destroy guns and ammunition believed stored by American Colonists at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. To counter the British action the American Colonists mobilized their militias and, using guns kept in their houses, defeated the British forces and forced them to retreat back to Boston.

The British believed it was perfectly acceptable for the government to be armed, but that private citizens should not be armed because they might challenge the actions of the British Government. They thought it reasonable for the British to confiscate the colonist’s guns and ammunition. The colonists believed that private citizens should have access to firearms to defend themselves and in case the government became too tyrannical.



It seems we have forgotten the lesson that the colonists fought the Battles of Lexington and Concord to prevent the British Government from disarming the American Colonists. The colonists’ intent was that never again would only the government have access to guns and ammunition and the American people be stripped naked of the right to own and bear arms and left without the means to protect themselves and their interests. Now that same specter rises once again to threaten the freedom of the American people and once more the government is making an all-out effort to seize the guns and ammunition of America’s private citizens.
The British attempt to disarm the colonists is one of the actions that led to the Revolutionary War and, later on, to the adoption of the Second Amendment which reads, “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.” Are the Congress and the President now fomenting another revolution? They seem to have forgotten that the clear purpose of the Second Amendment is not to restrict the private citizen’s ownership of guns and ammunition, but to restrict the possible tyranny of the central government.
The subject of discussion today in Washington and throughout the nation is, “Shall the American people have the right to bear arms and protect their interests, or will the government be able to circumvent or abrogate the constitution and force the government’s will upon the American people in violation of our founding documents and principles?”
Of course this is all done under the subterfuge of being helpful and protective of our citizens. Those politicians in charge of finding a way to reduce gun violence speak of the efficacy of curbing it, of making video games less violent, closing loop holes that allow unqualified gun and ammunition purchasers to make purchases, eliminating high-capacity rifles and magazines, keeping guns away from the mentally disturbed, more use of metal detectors, and on and on it goes.
But we citizens aren’t so easily fooled. We recognize that we are again fighting the battle of Lexington and Concord all over again. It is not a question of a culture of violence taking over our society, or of whether or not a single-shot rifle is more violent than a semi-automatic firearm. They are equally violent.
It is a constitutional issue, not just one of gun violence, or of semi-automatic versus fully automatic, or small versus long magazines of ammunition. Gun and ammunition ownership rights, among others, are what our Founding Fathers fought and died for at Lexington and Concord; they fought for the constitutional right to bear arms and to limit the paternalism of government. Do Americans today have the constitutional right to own and store guns and ammunition? The answer today is the same as it was back in colonial days.
Actions by political leaders in the Congress and the White House indicate that they do not trust the people of America with guns, so restricting private gun ownership must be good and restricting the government’s fire arms ownership is bad. That is, the people of America cannot be trusted to own and handle guns and ammo. However, the government that shamelessly forced American Indians along the Trail of Tears, and rejoiced over the Dred Scott Decision supposedly can be trusted to regulate guns and ammunition.
Someone suggested that school teachers should have the right to be armed and licensed if they so choose. This makes sense in spite of all the derogatory comments made about the idea. Ask the teachers and see how they feel about it. And we wouldn’t need a separate governmental agency to implement the arming of school teachers. Their training and arming could be done voluntarily, at the local level.
Today the Second Amendment means exactly what our Founding Fathers intended it to mean in colonial times, “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.”
Image: The First Blow for Liberty. Battle of Lexington, April 1775; copy of print by A. H. Ritchie after F.O.C. Darley, 1870 – 1900; National Archives and Records Administration, College Park; Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration; public domain
General Jerry Ralph Curry (D.Min.) is a decorated combat veteran, Army Aviator, Paratrooper and Ranger. He enlisted in the Army as a Private and retired a Major General. For nearly forty years he and his wife Charlene have served this country both in the military and while he was a Presidential political appointee.


