More guns for the masses = less mass killings
by Ron Burcham
As a Free Stater (living abroad in Michigan for an extended period), I can tell you right away that all these FBI/CIA Manchurian zombie killers like (possibly) James Holmes are not going to be wandering into any New Hampshire movie theaters for high-media-impact slayings. They’ll be met with deadly termination. My guest today, Ron Burcham, knows much more about the gun issue than I. But we both realize someone in the legitimate authority matrix had to set up this killing and that the media fix is in.— editor
The Aurora shooting may not have been politically motivated but the liberal pundits and politicians aren’t letting a good crisis go to waste and have politicized it and are using it to attempt to paint anyone who owns a gun as some kind of sicko who is likely to go out and begin killing people because guns make them do it.
There are over 200,000,000 firearms in the United States.With so many guns why aren’t there hundreds of thousands of incidents every day? Because CONTRARY to the liberal mind set those other gun owners, unlike the few Holmes characters we have living among us, are RESPONSIBLE citizens and wouldn’t think of using their shootin’ tools for anything other than sport or self defense.
Excuse me. I forgot. To a liberal there isn’t any such thing as self defense. According to the liberal’s way of thinking the thief has as much right to my money as I do because the thief had a difficult childhood, and I, by my being able to earn even a modest living, am a member of the privileged class. There’s also no such thing as shooting sport to a liberal because a deer or a pheasant or marauding wild pig or wild dog has the same rights as human beings. To a liberal a tapeworm has a right to your digestive tract and a leech to your blood, and the government has a right to your money and your freedom.
Don’t let Schumer get into your knickers folks. He and his fellow Progressives, whether Democrat or Republican, want nothing less than to confiscate all privately owned firearms in the United States. We are an armed citizenry for good reason and Schumer as a Jew should know that an armed citizenry is the only protection against pogrommatic destruction of cultural & ethnic classes.
Would Schumer want to be known as a Nazi sympathizer?? I don’t think so.Then why is he pushing the same policies that Hitler used to disarm the Jews in Germany?? He really can’t be that ignorant, or can he?
Refer to Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabinnic Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership @ http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m2/rabbi-message.htm for an exposure of the relationship of the 1968 Gun control Act to the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 and his indignation as a Jew for the cover up by the media of BATFE’s Operation Fast and Furious scandal.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729 Supreme Court Justices are nominated and confirmed for the ideology their records as jurists suggests, not for their love of the Constitution or their respect for intent of the Framers. The labels, liberal and conservative, suggest an ideological predisposition held by Justices which occasionally may agree with what the framers intended but confirms the philosophy of the supremacy of government when required.
Scalia shows his discontent with the intent of the Constitution by disregarding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment by writing that arms of any sort can be denied in their use to citizens under certain circumstances. It is his way of protecting the Establishment’s interest in eventually controlling the populace. The opinion also left open the door to further litigation which guarantees lawyers, Scalia is one, will be making even more money because of what he could have clarified but didn’t.
Arms isn’t about shotguns and rifles for hunting. Arms is about hand grenades, tanks, flame throwers, armed privateers, sea going men-of-war, machine guns, mortars, tanks, rocket launchers, cannons and only incidentally about firearms used for hunting. The Framers intended to guarantee Americans have whatever arms are necessary and adequate to defy the government when needed by having a sufficiently armed population (coincidentally comprising the militia too). see http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
Scalia ignores the plain English of the Constitution and substitutes, through semantic juggling and emotional appeal, what he wants the meaning of the Constitution to be. The Second Amendment imposes a clearly written prohibition against the regulation of arms in the final clause, “shall not be infringed.” Scalia prefers to interpret that as “may be regulated for the convenience of the government as long as it doesn’t appear to be too much of a violation of the Second Amendment” which was reflected in his opinion in McDonald vs. City of Chicago. HE’S WRONG!
Considering this article in the National Journal, I would like to think that the Democrats are actually recognizing the Constitutional restraints of the Second Amendment. I have to remember that they passed Obamacare and somehow managed to find five Supreme Court ideologues who are so corrupt as to semanticize the argument to make it appear that their decision was actually an affirmation of the Framers’ intent in writing the Constitution. Silly me.
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” Vladimir Lenin
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson
“The Constitution of the United States is a compact of independent nations subject to the rules acknowledged in similar cases.” Thomas Jefferson