The Supreme Court & the NRA’s Response

Leave a comment

According to an article posted by Ohioans for Concealed Carry (June 28, 2008), written by Daniel White (NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling), The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed lawsuits against San Francisco and Chicago to overturn their gun ban laws in the wake of the Supreme Court’s “decision,” last week, about the Second Amendment.

The San Francisco suit is brought under a ficticious pseudonym in order to protect the identity of the plaintiff, a gay man living in public housing.

On the surface, these actions seem to be a righteous response to the so-called “victory” for the Second Amendment – which is not a victory at all (see my article, What the Second Amendment Really Means – And What the Supreme Court Really Means). Of course, this is by design, to project the continued camouflage the NRA needs in order to conceal the fact it has been working for gun control, not against it, for years. This is revealed in the language of the court document itself, which states:

“This is an action under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 to vindicate the rights of law abiding, responsible San Francisco residents and residents of public housing to keep firearms as guaranteed by Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which guarantee the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to keep firearms in the home for lawful defense of their families and other lawful purposes.” (emphasis mine)

There are a few things wrong with this wording that you need to be alerted to, and which will make clear the NRA’s subterfuge. First is the term “law-abiding” or “law-abiding adults.” If the Constitution – not the several unconstitutional gun-control laws on the books – is the law of the land (as it is supposed to be), then the only law governing gun ownership that anyone need “abide” by is the Second Amendment of the Constitution itself, which clearly states that “…the right of the people [not some specified sub-set of the people, but all of the people] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What does this mean? It means that the Constitution makes no distinctions about who has the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it make any distinctions about what type of weaponry the term “arms” is supposed to denote, nor does it make any distinctions as to under what circumstances or in what locations a person may keep or bear arms. It is clear the founders intended that the absolute right of everyone to keep whatever weapons they wanted to and to be able to freely carry them as they see fit – anywhere, any time – is an existing right that the government may not regulate, curtail or remove in any way. Why? Because this right is fundamental to protecting us from a tyrannical government and, of course, if that very same government has the power to confiscate our means of protecting our lives and liberty, then our free republic as we know it is finished.

So, it is evident, then, that the NRA’s supposedly indignant defense of the right to keep and bear arms is not any such thing at all. It is, in fact, a smoke screen, a diversion to make us believe that the NRA is standing up for our rights, when, in fact, it is playing right into the government’s hands (and quite deliberately, as it has been infiltrated and subverted by those who seek to eliminate gun ownership) by acknowledging the very same “reasonable limitations” the Supreme Court spoke of last week when it rendered its decision (which was, in itself, an unconstitutional act, as it violates the court’s constitutional limitations of power).

The fact is, everyone has an unalienable right to possess whatever weapons they deem necessary to defend themselves with and there are to be no restrictions of this of any kind. That is the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment. To allow anything short of this is a direct violation of the Constitution.


Bay Area Spraying Stopped, Phony Program Revealed!

Leave a comment

LBAM!The LBAM “infestation” and resultant “emergency situation” is a manufactured “threat” so that the CDFA and pesticide maker can get a whole lotta MONEY.    


A reader just sent a compilation, which details the amount of funds the CDFA can access if it “is able to establish and maintain an emergency status and resulting eradication effort for this moth.” View the first video link at the bottom of the article and watch Anna Werner make ’em squirm.

Read HERE 








%d bloggers like this: