P. 1
The Second Amendment Part 2

The Second Amendment Part 2

|Views: 83|Likes:
Published by Timothy

More info:

Published by: Timothy on May 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/15/2013

pdf

text

original

The Second Amendment Part 2

The history of government is controversial. I reject the two extreme views of the government either being infallible and the other view that the government can only do evil in society either. A watchful and careful eye on government is legitimate and fine. Extremism in the sense of banning any form of government that can harm the elderly, the poor, minorities, and others is wrong though. The reactionaries exploit crisis as an excuse to condemn even legitimate government social programs. They have an irrational hatred of the national government building roads or providing disaster relief. Back decades ago, their ideological predecessors hated the federal intervention against slavery, legal segregation, and other fights against the system of white supremacy. If the private sector can't do the job or if it needs regulation, then the public sector should come in as a means to handle the business of the people. In the final analysis or at the end of the day, it is all about the people. In our generation, there are some Tea Party types and some libertarians that hate government so much that they reject it at every turn. The Tea Party claims that they are outlining Revolutionary War era principles, but they are not completely accurate. Even some of the anti-federalists were never opposed to all forms of government. The opposed the monarchy and what it stood for. James Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong national government as a means to check state level corruption. Madison didn't agree with Hamilton's national bank, but each man agreed with a strong and effective federal government (beyond the states’ rights oriented Articles of Confederation). The reactionaries back then wanted to fight national government as a means to continue the act of slavery. It is as simple as that. Many Southerners (during th th the 18 century and the 19 century) feared that slavery would be outlawed, so they wanted to continue their actions of bigotry & oppression.. According to Robert Perry, the Second Amendment was created in part as a means to quiet Southern plantation fears of a slave insurrection (and to use militias to maintain

the system of slavery). Patrick Henry and George Mason – tried to rally opposition to the proposed Constitution by stoking the fears of white plantation owners. Mason said that the Constitution Convention failed to have protection for slave plantation owners. Mason and Henry ignored the fact that back then, black human beings' rights were violated via the 3/5 provision, the slave trade clause, the fugitive slave clause, etc. Historians Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg recount the debate in their 2010 book, Madison and Jefferson, noting that the chief argument advanced by Henry and Mason was that “slavery, the source of Virginia’s tremendous wealth, lay politically unprotected” and that this danger was exacerbated by the Constitution’s granting the President, as commander in chief, the power to “federalize” state militias. Perry said that the Second Amendment that it was used originally as a means to protect slave revolts. If that is the case, then that is wrong.

This still doesn't mean that the concept of self-defense or the concept of legitimately owning arms is immoral. Some extremists exploit the Second Amendment as a means to condemn any form of self-defense or owning arms legitimately. We have the right to self-defense period. It is just that the folks who created the Second Amendment were not perfect. No man is perfect except the Savior of the Universe. Now, Thomas Jefferson mocked James Madison for trying to use the
commerce clause as a means to have federal road building (as a way to improve national transportation). Some in the South continued to resist federal activism not in the realm of sincerity. They wanted to do it as a means to maintain slavery and oppression against black human beings. As University of Virginia historian Brian Balogh noted in his book, A Government Out of Sight, Southerners asserted an extreme version of states’ rights in the period from 1840 to 1860 that included preventing aid to disaster victims. This sounds similar to the Tea Party movement. When Abraham Lincoln became President, then the rest is history. Southern states seceded from the Union. Today, we have historical revisionism where the Tea Party falsely claims that the Founders were some anti-government activists collectively. The reality is

that liberty is fine, but states’ rights are never superior to human rights. Human rights and human dignity are eternal concepts in the world society indeed.

I don't believe in criminals using guns or owning them, yet it is a fact that disarming the people had a vicious, tyrannical history. Nothing is new under the sun indeed. Hypocrisy is the order of the day of socalled establishment pacifists. They yell about total pacifism, yet many of them lived in condos and enclosed locations. They don't expect cops to come into their homes, yet they want the state to be armed to the teeth. They want the state to use weapons to kill human beings overseas in the name of democracy (yet, they lecture us on pacifism and gun violence). I respect a pacifist if they are consistent in their views. They refuse to not want gun control from the crooked cops though. The state has no right to have a monopoly of arms at all. The elite maintain a monopoly of armed force in order to have their class rule. It is known that the ruling class has tried to disarm the population in the four corners of the Earth in periods of war or social struggle. It is a known solitary fact that when you have radical gun bans, only the criminals and the super-rich including the state will have access to them primarily. Now, we all know the history of the Second Amendment. I do not agree with all of the Founders' motivations and belief systems in dealing with Second Amendment. Yet, the right to selfdefense is a law of reality. This does not mean that we bow down to white supremacist culture that glamorizes violence that loves to harm animals for wanton abuse, and to view guns as equivalent to the smoking gun in solving our issues. Peace is superior to violence and guns are tools (which can be utilized for good or evil) not gods. For we see that some of our oppressors utilized the Second Amendment as an excuse to dominate early U.S. society. Yet, citizens have the right to be armed legally. In our history, slaves were denied arms, because of racists' fears of the slaves revolting against their cruel system of chattel slavery. The racist Chief Justice Taney admitted that he did not want black human beings to have rights or even the right to keep arms. We know that John Brown and his allies organized his raid on Harpers Ferry in Virginia during 1859. He used arms in an attempt to liberate human beings in bondage. In that time period, ex-slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass (a close friend of Brown) openly defended a man's "right of self-defense" when fugitive slaves were being hunted by agents of the

