The first American assault weapon

I read this article on American Thinker and thought I’d post it.  It has a number of the Founder’s quotes on the necessities of an armed poplulace.  As is usually the case with most of what our Founder’s wrote, there’s no ambiguity about how they viewed the topic.  Your duty, as an American, is to own and carry a firearm.  
I decided to post this because I saw Hillary Clinton on Greta Van Softball last night talking about the border and the violence.  Of course, it’s our fault.  The upshot of all of this is that the guns are coming into Mexico from the U.S..  Once again, the guns are the problem.

This will be the strawman that is used to reinstitute the assault weapons ban.  Hillary talked  about it last night and so did USAG Eric ‘Whitey is Racist’ Holder a few weeks back.  So, for a moment, let’s pop a couple of halcyon, assume that they are correct, and accept that the bulk weapons used by the drug cartels are coming from the U.S..  (Because it would make so much more sense to find mule purchasers in the U.S., with no felony backgrounds, that can pass the background test to purchase fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers from U.S. dealers, and then transport them across a heavily surveilled border, when they can purchase and import them at will from any of the banana republics to their South, if not from their own military.)  Why would that be justification to enact an unconstitutional law to prevent law abiding citizens in the U.S., who have neither the intent or inclination to do harm to others, from owning those same weapons as the violence moves Northward across our border?

Do we not have the right to protect ourselves?   Clearly, the Federal government has abdicated it’s responsibilities to protect us and our borders from foreign insurgents.  Kidnappings are on the rise across the border states, especially in Phoenix, AZ.  The solution is to restrict us from providing for our own defense?

Remember, laws only affect the law abiding.  There are already laws in place that prohibit taking a firearm into Mexico from the U.S. – why do we need any others?  Liberty, once surrendered, is liberty lost.

Read the American Thinker post, pay special attention to the part about what the whitehouse.gov says about the 2nd Amendment.  Something to the affect that “The 2nd Amendment grants the people the right to bear arms.”.  This is entirely wrong, and B. Hussein Obama-Soetero, supposedly a Constitutional lawyer, knows better.  The 2nd Amendment does no such thing.  Instead, what the 2nd Amendment does is state that the right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution, is inalienably possessed by the people, and prevents the government from infringing upon it.

By the way, this is the case with the entire Constitution, it states what the goverment cannot do, not what you can do.  It does not grant rights!  It preserves for you the rights granted by your Creator!  Remember that always.

They are coming for the guns – be ready. Read Congressman Tancredo’s rebuttal of Hillary’s comments here.

-OMB

God bless Charlton Heston

And so, it begins.

 Attorney General Eric Holder announced this week that the Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban. This is the first step in the disarming of the American populace.

Per Jason Ryan, ABC News, “Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.”

Let’s examine that statement. Why, first, would this be a ‘positive’ move by the United States’? Is it somehow positive to restrict the right of the people to purchase the type of firearm they deem necessary to their self-defense or interest? It can only be deemed a positive by a tyrannical government wishing to impose its will on a lesser-armed populace.

Secondly, the notion that Mexican drug cartels are legally purchasing their fully automatic weapons in U.S. gun stores and then carting them back across the border is just idiotic.   They can purchase any weapon they want directly from the Mexican Army, Police, or any of the banana republics to the South. In fact, they can purchase them directly from any manufacturer and have them delivered by FedEx to their door, with all necessary Customs signatures and stamps in place.

To suggest that this is a legitimate reason for limiting the rights of law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, should be an affront to anyone with half a brain in their over medicated heads. ‘But OMB, those black plastic and metal assault weapons look like they could hurt somebody!”. True, they can, in fact that’s the point, but so too can a board with a nail in it hurt someone if you clobber them with it. Here’s what you need to know.

The first American assault weapon

 
The revolution was fought in large part with personal hunting weapons of the Continental soldiers. This included the Pennsylvania, aka. Kentucky Long Rifle, which was considered to be the most superior of firearms deployed at the time, through the early 1800’s. The British were astonished at the accuracy of the Continental sharpshooters with their ability to hit a target at over 300 yards.

This is relevant because when the 2nd amendment was included with this knowledge. In other words, the Founder’s thought it appropriate that the citizenry be armed with the latest and most advanced of military weaponry. By that measure, we would be expected to own fully auto assault rifles in this day and age.

What the 2nd Amendment basically affirms is the following: It’s not up to the government whether or not we can be ‘trusted’ with weapons, it’s up to us, WE THE PEOPLE, to determine if they can be trusted with more and more power over our daily lives. It guarantees our right to hold the means to depose them from power if they can not.
Beyond that, all I can say about Holder’s comments is “From my cold dead hands”.