The left has become completely unmasked in their intentions. There is no longer any doubt whatsoever that they seek nothing less than a full repeal of the Second Amendment and the disarming of good, law-abiding Americans of all weapons. Despite the fact that Donald Trump, who happened to support the assault weapons ban under Clinton by the way, recently tweeting that a repeal of the Second Amendment would never happen, anti-gun laws are being passed at the local level without a peep from the President. The truth is that they don't need to repeal the Second Amendment at all, they simply have to gain enough public support by creating a hatred of firearms and their owners to pass laws that pull the teeth from the Second Amendment. This is exactly what they are trying to do. As usual, the attempts to demonize the gun culture by blaming innocent people collectively for the crimes of deranged individuals has backfired. David Hogg may have been the best thing for gun rights as their main target, the NRA, has enjoyed surging memberships.
The City Council's of Deerfield Illinois and Boulder Colorado have recently passed local "assault weapons bans" with the expectation that owners will surrender their weapons within sixty days or become criminals. In Illinois, they expect to be able to levy a fine of one thousand dollars for every day of non-compliance. How do they expect to do this? It is against the law for a locality to pass statues going against the federal Constitution.
Article VI, paragraph II, of the Constitution, is known as the Supremacy Clause and it establishes federal law in compliance with the Constitution to be the law of the land. Chief Justice John Marshall, ruling in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, declared that federal laws passed are in compliance with the Supremacy Clause only if they are pursuant to the Constitution itself. (Heritage Guide to the Constitution)
"The Supremacy Clause does not grant power to any federal actor, such as Congress. It deals with resolving conflicts between the federal and state governments once federal power has been validly exercised." (Heritage Guide to the Constitution)
In other words, in order for state laws dealing with constitutional issues, such as depriving an individual of their rights and property without due process, the state must be in compliance with federal law. There is no section in the United States Constitution which allows for the confiscation of private property or the banning of firearms, period as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, protects the natural right of self-defense.
A federal court in Massachusetts has just ruled that a ban on AR-15 style rifles is not unconstitutional as these types of weapons are not within the original meaning of an individuals right to keep and bear arms. U.S. District Judge William Young made the following determination.
"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law."
This is absurd as the Second Amendment itself was written for the express purpose of protecting the Citizen Militia.
"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."
What type of arms then does the Second Amendment protect? This amendment was written for the explicit purpose of people being able to defend their liberty from tyrannical government power. Not for hunting. The ruling in the case of the Massachusetts court goes against the determination found in the Supreme Court case District of Colombia v. Heller, where the individual right to keep and bear arms was upheld. The court said the following-
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms.” Consequently, one of the purposes of the Second Amendment “is to secure a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms."
Clearly, the right to keep weapons such as an AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment. Despite the fear being pushed about these rifles, they are not military weapons because they do not have the three round burst selector fire switch that the standard military issue M-4 has. It is only a semi-automatic rifle. Most of the generated hype surrounding the AR-15 is due to cosmetic features which many claim give the rifle an ominous, threatening appearance.
As local city councils and states alike continue to pass laws banning the possession of such rifles, there is guaranteed to be resistance. People are not going to automatically comply with such laws and as such, the decision will have to be made whether or not to enforce them. To attempt to forcefully remove lawfully acquired property, or to render someone a criminal simply for possessing something the left suddenly criminalized is unethical, immoral and could be considered an act of aggression. It is perfectly legal to purchase an AR-15 rifle and as many thirty round magazines as you wish. These rifles can be bought at almost any sporting goods store. No government, on the local or federal level has any power to make them illegal and then punish the legal owners for possessing them. This is clearly established in the Heller opinion.
Not only is the right to arms a natural right, it is a Biblical responsibility. We have the responsibility to protect our own lives as well as the lives of our families. It is absurd to think that restricting the law abiding citizens right to semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 they will be safe from criminals who do not follow the law. Criminals mind you, who routinely are in possession of much more powerful weapons. The police have drastically upgraded their weaponry due to the fact that criminals often have fully automatic weapons. Why then, should the citizenry be left helpless against such threats?
If any provide not for his own, and specifically for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8
Ted Weiland writes in Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution that a failure to recognize the responsibility of self-defense as being ordained by God would result in the belief that government grants such rights as bearing arms; therefore, people would be more likely to comply with unjust laws. It was the original intent of the Second Amendment, many believe, to recognize a right that existed before the creation of the state and that the amendment itself protects, not grants the right to self-defense. In other words, the repealing of the Second Amendment should not matter, it is not government that grants us our rights. The right to self-defense predates government. We are a long ways away from the original intent and with the constant attacks against Christianity, anyone holding the Christian view of Biblical self-defense is likely to be considered an extremist.
The danger we face is a misled public being enraged through the demonization of gun owners. People are easily manipulated into a mob mentality and the efforts directed towards gun owners are designed to make the public mistrust them. All it would take, if the government chose to enforce gun confiscation, is a few people resisting and the stage would be set to treat all gun owners as potential threats. The framework for this is already established in a report published by the Department of Homeland Security in 2009 entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. According to this report, the very fact that people would be worried about an infringement on their right to bear arms is suspect enough for the federal government to consider you a potential extremist. The following paragraphs are from this report.
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.
As you can see, the rules of the game have already been established. They fully intend to restrict firearm ownership and those that disagree or resist are going to be considered extremists and dealt with accordingly.
Why would people be concerned about the restriction of firearms? All throughout the twentieth century, gun confiscation was followed up by mass roundups and the extermination of people considered to be undesirables by Communist governments. All in all, it is estimated that over one hundred and sixty million people were murdered in peacetime by their own governments. Clearly, had these people refused to surrender their natural rights to self-defense the outcome would have been different.
Our nation has reached a point where hatred and mistrust are boiling over the top. The government, along with academia and media continue to push a narrative that demonizes not only gun owners but white, Christian men through the white privilege narrative. In South Africa, this same mentality has led to the slaughter of over 30,000 white farmers, and the government has passed laws allowing for the confiscation of their land. With the constant attacks against the mainstream culture in America and the demonization of white men, what reason do we have to believe that surrendering our weapons would not leave us vulnerable to the same? In closing, I would like to leave you with a quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's, The Gulag Archipelago.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
We have to win this before it reaches this point America.
Article posted with permission from David RisseladaDon't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.