slaveholders, even if this meant "shooting down his pursuers," as occasionally happened. "Slavery

is

a system of brute force," he said. "It must be met with its own weapons." The Civil War came and brothers and sisters fought valiantly for freedom. When racists tried to kill the brothers and sisters in Brooklyn back in the 1860's by racist anti-draft mobs, these brothers and sisters used arms to defend themselves. This was in the North; so many Northerners were just as bigoted as some of the
Southerners in that Civil War era. During the period of Reconstruction, heroes fought against the oppressors. Black human beings wanted political power and the Confederates used reactionary Black Codes as means to deprive black human beings their God-given rights including the right to possess arms. An 1865 Florida statute, for instance, made it unlawful for "any Negro" to possess "firearms or ammunition of any kind," the penalty for violation being the pillory and the whip. In response, the

federal government's Freedmen's Bureau widely distributed circulars which read in part, "All men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families or themselves." Even President Grant opposed the Klan harming innocent
human beings in the South. Union Army forces had to occupy Southern states even during Reconstruction since the Klan was just killing innocent human beings and harming society. Reconstruction officially ended with the evil Compromise of 1877. Black liberation was harmed. It took over 80 years after Reconstruction for black human beings to get some rights. Now, we do need gun safety reforms and guns shouldn't be owned by criminals or anyone with serious mental illness problems via adjudication. On the other hand, it is hypocritical for those to yell about gun control when they ignore how British and U.S. cops brutalize youth for the sake of the Drug War or continuing the violation of human civil liberties. The background to the Firearms Act (1920) in the UK was aptly described by Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of the book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. In an article "Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard" (saf.org), Malcolm observed: "It was fear of revolution, not crime, that resulted in the first serious gun controls. In 1920 the government faced massive labor disruption, feared a Bolshevik revolution, and worried about the return of thousands of soldiers traumatized by an especially brutal war." Even the workers movements of the Chartists advance the right of the citizens to bear arms. To exclusively have the military, the police, or select individuals to bear arms is extremist and silly. They or the establishment refuse to discuss radical anti-poverty measures, but they want to continue the stop and frisk action. Yet, an unarmed population is at the mercy at anybody even tyrants as history shows.

Recent News in 2013
NY Major Michael Bloomberg is at it again. Now, he wants to ban Styrofoam. He is an authoritarian NYC mayor. He wants to handle trans-fat, salt, sodas, etc. He is known for having radical gun control views. He wants to have some borderline nanny state. This can socially engineer the population. He claims to want to police anti-social behaviors, but he can easily issue an ad campaign, an education campaign, have investments in healthy foods in the city, and set up programs to set up healthy living in NYC (without authoritarian nonsense). We know that Bloomberg is in favor of population control as well. He had a secret meeting in secret with fellow billionaire eugenicists like David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and George Soros in how to accelerate the declines in fertility. Bloomberg feels that Styrofoam is almost impossible to recycle, so he wants to ban them. He tries to defend criticism that he is out to ban anything and everything just to control the lives of New Yorkers. He claims that he is not out to ban everything, but he is a straight up authoritarian extremist by advocating the banning of items. Also, he agrees with the immoral stop and frisk policy that unfairly affects numerous Black and Brown citizens in the New York City area. He also moved to ban most painkillers in NYC's public hospitals as well. He claims that he wants to handle the epidemic of prescription drug abuse. That is nonsense, because alternatives can be met to handle the prescription drug abuse issue. Despite the fact Bloomberg and his commissars lack the regulatory authority to impose the new guidelines on private hospitals, several said they would voluntarily adopt the "legislative medicine" measure. The end result is plainly visible – from now on in New York City, the government will decide what level of pain is acceptable for patients at both public and private hospitals. I don’t agree with ricin recently sent to the office of Michael Bloomberg though.

More on the History of Gun Rights
We know that self-defense is a God given right. Its history has been long. Gun history is definitely important to study indeed. Some gun control laws back in the day and recently were made to restrict the rights of minorities and the poor. Folks from across the political spectrum have agreed with this concept as well. Tyrants then and now wanted to use stricter anti-gun laws while the state has a monopoly of the use of organized force. When the state has a monopoly of force, bad things happen historically. We know of the 1979 Greensboro Massacre. There was an FBI informer that led the Klan/Nazi fascists to the site of protesting leftist civil rights workers and labor organizers. The fascists killed 5 progressive protesters. The FBI informer and an agent of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms showed the racists on how to use and transport the semiautomatic weapons. We know about the terrorist acts done against the MOVE commune. Ironically, the African American then mayor of Philadelphia Wilson Goode allowed cops and FBI agents in 1985 to destroy the MOVE commune literally. The cops utilized 10,000 rounds in 90 minutes, using fully automatic M-16s and M-60 machine guns, and incinerated eleven black people, including five children, in a fire ignited by C-4 plastic explosive provided by the FBI. You will notice that the anti-gun activists will never advocate disarmament of the police when police terrorism and police brutality is in epidemic levels today (not just decades ago). Cops get off so much that it is a common occurrence. Total pacifism in an imperfect society is fantasy. Ironically, the same suburban upper class lecturing on pacifism live in their homes armed to the teeth. So, do we believe that the state should have a monopoly of arms? The answer is a resounding no. The mainstream capitalist state has a monopoly of armed force as a means to maintain their rule indeed. The history of radical anti-gun measures has been to disarm populations globally, especially if they seek social change amidst injustices. The state responded to the people seeking economic or social changes by instituting laws that violated human civil liberties including the right of self-defense. Regardless of the errors of the American colonialists, they refused to give up their arms to the British imperialists when the British redcoats via British General Thomas Gage wanted them to thrown down their arms and disperse (according to the research from Stephen P. Halbrook. The concept of self-defense existed in the four corners of the Earth. It existed in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Oceania, Australia, and Europe (even in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 after the English revolution). The 18th century Blackstone's Commentaries relate to English Common Law outlines the right of human beings to defend themselves from tyrannical agencies. It is true that some exploited the Second Amendment as a means to suppress the rights of others like black Americans, but the right of self-defense is not immoral at all.

The history of self-defense and guns is real. I respect any sincere nonviolent person. Yet, fascists and authoritarians for thousands of years have restricted the arms of innocent human beings as a means to conquer human beings. Gun control itself is not racist. On the other hand, a radical, genocidal version of gun control has already been related to racism, oppression, and violation of the tenet of self-defense (which is a common sense right from the Creator). We know that radicals suppress the gun rights of blacks, other minorities, immigrants, union organizers, agrarian reformers, and other human beings in America including throughout the world. Even after the Civil War, some Southern states restricted the rights of agrarian workers to have sufficient gun rights. The old bigoted lie that poor, urban, and black human beings are not to be trusted with guns (except those in rural areas or the elite) is a common thread in the violation of human rights. That is why poor are not afforded the same protection or the same economic opportunities as more affluent areas. Crime is caused by poverty and socioeconomic factors not by someone's ethnic identity or their class. That is why firearms should be acquired by law abiding citizens in any community. Xenophobic hatred in the North harmed immigrants as well. As far back as 1640, there was Virginia law that restricted blacks the right to keep and bear arms. Now, racism is linked to radical anti-gun measures in history. In 1803, the planters in New Orleans wanted to have the existing free black militia disarmed and exclude free blacks from owning arms. This was after the Haitian Revolution of the 1790's when black men, women, and children defeated French imperialists. Back in the early 1800's, the New Orleans city government also stopped whites form teaching fencing to free blacks and blacks were banned from teaching fencing. Arms restrictions were common among free blacks in the South and the North. This accelerated after the 1831 Nat Turner rebellion. Irrational fears among some whites caused more restrictions on blacks owning weapons. In response to Turners Rebellion, the Virginia Legislature made it illegal for free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead." Even the 1834 Tennessee Constitution only allowed free white men to own arms while the Article XI, Section 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution read: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Certain gun control laws of the past have been straight up racist. It was the racist Chief Justice Taney that refused to give black Americans the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went to. Frederick Douglas (an ex-slave and abolitionist) believed that a man has the right to use self-defense against agents of slaveholders hunting them down.

During the Civil War, numerous human beings used arms to end the oppressive system of the Confederacy. Arming former black slaves helped to defeat the gray enemy during the Civil War that lasted from 1861 to 1865. “Men of Color, To Arms!” was Frederick Douglas' slogan as he campaigned for black volunteers for such famous regiments as the 54th Massachusetts. Many black Union forces were definitely instrumental in the Union victory.
Many states in the South in the 18th and 19th centuries further forbid African Americans from owning firearms, because of the slave rebellions against oppression. The framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 argued that the issue of the right to keep and bear arms by the newly freed slaves was of vital importance. The reason was that Klan militias were killing innocent black men, women, and children in the South. “Securing Civil Rights Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms” is a book written by Stephen P. Halbrook that discussed about this history of the Freedman Bureau fighting for the right of black Americans back then to bear and keep arms. In the late 1800's, states in the South restricted the gun rights of black Americans as well. Now, the reactionary Black Codes of the 1800's were made to deprive black Americans the right to have ownership of arms. An 1865 Florida statute, for instance, made it unlawful for “any Negro” to possess “firearms or ammunition of any kind,” the penalty for violation being the pillory and the whip. In response, the federal government’s Freedmen’s Bureau widely distributed circulars which read in part, “All men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families or themselves.” The racist, private Ku Klux Klan wanted to disarm blacks and harm communities. The elite betrayed the promise of black liberation via the Compromise of 1877. Union troops left the South after the compromise. This allowed the Southern aristocrats to continue Jim Crow for another more than eight decades. Such anti-gun laws in the South that harmed the rights of African Americans existed in South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc.

In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated the 1893 law “was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State….The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers….The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied…”. Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69). New York State’s Sullivan Law, which makes it illegal to carry a pistol for self-defense in some cases, unless you’re one of a handful of well-connected people who can get a license to “carry” from the police department, people like real estate mogul Donald Trump and New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger. The 1911 Sullivan Law came about not as a means to handle safety. It was created to deal with new immigrants in the state. It only gave the New York City Police Department the power to determine who could possess handguns. Some in that time restrict gun rights of immigrants and Italians. Many of the gun restrictions in the early 20th century existed as a result of the labor movement and the civil rights movement. Even the great Sister Ida B. Wells wanted a rifle in every black home as a means to protect black human beings from lynching. The anti-lynching crusader

Ida B. Wells wrote: “The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense. “The lesson this teaches and which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” —quoted in Southern Horrors and Other Writings: The Anti-Lynching Campaign of Ida B. Wells, 1892-1900 (Jacqueline J. Royster, ed. [1997])
Malcolm X made it known about what he felt on this issue. He said the following words in public:

"Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you'd be within your rights - I mean, you'd be justified; but that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal. If the white man doesn't want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job. That's all." In 1965, the New
York City Council passed a bill especially to keep Malcolm X from carrying a carbine for his protection; he was assassinated shortly afterward. In 1967, the California legislature banned the carrying of a loaded gun after a demonstration by the Black Panthers, who were legally carrying guns, at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Panthers had been patrolling the Oakland ghetto, where police terror was rampant. The 1967 arms law in California banned open carrying of firearms in the cities of California. This law was passed easily after the Black Panthers demonstrated against it by walking into the Assembly Chamber carrying pistols, rifles, and at least one sawed off shotgun. This law was called the Mulford Act. Having a gun is no smoking gun to solve all problems, but having one legitimately is not immoral. The war on Drugs, mandatory sentencing, the abolition of parole in some cases, and restrictions of human rights increased the U.S. incarceration rate and harmed communities. These acts were not reasonable solutions to our issues at all. The Deacons for Defense did not just provide armed resistance. They provided several other services to the community. Their model was duplicated by the Black Panther Party for Self Defense (the original party, not the New Black Panther Party. The NBPP is more controversial and it has warriors among brothers and sisters in them too regardless if you agree with everything that they stand for or not). Even

Dr. King believed in the following ideas: “As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of “self-defense.” In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been

guaranteed through the ages by common law.” (Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 55, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967). The Crime Bill of 1994 was wrong too for many reasons. Bill Clinton back
then agreed with unreasonable searches or unwarranted searches in Chicago housing projects. The Crime Bill of 1994 was passed after hard debate in Congress. It was opposed by an unlikely coalition in the House. The opposition came from most Republicans, some conservative Democrats, and many African American Democrats. The first two groups disagreed with it for gun rights issues (like the assault weapons ban) and many Black Democrats opposed it since they believed that the death penalty provisions would disproportionately affect blacks. It passed and the rest is history. It is also important to note that we need to improve our socioeconomic conditions as well. We need universal health care. We need real jobs, affordable housing, and we need justice in the world. These actions in conjunction with other solutions can reduce gun violence in the world. Even when the Native Americans gave up their weapons and horses like the Sioux, and they were still massacred. Federal government restrictions on the sale of firearms to Native Americans were only ended as late as 1979. Many radical anti-gun laws violate human civil liberties. Even some parts of the Crime Bill of 1994 were detrimental to human rights. The Crime Bill of 1994 was wrong too for many reasons. Bill Clinton back then agreed with unreasonable searches or unwarranted searches in Chicago housing projects. The Crime Bill of 1994 was passed after hard debate in Congress. It was opposed by an unlikely coalition in the House. The opposition came from most Republicans, some conservative Democrats, and many African American Democrats. The first two groups disagreed with it for gun rights issues (like the assault weapons ban) and many Black Democrats opposed it since they believed that the death penalty provisions would disproportionately affect blacks. It passed and the rest is history. It is also

important to note that we need to improve our socioeconomic conditions as well. We need universal health care. We need real jobs, affordable housing, and we need justice in the world. These actions in conjunction with other solutions can reduce gun violence in the world. Clayton E. Cramer's article called, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" talks about this history further.

Why the NRA Lost their Original Salt?
There is the issue of guns and Wayne LaPierre. I don't support him, because his NRA group leadership is filled with extremists and racists. Also, the NRA dealt with funding the prison industrial complex boom of the 1990's. LaPierre's new comments are controversial and I took my time to think about them since I am an intellectual man. Any human being has the right to self-defense. That is a God given right. Yet, I think he went too far in scapegoating the victims of the Sandy disaster. The truths is that there were no marauding groups of thugs in NYC or in the Northeast that executed massive, record breaking riots in

NYC (or the rest of the Northeastern region at all in the aftermath of the Sandy Hurricane disasters). There are gangs in America, but gangs exist in numerous backgrounds. To single out gangs of one ethnic group in some sick rant is race baiting rhetoric since illegal immigration has radically declined in recent years (Many border cities or places near the border have had reduction in crime). Deportations are higher in this administration than the previous one. Gun rights advocates are right that gun rights and selfdefense are concepts that are meant to prevent tyranny including as a means for us to live in liberty. Selfdefense has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. John Locke pointed this out when he declared the right to self-defense is the first law of nature. "And thus it is that every man in the state of Nature has a power to kill a murderer," he wrote in An Essay Concerning the true original, extent, and end of Civil Government. Yet, LaPierre's words mixed many truths of self-defense along with race baiting rhetoric in my opinion. The reason is that gangs, rioting, and other crimes are not limited by race or nationality at all. Many of these things exist as a product of economic inequality and other socioeconomic complications. Therefore, innocent law abiding citizens have every right to own a gun (and having gun rights is one out of many bulwarks against tyranny) regardless of what MSNBC says. Not to mention that in solving the issue of gun violence, we need comprehensive solutions (like ending gun trafficking, handling

socioeconomic problems, fighting criminal violent gangs, organize unique including fair ways to fight crime, handle mental health issues, continue to ban criminals from owning any gun, instituting a more just moral culture, and advance gun education programs for citizens). Policies that have proven to work to improve crime in some areas ought to be made available
in communities nationwide. In the final analysis, we have to address issues of poverty in order to fight gun violence. That means that we need the growth and improvement of our families, we need