Read more: 2nd Amendment and Guns and Ammo — Same Issue Today as in Colonial Times
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

video at link below

Chuck Schumer Calls on Stores to Stop Selling Legal Guns

Posted on January 15, 2013 by Cowboy Byte




New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the same guy who arrogantly smirked at a massacre survivor testifying against gun control in front of Congress 20 years ago, is asking gun retailers to stop selling legal firearms until Congress can come up with something to limit the purchase of….legal firearms.






Schumer on Sunday released a letter he sent to major retailers asking for a voluntary moratorium.
The New York Democrat says consumer demand for guns has gone up in the weeks since the December mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.
Schumer says Congress is debating the issue, and if measures get passed that limit these type of weapons, it won’t help if more of them have recently been sold.





Continue Reading on townhall.com

Read more: Chuck Schumer Calls on Stores to Stop Selling Legal Guns | CowboyByte

While trying to disarm the citizens, Obama grants himself armed security protection for life

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

Learn more: While trying to disarm the citizens, Obama grants himself armed security protection for life

(NaturalNews) As President Obama and his allies in Congress seek to limit your ability to provide armed protection for you and your family, the master political magician has just signed off on legislation forcing taxpayers to provide him with armed protection for life.

"Former presidents have to give up rides on Air Force One. But now they don't have to give up being shadowed by the armed-and-earpieced bodyguards of the Secret Service," Yahoo! News reported Jan.10. "President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection."

The legislation, which was introduced by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., reverses a law passed in the mid-1990s imposing a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former commanders-in-chief. President Bush, the report said, would have been the first former president affected by the change.

Protection for the elite; none for you

When they initially passed the legislation, supporters said it would save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. In addition, they said former presidents could follow the path of Richard M. Nixon, who shunned Secret Service protection in lieu of hiring his own private security firm in 1985.

But the profligate spenders in the current Congress obviously felt no such loyalty to the taxpayer; Gowdy's legislation rolling back the 10-year limit easily passed the House of Representatives on a voice vote in early December, then went on to sail through the Senate unopposed.

The new law also mandates that the children of presidents receive government-subsidized protection until age 16; protection for spouses would be ongoing as well, but "protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage," the law says.

Secret Service agents began protecting presidents in 1901 following the assassination of William McKinley; in 1965, Congress passed legislation authorizing the agency to protect presidents for life.

Granted, presidents and their families can face extraordinary threats upon leaving office, but so can just about any ordinary American walking the streets in Chicago - the president's hometown - or Washington, D.C., the nation's capital. The point is, as this president moves to limit your right to self-defense, he obviously sees no irony in ensuring that he and his family are well-protected for the rest of their lives, and all on the taxpayer's dime.

But the irony doesn't stop there. Consider that many in Congress - those same individuals who just voted for lifetime armed, taxpayer-provided protection for a millionaire president who will undoubtedly cash in even further on his fame once he finally does leave office - are some of the same hypocrites who are demanding that wealthy Americans who paid into the Social Security system all of their lives be denied benefits just because they are well-to-do.

They are not better than you

These hypocrite elite are the same ones who vote themselves pay raises year after year, while wages for most U.S. workers have stagnated or declined, thanks in large part to oppressive laws and bureaucratic policies they approve.

And now, these uber-wealthy statists who have sheltered themselves from the dangers ordinary folks deal with and face daily want you to continue paying for their protection, even as they work feverishly to rob you of yours.

If Sen. Dianne Feinstein feels the need to carry a concealed weapon; if blowhard filmmaker Michael Moore feels the need to hire armed bodyguards; and if leaders like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg feel the need to travel with armed protection - why does the ordinary American citizen deserve less?

Natural News does not, and will not, support laws that make anyone, including our leaders, more vulnerable to the criminal element, but at the same time we have not, and will never, support legislation that seems to say some certain segments of our society are more important, and more worthy of protection, than others.

Sources:

http://www.infowars.com

http://news.yahoo.com

Michael Moore's Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge | Fox News

Dianne Feinstein has/had a concealed weapons permit - YouTube

Learn more: While trying to disarm the citizens, Obama grants himself armed security protection for life