DC Gun Ban Blown Away

Human Events | Ted Nugent | Jun. 26, 2008

As I swab down one of my hundreds of privately owned, individually possessed firearms again this fine morning, I snicker and shake my head in disbelief that there are four “justices” on the “supreme” court that do not believe Americans have individual rights. Sure, I am somewhat pleased that we now have a SCOTUS confirmation of the self-evident truth and God given individual right to keep and bear arms, but the 5-4 ruling is another painful example, like Guantanamo and the decree against the death penalty for child rapist decisions that indicate a divisive culture war raging on, and four supreme justices frighteningly disconnected from the heart and soul of America.

Certain that God gave each of us the individual gift of life, and so very relieved that our founding fathers were prudent enough to write these self-evident truths down on paper for future reference, everybody I know needs no confirmation whatsoever that self defense, individual self defense is not only a God given right, but a moral imperative in the hearts and souls of good people everywhere.

Just as we wouldn’t need confirmation that our choice of religion is indeed an individual right, or that we could possibly need a government permit to express our individual thoughts in speech, good Americans will continue to fight for the return of our sacred 2nd Amendment rights where someday soon we will not need a government issued license to keep and bear arms. After all, from the supreme court of common sense on the not so mean streets of America, everybody I know understands clearly that “keep” means one thing and one thing only: “It’s mine and you can’t have it”. We know without question that “bear” can only mean, “Yes, I have it right here in my hands or within instant grasp”, nothing more and nothing less. And dare I explain “shall not be infringed?” I hope not.

That these self-evident truths have been bastardized to the point of “gun free zones” is nothing less than heart breaking in America today. Everybody knows that it is in these anti-American, anti-Constitutional “gun free zones” where innocent people are forced into unarmed helplessness and where the highest body count of innocents are stacked up by evil perpetrators celebrating the condition of helpless sheep to slaughter. Since the insane gun ban, Washington, D.C. has been a violent criminal’s dream environment where they are assured no resistance. That is a bizarre, immoral condition and a direct result of the cult of feel good liberals who could care less about dead good people as they wring their hands worrying about the rights of the most evil amongst us. For shame.

I am responsible for my personal defense and the defense of my family. Our Founding Fathers clearly believed this as well. Evidence shows that 9-1-1 is a last-ditch call for a clean up crew to sift through the aftermath of criminal activity. I can’t imagine allowing myself to be unarmed, helpless and reliant upon the heroes of law enforcement, who, though always do the best that they can do, cannot and will not be there when we need them. They represent damage control all too often, when quality control is in the hands of responsible individuals. The same Supreme Court determined long ago that cops have no lawful obligation to protect us from anything. Self defense is our job.

Thank God the Supreme Court got it right by striking down the D.C. gun ban, legalizing personal protection in the nation’s capitol and now across America, thereby guaranteeing our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights bestowed to us by God, the supreme authority.

D.C. has been a cesspool of crime for years. This ruling confirms the rights of good people the ability to defend themselves against bad people. Who could possibly find fault with that supreme dose of common sense?

Banning guns hasn’t worked to deter crime or make communities safer, in fact just the opposite. All gun bans have ever accomplished is the creation of guaranteed victims. This has been supremely sad, wrong-headed and dangerous. Most of us cannot imagine the thought process by which bureaucrats and courts could force laws on good people rendering us disarmed and helpless, then turn around and send us the bill for their armed security. Obama, what say you?

Various thugs, punks, crack heads and other devils who have victimized innocents at will are on a long overdue notice with this ruling. Good ultimately conquers evil as it should be.

With Independence Day right around the corner, the Supreme Court has affirmed that indeed Americans are independent and have the right to the most basic of rights — the right to defend themselves against tyranny whatever ugly form it may take. Now the good people of America must fight harder and relentlessly to regain all of our lost Second Amendment rights in each state and city where unarmed helplessness continues, Mayor Daley.

. . . more

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Related Posts:

3 thoughts on “DC Gun Ban Blown Away”

  1. It is always interesting to me that the people who run liberal religious organizations become upset at the thought of conservative Christians engaging in political activity. Yet they think it is dandy when they, themselves, do so. Here’s an example related to today’s court decision.

    The self-styled Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is probably the leading coordinator of anti-Second-Amendment activity in the country. On their web site you will find a link to the God Not Guns web site. That site states,

    The God Not Guns Coalition seeks to raise awareness of gun violence as a spiritual and moral crisis. We call on every congregation, synagogue, mosque, and gathering of people of faith to work toward a peaceable society where all children have the opportunity to grow and prosper, and where everyone can live without fear of being cut down by firearm violence.

    In other words, they are lobbying to keep law-abiding people from having firearms.

    The God Not Guns site lists the following as national partners.

    * American Ethical Union
    * American Humanist Association
    * American Jewish Congress
    * Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes Leadership Team
    * Disciples Justice Action Network
    * Equal Partners in Faith
    * Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    * Hadassah The Women’s Zionist Organization Of America
    * Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs
    * Mennonite Central Committee, US
    * National Council of Churches of Christ in US
    * National Council of Jewish Women
    * Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
    * Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
    * The American Jewish Committee
    * Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
    * United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society
    * United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society

  2. I have found it to be quite interesting how many of the advocates for keeping gun ownership as restricted as possible, themselves carry concealed weapons. Oh sure, these anti-gun advocates, who themselves carry concealed firearms, have the necessary gun permits from “the authorities” . However, if one was to subscribe to the argument that many anti-gun liberals give, that possessing a firearm only makes one more likely to get shot by a perpetrator, then one has to ask why do these anti-gun liberals possess and carry weapons. Why are some people granted concealed weapons permits and others aren’t. A short while ago, The New York Sun published the names of some of these folks who are licensed to carry a loaded handgun in New York City. I saw the names of known liberals who advocate very strong gun control. Obviously these gun toting liberals believe that by being armed, they are put into a position of where they are much safer than if they weren’t armed. As some politicians have said, “we are all God’s children”. Don’t all God’s children have the equal right to defend themselves. Doesn’t some “average Joe” who has been mugged and brutally beaten up have the same right to defend himself as Robert De Niro and Joan Rivers do?
    Washington D.C. has very strict laws restricting gun ownership, yet criminals run wild, and possess all kinds of devastating firepower. This makes me wonder about what the real purpose of strict gun control legislation is. Liberals want law abiding citizens to be disarmed, yet these same liberals go absolutely ballistic when the police attempt to disarm “gang-banger hoodlums” Liberals believe in long jail sentences for people politically opposed to them, yet these same liberals want “street thugs” to go free. During the 1930s, the Soviet Union had very strict laws against gun ownership by its citizens. This made it very easy for liberal Bolshevik Commissars to take certain citizens prisoner and then get these prisoners shot in the back of the head.

  3. Here’s an essential element of this debate that must be addressed:

    An unarmed public can be tyrannized.
    What the second amendment banners wish to do is specifically to reverse what the second amendment was ratified to accomplish: to serve as a check on tyranny. The constitution was written at a time when the founders were very aware of the propensity of governments to oppress their people by disarming them and creating armed groups to suppress dissent.

    Lest anyone thing that this is a fear that has disappeared with time, we need only refer reports of tyrannical governments around the world killing people to stay in power.

    Justice Scalia says in his opinion(page 25):

    … history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.

    During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”

    Quoted from this site:
    http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2008/06/we-almost-lost-second-amendment.html

Comments are closed.