real national employment growth, we need higher wages, we need a modernization of our infrastructure, and other forms of economic development too.
One major error of the NRA is that they supported the prison industrial complex for years. There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens owning a gun legally, but we know for sure that the prison system has been heavily corrupt for decades and centuries. During the 1990's, the NRA had spent millions of dollars in pushing for the largest prison construction boom era including harsh sentencing programs to keep them full according to Tim Murphy from Mother Jones. Wayne LaPierre is the leader of the NRA. One time, he or Wayne said that he wanted more prison building and advanced the three strikes law in California. Now, California has overflowing prisons. Even the Supreme Court deemed them cruel and unusual punishment because of their squalid conditions. Back in 1992, the NRA used the CrimeStrike program. It was an anti-crime program that caused America's prisons full. The NRA needed money in the early 1990's, because they ran up a 9 trillion dollar deficit in 1991. They were on pace for a 30 million dollar shortfall in 1992. LaPierre launched CrimeStrike that spring of 1992 with $2 million in seed money from the parent organization and a simple platform: mandatory minimums, harsher parole standards, adult sentences for juveniles, and critically, more prisons. "Our prisons are overcrowded. Our bail laws are atrocious. We'll be the bad guy," he announced. The NRA advanced these policies on the tough on crime rhetoric. They believed that Bill Clinton in 1994 was soft on crime. Yet, later on, Bill Clinton would advance the war on Drugs and increase the amount of human beings in prison completely. The NRA put out ads that folks like then Rep. Chuck Schumer of NY State wanted to get money from the crime bill. The NRA funded efforts for more prison construction. Crimestrike lobbied successfully for similar construction of prison projects in Mississippi and Virginia. Crimestrike sent cash to fund the three strikes and you're out laws. They did the same in California. In the late 1990's, Crimestrike ended. This program has done its dirty work by that time. There are more strict sentencing guidelines. The U.S. locks up more people than any nation on Earth. Violent crime is dropping in America, but incarceration rates continue to increase. These tough on crime laws failed. We have the amount of human beings serving time in state or federal prisons increased 100 percent between 1990 and 2005. Even in California, something minor like stealing a slick of pizza could give your life in prison. Even the Florida’s Stand Your Ground was wrong. It eliminated the historic requirement that in order to claim self-defense, a person facing deadly force must first try to remove himself, if feasible, before himself using such force. The law was passed in 2005 since the reactionary wanted to “get tough on crime” which

is known code for targeting black people. This law gave an invitation for the vigilante and woman beater George Zimmermann to kill Trayvon Martin. The Stand Your Ground law was drafted of course by the American Legislative Exchange Council of ALEC. ALEC was created in 1973 by reactionary Paul Weyrich. Weyrich was a founder of the Heritage Foundation. ALEC has taken a leading role behind the voter ID laws that are intended to disenfranchise black human beings and the poor. The reactionary agree with the growing prison population growth via the pioneering mandatory sentences for drug offenders and three strikes laws. Ironically, in over 20 state governments of the ex-slaveholders’ Confederacy have passed such anti-voting laws. A case in point occurred in 2005 in Georgia, a “Stand

Your Ground” state. John McNeil, a black man, was rushed in front of his home by a white man who had been threatening his family with a knife. McNeil fired a warning shot but his assailant continued toward him. McNeil fired again and killed him. Initially, he was not charged in the killing. But prosecutors went after him a year later, and now McNeil is serving a life sentence. Such get tough on crime laws cause life sentences for adults owning firearms if they have been convicted on drug charges. Nothing changes unless we address poverty, unemployment, bad housing, unfair education, and rampant cop terror that afflict American society.
What is needed is not some prison state. What is needed to handle gun violence is a comprehensive approach. We need to improve our socioeconomic situation via a massive national

recovery anti-poverty program in American society. We need to end the war on Drugs and address mental health issues in America. We need to target gun trafficking and target illegal guns from criminals. We need reasonable gun safety and gun education policies, so we can view guns as a tool in a serious fashion not a toy. No gun is a toy. Also,
we need to improve our culture where unjust violence is shunned and righteousness is basically advanced in the world society, not only in the West.

Hypocrisy on Gun Rights
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy of anti-gun extremists. Even Senator Diane Feinstein’s gun control bill exempts government officials from the planned semi-auto assault ban. This reality illustrates the huge hypocrisy among some anti-gun extremists. Some of these extremists do not want to disarm the American people and some do actually. Yet, many of them surround themselves with armed bodyguards and own guns themselves. The Washington Times reported recently that: “…Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials.” Back in 1995, Feinstein carried a concealed weapon for her own protection and called for Mr. and Mrs. America to turn in all of

