Gun-Grabbers at the Chicago Tribune

Gun-Grabbers at the Chicago Tribune

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
June 29, 2008

	http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/images/king-george.jpg

  	"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power
of rulers." =96Justice Story


It really bugs the gun-grabbers that the Supremes did not completely
scratch out the Second Amendment last week, although they made a small
first step in that direction. For instance, so steamed are they over
at the Chicago Tribune they are calling for the Second Amendment to be
repealed. As usual, they predicate their argument on three words =97
=93well regulated Militia=94 =97 and claim beyond this you and I have no
right to own firearms. =93The amendment was intended to protect the
authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has
left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years,=94 the
Tribune claims.

There is absolutely no evidence this is what the founders intended and
the editors of the Chicago Tribune would be hard-pressed to find a
single word in the writings of the founders indicating they believed
only militias had the right to bear arms. In fact, the gun-grabbers
completely misunderstand the very meaning of the word as the framers
used it =97 for the founders, a militia was not like the National Guard,
but rather a body of armed citizens. The militia clause and the right
to arms are intended to be complementary. As Thomas Jefferson knew,
=93modern regular armies=94 consist of =93desperate characters,=94 thus
demonstrating =93the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a
soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that
of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no
pauper hirelings.=94

Justice Story, appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice
by James Madison in 1811, wrote in 1833:

    The militia is the natural defense of a free country against
sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic
usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free
people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in
time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are
attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and
unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the
rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms
has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a
republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation
and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are
successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and
triumph over them.




In New Orleans after Katrina, the state went house to house grabbing
guns, not because they were concerned about Old West shoot-outs in the
street but because they did not want citizens challenging the
=93arbitrary power of rulers.=94 As Alexander Hamilton noted, in times of
chaos and the breakdown of civility =97 as in the case of Katrina =97 the
=93citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without
system, without resource,=94 that is without the intervention of the
state, because the =93people, without exaggeration, may be said to be
entirely the masters of their own fate.=94

As the founders knew, and the Chicago Tribune is unable or unwilling
to admit, the =93militia,=94 that is to say an armed citizenry, is the
ultimate check against a state or the national government. In fact, as
Jefferson stated, it is the =93right and duty=94 of citizens =93to be at
all=

times armed=94 as a deterrent to tyranny. However, since Jefferson=92s
time, the very concept of such a duty has all but disappeared and has
been replaced by a mass psychosis in dreadful fear of the very
existence of weapons. Millions of Americans expect the government to
protect them, a mindset diametrically opposed to the thinking of
Jefferson and the founders who knew all too well that government will
become murderously tyrannical if not checked.

It should come as no surprise the cor****ate media is engaged in a
propaganda campaign to convince you that the Second Amendment should
be repealed. After all, we no longer have small, independent
newspapers published by people who understand the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights, but rather huge cor****ate combines owned by the very
same globalist interests that have hijacked the government. It will be
impossible for them to impose their transnational cor****ate plan =97 in
other words, fascist plan, as Mussolini understood that cor****atism
and fascism are inseparable =97 on the whole of humanity so long as an
appreciable minority remain armed. That=92s what the cor****ate media
jihad against the Constitution is all about =97 convincing you that =93gun
crime=94 is out of control, people who own guns are redneck nut cases,
guns are for hunting only, the Second Amendment is a myth (or at best
an editorial mistake), and it is in our best interest to relinquish
responsibility for our own protection, our duty, and embrace
government.

Finally, keep in mind the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was a big
advocate of gun control. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun
control and from 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that
figure had risen to 61,911,000. =93There is no doubt in my mind that
millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not
=91brainwashed=92 about gun owner****p and had been well armed,=94 writes
Theodore Haas, a survivor of Dachau. =93Hitler=92s thugs and goons were
not very brave when confronted by a gun.=94

Our thugs are not very brave, either. But they don=92t need to be when
confronted with a brainwashed and increasingly disarmed public.


http://www.infowars.com/?p=3D2983