A history of gun control
One Response to “A history of gun control”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 16th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Iin honor of MLK Day, her is some more gun control history:
Dr. King was denied his right to carry the means of self-defense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dAGDywbeVA
…which is the chief aspect of slavery:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Roger B. Taney, authored the infamous 1857 “Dred Scott” decision (keeping slavery legal in the United States) which was overturned by the 13th (1865) and 14th Amendments (1868).
In the “Dred Scott” decision (1857) Chief Justice Taney, writing for the court’s majority, stated that: “For if it were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they [the police] considered to be necessary for their [the police’ s] own safety. (In the same paragraph of that infamous decision, he further states.] It would give persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one state of the union, the right . . . to keep and carry arms wherever they went (emphasis added). And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the state . . . .”
Hey, that’s what they say now, that if the common people can exercise their God-given right to carry the means to defend their own lives, it is “endangering the peace and safety of the state”, excepting of course, the ruling elite class and their agents, in direct violation of “the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment) — RW
“The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses, 1774.