their guns. This hypocrisy is expressed by other such people. The President says that he goes shooting all of the time. He wants semi-automatic assault rifles to be only in the hands of the military, but the Department of Homeland Security has purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons for the purposes of personal defense in addition to more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last 10 months alone. There have been political figures that have armed Secret Service protection for life. A new investigation by the Daily Caller has found that Media Matters for America or a group that wants gun control admitted that it conspired with the White House as a means to influence news. It hired a staffer to carry a firearm to protect its founder David Brock. The staffer had no permit to carry a concealed firearm and was later hit with multiple felony charges. The Glock handgun used to defend Block was brought using Media Matters’ funds. When investigative reporter Jason Mattera asked New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg if he plans to disarm his entire security team to comply with his own gun control mandate, Mattera was accosted, harassed, and follow by security. Bloomberg refused to answer the question. Michael Moore is a very strong advocate for gun control, but he has armed bodyguards. One of them was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at New York’s JFK airport back in 2005. The Time Warner Cable recently issued a companywide ban on television ads that show gun pointed at people. Its subsidiary Warner Bros. regularly distributes blockbuster movies that are replete with gratuitous gun violence. Many celebrities who are involved in a PSA campaign called Demand a Plan that used the Sandy Hook massacre to push for gun control regularly star in movies and television productions that depict gun violence as commonplace. Prominent gun control advocates like Piers Morgan, who base their argument on reducing gun violence, routinely threaten violence against ideological adversaries. Once, Morgan talked of his desire to use machine guns to take out his critics in a sarcastic way. He made jokes about this in January 8. Some of these hypocrites are really sad. The way to handle this violence is to improve our socioeconomic conditions, use programs to not allow criminals or anyone that doesn’t need a gun to have them, to handle mental illness affairs, to use more locking systems in school, and other commonsense solutions. Gun rights are important to protect among law abiding citizens. Gun ownership nd has increased in America. The support for gun rights and the 2 Amendment has been high as well. Liberty is superior to violations to that liberty.

For those who say that law abiding citizens are not targeted by anti-gun actions, the following story makes that claim false and moot at this moment. KRQE in Albuquerque, New Mexico reported that the Department of Homeland Security has used its ICE division to bust a gun collector. The DHS is the federal agency that was created originally to protect America from terrorists and to respond to natural disasters. Federal Homeland Security Investigation agents raided the home of Robert Adams on Thursday and seized 548 handguns and 317 rifles from the collector. They also raided his business and took an additional 599 handguns. KRQE reported that Adams did not violate any laws and was charged with any crimes. That is immoral since if a person’s home should be raided, you should have a warrant including a probable cause not because of some political agenda. Adams may be charged with gun smuggling, tax evasion, and violating importation laws. The government spent yeas surveying the gun collector and argues that his weapons are “not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes.” KRQE reports the federal government is concerned “that no markings on the guns and missing documents mean the guns are not traceable by law enforcement.” New Mexico does not regulate or specifically restrict the possession of firearms. Owners are not required to register or license firearms with the state. “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms,” Article 2, Section 6 of the state constitution reads. Gun collectors are protected under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. This law says that a firearm dealer is defined as a person who is selling guns for profit or livelihood. Unlicensed individuals are allowed to sell firearms from their private collection without performing a background check on the buyer. Government gun-grabbers call this the “Gun Show Loophole” and have declared they will outlaw the practice and close down gun shows around the country. Whether you agree

with this loophole or not, an innocent man ought not to be arrested and sent to jail for this event at all. The DHS is trying to make an example of Mr. Adams since they want to make new laws that affect the Second th Amendment. Demonizing gun ownership is the mentality of extremists. On Sunday January 6 Staff Sgt. Nathan Haddad, a decorated combat veteran, was driving through Jefferson County New York when he was randomly pulled over for a vehicle check. Haddad, who had five 30 round empty magazines in his possession, was arrested by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and charged with five felony counts. According to Haddad’s brother, Michael Haddad, Nathan thought these magazines were legally made before the New York Assault Weapons Ban. When Nathan Haddad was arrested, the new ban had not even been fully enacted yet. This man was not a criminal at all. He was recently honored by the Philadelphia chapter of Blue Star Mothers and the Union League’s Armed Services Council for helping disabled vets get back on their feet. He helped humanity and he is being treated as a rapist or a murderer or an assaulter. This is wrong and this reality refutes the lie that no one is taking the gun rights of law abiding citizens at all. Nathan Haddad’s brother has set up a legal defense fund for his brother since his brother can’t afford to fight these charges on his own. This is an attack on every law abiding citizen in America.

Extra Statistics on Gun Rights
Now, we have the statistics on the truth of gun rights. The reality is that law abiding citizens having gun rights is fine and that reality is not immoral at all. For a long while, the skeptics claimed that we have no

statistics on our side. We have the facts. We had the facts since the truth is apparent and transparent. The truth is that human beings have the right to fight evil and injustices. The truth is that human beings have the right to self-defense despite what other say. The truth is that we can’t be silent and we have the just duty to seek righteousness in the midst of a hypocritical nation and a deceptive world. I do not believe in vengeance. I just believe in justice. I will always show the truth here, no doubt.

We know that that the numbers of firearms have increased since 1970 and the overall rate of homicide and suicide have not risen massively at all. In 1968, the UK passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearms that reduced firearm availability. UK homicide rates have steadily risen since then. Ironically, firearm used in crimes has doubled in the decade after the UK heavily banned handguns. Most violent crime is caused by a small minority of repeat offenders. In the USA, the vast majority of mass public shootings have the assailants having signs of mental health issues prior to the killings. Concealed carriers have prevented crimes for years. A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing human beings in a Salt Lake store. A citizen takes out a shooter while the police were pinned down in Early, Texas. 39 states have right to carry laws and statistics show that in these states that the crime rate fell (or did not rise at all). The Bureau of Justice Statistics, online database, reviewing Texas and U.S. violent crime from 1995-2001 found that assaults fell 250% faster in the second year after Texas implemented its concealed carry law. There has been a drop in murder and rapes as well. So, the concealed carry law in Texas has worked without some Wild West scenario. Of the 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (or 0.03% of them) were convicted of criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. According to the Gun Crimes Drop at Virginia Bars And Restaurants, Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 14, 2011, reporting data from the Virginia State Police, Virginia in the first year where CCW holders were allowed to, the number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2%. Guns have prevented millions of crimes a year or thousands of crimes every single day. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms from 1998, 90% of all violent crimes in America do not involve a firearm of any type. Among some of the states with the highest homicide rates, most of them have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. The courts have consistently ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court states that: "...courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other government entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community..."

Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe. It has the third lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries (and the same per capital rate as England and Wales). Australia and England, which heavily banned gun ownership among civilians, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries (According to Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries from the Dutch Ministry of Justice in 2001).

Gun homicides have dropped steeply in the United States since their peak in 1993, a pair of reports released. A study released during May of 2013 by the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That’s a 39 percent reduction. Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country’s population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent. Both reports also found the rate of non-fatal crimes involving guns was also down by around 70 percent over that period. Many leaders throughout human history believed that law abiding human beings have the right to own arms. Now, this doesn't mean that we should have the status quo or do nothing to decrease gun violence further. We know what works. We ought to target illegal gun trafficking, handle mental health issues, fight against poverty & evil conditions in our communities, utilize gun education for the mass public, and execute common sense gun safety programs, which will all decrease gun violence in our land of the United States of America.

At the end of the Day, Men Lie, Women Lie, but Real, Accurate Numbers Don’t.

More Evidence of Gun Confiscation
There is documented evidence of extremists trying to steal weapons throughout human history. Now, there have been incidents of gun confiscation in America from the events of Hurricane Katrina to the veterans now recently in 2013. Gun confiscation is not some fantasy or some theory. It is a reality. There was an U.S. Navy veteran that had his guns confiscated by police following a forced "psychiatric evaluation" in another example of how some extremists want to purge ex-service members of their guns. We know that the federal government has made documents in demonizing veterans as domestic terrorists. David A. Schmecker is a 50 year old honorably discharged disabled U.S. Navy veteran from Connecticut with no criminal record and no psychiatric history. On February 5, 2013, Schmecker's hospital primary care doctor called and heard a message on Schmecker's answer machine that sounded peculiar. This called him to contact the local police and urge them to visit Schmecker to perform a "wellness check." “The police came to my home, and, without any justification whatsoever, hauled me away for a psychiatric evaluation at a local hospital. I submitted to their forceful insistence under duress and fear of arrest or worse. I wasn’t arrested, no crime was committed nor any threats were made to myself or others,” Schmecker told Survive and Thrive’s George Hemminger. “They confiscated my guns and pistol permit. I was released two days later from the evaluation on my on recognizance. I have

since attempted to use the courts and attorneys to fight the revocation of my pistol permit. Then on top of everything else, the bills from the short stay at the hospital and EMS bills that they billed me, along with what I had to pay the attorney adds up to a large amount of money,” he adds. Schmecker said that the harassment is part of a larger campaign as a means to disarm law abiding citizens. He is concerned about where America is headed. Sometimes, the psychiatric system (which is similar to contemporary authoritarian governments) is being used to circumvent courts and bypass normal legal due process. Back in August of 2012, there has been a veteran in Ohio. He had his guns taken, because he was adjudged to be mentally incompetent, despite the fact that his previous VA psychiatric evaluations were all clear. He was not on medication and he had no criminal record. We know the case of David Sarti. Stari is one of the stars of the National Geographic's Doomsday Preppers show. He visited his doctor, because he complained of chest pains. The doctor later commit him to a psychiatric ward and alerted authorities. Sarti was declared mentally defective, so his name is on a FBI list that eliminates him of his Second Amendment rights. More and more veterans are targeted by authorities. Many of them are demonized as domestic extremists and even potential terrorists. On numerous times, the FBI has characterized repeatedly returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan as a domestic terrorist threat. The Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano said that she stood by an April 2009 DHS intelligence assessment that listed returning vets as likely domestic terrorists. The NY Times reported that Boy Scout explorers are being trained by the DHS to kill disgruntled Iraq War veterans as included in anti-terror drills. In February of 2013, the constitutional attorney Michael Connelly warned that the government is now moving to strip veterans of their Second Amendment right to own a firearm if they are determined to be mentally incompetent. Connelly cites a letter sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds or possibly thousands of American veterans. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the VA letter states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).” This means that if a veteran is called incompetent or violate gun control laws, then they will not own a firearm. The problem is that many veterans have been restricted of firearms

without due process at all.
There are citizens in Canada complaining about their guns being confiscated. They are saying that the seizure of guns is something right out of Nazi Germany. Canadian Mounties are exploiting a flood to get folks' guns. The flood waters came in the town of High River in Calgary. Canada's Royal Mounted Police seized firearms from the homes of evacuated residents in exploiting the existence of rising waters. On Thursday, according to the Calgary Herald, the RCMP confiscated a “substantial amount” of firearms under the pretext of controlling the weapons and storing them for safekeeping. "We just want to make sure that all of those things are in a spot that we control, simply because of what they are,” said Sgt. Brian Topham told the newspaper. Residents are outraged by this wrong, heavy handed measure. “I find that absolutely incredible that they have the right to go into a person’s belongings out of their home,” said resident Brenda Lackey. “When people find out about this there’s going to be untold hell to pay.” “It’s just like Nazi Germany, just taking orders,” another resident yelled as the Mounties prevented residents from entering the town south of Calgary. “This is the reason the U.S. has the right to bear arms,” another resident, Charles Timpano, said as he pointed at a group of Mounties blockading the town. This action made by the Canadian police is similar or reminiscent to the brazen act of gun confiscation occurring in New Orleans. This came after Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of the Gulf Coast region in 2005. On September 8, 2005, New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass ordered local police, the U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian held firearms. “No one will be able to be armed,” Compass declared. “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.” Confiscation occurred without court-issued warrants and often with excessive force by police. During the whole event, there was a police brutality case on video. It was when a 58 year old New Orleans resident named Patricia Konie was physically assaulted and arrested for refusing to surrender an old revolver to the police who had entered her home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The woman's shoulder was fractured by the police in the incident. We know the history of the Second Amendment. Yet, the concept of the natural right of self-defense is a paramount right. Human beings have the right to own firearms legally. In many times of history, some in the government want to exploit a crisis as a means to disarm the populace. This recent incident in Canada proves that point

conclusively. I do not believe that the NSA spying scandal can wait, because innocent human beings' liberties have been violated via the NSA scandal. Also, it is wrong to see the White House to send weapons to Al Qaeda linked terrorists, who are killing men, women, and children in Syria (on behalf of a neoliberal regime change agenda). The mercenary terrorists should have no justification of their actions at all. The secret negotiations of TPP are things that I don't agree with. Yet, this reality doesn't make me hate universal health care. This reality will never make cause me to ignore the system of white supremacy that caused more damage and evil that the President ever did. So, I will place the truth into context. I will outline strong disagreements with the White House on various issues. Yet, I will see the bigger picture of how the establishment is causing havoc internationally. Now, we know the truth. We know that we have to continue to fight for justice in the world completely. We still have a current world economic depression. We know succinctly the causes of it. There was the world derivatives panic of the fall of 2008. Many British and U.S. banking systems have experienced bankruptcy. Soon, the 2010 European banking panic came about under the guise of a sovereign debt crisis. Austerity is still being executed by the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission. The economies of Europe and the U.S. has been depressed or stagnated. That is why this slowdown is even spreading into Brazil, China, and India. Even Japan has economic uncertainty. Some in Iceland wanted to vote back the same reactionary political leaders that created the wild speculation in the first place (after Iceland's economic recovery). Today, we lived under the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party. Both movements seek to handle affairs in a populist fashion in their opinions. Ron Paul was an ally of the Tea Party movement. He acted an auxiliary knowingly or unknowingly for the Romney Presidential campaign, because his actions ended the alternative Republican campaigns to Mitt Romney. That is why some in the Tea Party pretended to act populist. Some of them disagreed with Wall Street Bailouts. Yet, they refused to call for a guaranteed annual income. They refuse to call for health care to be a human right beyond a privilege for the few. Some of them are aided by the reactionary billionaire Koch brothers. The BRICS block countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa want to form their own BRICS development bank. This could challenge the monopoly of international lending maintained by the IMF and the World Bank (both groups now are strangling world economic development and looting the world's economies for the interests of Wall Street including the City of London). If BRICS could rescue Egypt and do other things, then this could be a revolution in international affairs. So, we still have the scourges of neoliberalism, monetarism, and globalization in the world that must be opposed via strength and determination. Younger Americans have been harmed by the over $1.1 trillion student loan debt. This is higher than all forms of household debt except for home mortgages. Rock bottom interest rates are opposed by reactionary Republicans and Wall Street Democrats of the Obama faction. The average bachelor’s degree is accompanied by about $35,000 of debt. Advanced degrees easily generate $75,000 of debt. Degrees in law and medicine routinely exceed $100,000. That is why some Congress people like the new Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, long regarded by anti-Wall Street forces as the most promising politician in the Democratic Party, has now come forward with a bill to cut student loan interest rates to about .075%, representing a reduction of almost 90%. She wants this debt to be paid for by the Federal Reserve System, which her bill orders to fund new loans administered by the Secretary of Education. This is similar to the other populist proposals made by some as a means to improve society in general. An economic recovery that is funded by cheap long term credit for infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing provided by de-privatized banking services is fine with me. The media is not reporting succinctly about the Warren proposal at all. The years ahead will be interesting. All of these events will figure in seeing if a mass strike will come or real, economic improvements will transpire in the world. Privatized prisons and the mainstream capitalist movement are linked as well. This is the shocking gun that refutes the notion that capitalism is God basically. The war on Drugs has been used as a means to have militarization, wars, and a violation of human liberties against men, women, and children. The prison industrial complex benefits from mass unemployment and crime (because the more folks in prisons, the more profit that these prisons can receive. It is a sick dynamic indeed). Some Wall Street interests are benefited with drug money as well not just violent cartels. The international elite assault nations and the American workers including its institutions. The big banks have massive influence on our political systems. The state has seized constitutional or human rights and the war on terror is big business for corporate interests (at the expense of the poor and the rest of humanity).

Therefore, it is imperative of us as human beings to resist tyranny at every turn. We have the stats and truth on our side. They have nothing, but lies and deception on their side. Freedom is a glorious gift from the Creator and it ought to be promoted in this nation and beyond that. It ought to be preserved among all of the inhabitants of the world.

By Timothy

You know me. I am still grown and I will continue to act grown continually. The enemy may smile like a Cheshire cat, but real folks will live life, smile for joy, and seek peace amidst the rain. Soon, the rain will end and the sun will rise again. We do not have to accept what the world is now. We can change the world. All real human beings will have the keys to the Kingdom.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->